“I join millions urging FIFA to demand Israel exclude settlement football teams or face suspension. #RedCardIsrael

#RedCardIsrael @ FIFA Congress

by Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel category: Cause

“I join millions urging FIFA to demand Israel exclude settlement football teams or face suspension. #RedCardIsrael

http://thndr.me/gmKKWW

profile image
Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Ends May 08, 12:00 PM CEST
Support Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in sharing this message.

We will post this one-time message to your account on
May 08 at 12:00PM CEST. About Support & Privacy

#RedCardIsrael @ FIFA CongressFIFA, the world football governing body, will make a decision on Israeli football teams based in illegal settlements at their upcoming congress on May 10, 2017. This is our chance to ensure that Palestinian human rights are front and centre on their agenda!

More than one hundred sports and human rights associations representing millions of people across the globe have called on FIFA to demand the Israeli Football Association end its affiliation with settlement clubs, or face suspension from FIFA if it fails to do so.

As the pressure mounts on FIFA to respect its statutes, the Israeli government is enlisting its embassies to drop the issue of settlement clubs from the Congress’ agenda altogether. We can’t let that happen. Settlement clubs and human rights violations have no place in the beautiful game.

ORGANIZER

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
@PACBI

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) was initiated in 2004 to contribute to the struggle for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality. PACBI advocates for the boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, given their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law.

THUNDEROUS SUPPORTERS

profile pic

Palestine Today
218,209 Connections

profile pic

BDS Movement
67,949 Connections

profile pic

MintPress News
32,369 Connections

profile pic

End the Occupation
32,214 Connections

RECENT SUPPORTERS

All 100 senators sign letter against U.N. actions to bring Israel to account

All 100 senators sign letter against U.N. actions to bring Israel to account

Anne Gearan reports in the Washington Post:

All 100 U.S. senators signed a letter Thursday asking U.N. Secretary General António Guterres to address what the lawmakers call entrenched bias against Israel at the world body.

Read Letter Here: https://www.docdroid.net/cJEsb3R/letter-from-all-100-us-senators-urging-un-to-end-anti-israel-agenda.pdf.html

The unanimous message notes that the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations but does not threaten the withholding of U.S. dues. Still, it uses strong language to insist that the United Nations rectify what the senators said is unequal treatment of Israel on human rights and other grounds.

“Through words and actions, we urge you to ensure that Israel is treated neither better nor worse than any other U.N. member in good standing,” the letter said.

The letter, which will be released publicly Friday, was obtained by The Washington Post.

“As both the U.N.’s principal founding member and its largest contributor, the United States should insist on reform,” the letter read. “We are deeply committed to international leadership and to advancing respect for human rights. But continued targeting of Israel by the U.N. Human Rights Council and other U.N. entities is unacceptable.”

The senators asked Guterres, who assumed leadership of the world body in January, to seek such institutional changes as the removal of a standing agenda item for U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees sessions that has been used as a forum to denounce Israel. The senators also want a change to the rules for membership on the human rights panel to broaden participation beyond what U.S. officials have said is often a narrow and self-interested group of countries.

The unusual unanimity expands on the fierce denunciation of U.N. treatment of Israel mounted by Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, this year. The letter praises Haley for that effort, which she has said is intended to show that the United States will not “put up with” the bashing of its close ally.

The United States has long been Israel’s chief defender at the United Nations, including regularly vetoing measures at the Security Council that were critical of Israel.

In December, the lame duck Obama administration chose to abstain on such a resolution, allowing it to pass. The measure addressed Jewish home building in the occupied West Bank, and the U.S. action was a sign of President Barack Obama’s deep frustration with what he saw as Israeli action that threatened an eventual peace deal.

The Trump administration opposes the measure and has been highly critical of the previous administration’s action. It cannot be quickly reversed, however.

The Senate letter reflects what the letter’s authors, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), said are encouraging signs that Guterres may be willing to change some U.N. procedures that Israel and the United States say amount to discrimination.

Guterres yanked and disavowed a U.N. report last month likening Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid. His spokesman said the report had been published without Guterres’s permission.

“If you continue to build on your recent action, we stand ready to work with you to eliminate the organization’s anti-Israel bias, and to fight anti-Semitism in all its forms,” the senators wrote.

On Sunday, Guterres told a pro-Israel audience that he cannot police all anti-Israel bias at the United Nations, but he said Israel should not be singled out for special scrutiny.

“A modern form of anti-Semitism is the denial of the right of the state of Israel to exist,” the news service JTA quoted Guterres as saying at a meeting of the World Jewish Congress. “As secretary general of the United Nations, I can say that the state of Israel needs to be treated as any other state, with exactly the same rules.”

“We’re glad every single senator decided to sign onto this letter,” Rubio spokesman Matt Wolking said. “That doesn’t happen often.”

The letter comes ahead of the first meeting between President Trump and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who will visit the White House next week.

“Since it is rare for all 100 senators to agree on an issue, this letter sends a powerful bipartisan message to the U.N. that its anti-Israel bias must end,” said Marshall Wittmann, spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

 

 

Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel

Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel

Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel

[PHOTO: Ambassador Nikki Haley speaking at AIPAC convention, March 27, 2017. When she was Governor of South Carolina, Haley had been the first to sign into law anti-BDS legislation. See excerpts from her AIPAC speech below*]

By Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley, The Nation:

 Dear Madam Ambassador:

 We were deeply disappointed by your response to our report, Israeli Practices Toward the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid, and particularly your dismissal of it as “anti-Israeli propaganda” within hours of its release. The UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) invited us to undertake a fully researched scholarly study. Its principal purpose was to ascertain whether Israeli policies and practices imposed on the Palestinian people fall within the scope of the international-law definition of apartheid. We did our best to conduct the study with the care and rigor that is morally incumbent in such an important undertaking, and of course we welcome constructive criticism of the report’s method or analysis (which we also sought from several eminent scholars before its release). So far we have not received any information identifying the flaws you have found in the report or how it may have failed to comply with scholarly standards of rigor.

Instead, you have felt free to castigate the UN for commissioning the report and us for authoring it. You have launched defamatory attacks on all involved, designed to discredit and malign the messengers rather than clarify your criticisms of the message. Ad hominem attacks are usually the tactics of those so seized with political fervor as to abhor rational discussion. We suppose that you would not normally wish to give this impression of yourself and your staff, or to represent US diplomacy in such a light to the world. Yet your statements about our study, as reported in the media, certainly give this impression.

[The report is available here.]

We were especially troubled by the extraordinary pressure your office exerted on the UN secretary general, António Guterres, apparently inducing him first to order the report’s removal from the ESCWA website and then to accept the resignation of ESCWA’s distinguished and highly respected executive secretary, Rima Khalaf, which she submitted on principle rather than repudiate a report that she believed fulfilled scholarly standards, upheld the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, and produced findings and recommendations vital for UN proceedings.

Instead of using this global forum to call for the critical debate about the report, you used the weight of your office to quash it. These strident denunciations convey a strong appearance of upholding an uncritical posture by the US government toward Israel, automatically and unconditionally sheltering Israel’s government from any criticism at the UN, whether deserved or not, from the perspective of international law. Such a posture diminishes the US’s reputation as a nation that upholds the values of truth, freedom, law, and justice, and that serves the world community as a regional and global leader. It also shifts the conversation away from crucial substantive concerns.

You fail to consider that Israeli leaders have themselves warned of the apartheid features of their policies. It may have been that the word “apartheid” alone was enough to trigger your response, a reaction undoubtedly abetted by Israel’s instantaneous denunciation of our report. In following Israel’s public lead, however, you fail to consider that Israeli leaders have themselves grasped and warned of the apartheid features of their policies for decades. The widely admired Yitzhak Rabin, twice Israel’s prime minister, once confided to a TV journalist, “I don’t think it’s possible to contain over a long term, if we don’t want to get to apartheid, a million and a half [more] Arabs inside a Jewish state.” Prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak both warned publicly that Israel was at risk of becoming an apartheid state and cautioned their constituencies about what would happen to Israel if the Palestinians realized this and launched an anti-apartheid struggle. Former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair has stated flatly, “we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories.” These prominent Israelis were clear-headed observers of their own country’s policies as well as patriots, and it was their cautions, as much as any other source, that inspired ESCWA member states to consider that the possibility of an apartheid regime existing in this setting must be taken seriously and so commissioned the report now under attack.

It is therefore wholly inappropriate and wrong for you to charge that, simply by accepting this commission, we as authors were motivated by anti-Semitism. The reverse is true. To clarify this claim, we call your attention to two features of the report that we hope will lead you to reconsider your response.

It is wrong for you to charge that, simply by accepting this commission, we were motivated by anti-Semitism.

Firstly, the report carefully confines its working definition of apartheid to those provided in the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the International Crime of Apartheid and the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It does not rely on definitions developed in polemics about the conflict or taken casually from online sources. As the 1973 Convention and the Rome Statute are part of the same body of law that protects Jews, as well as all people in the world, from discrimination, this authoritative definition should not be set aside. Any responsible critique must therefore engage with these legal definitions, and the larger body of international human-rights jurisprudence in which they are situated, so as to address the report for what it actually says rather than concocting a straw man that can be easily dismissed. We hope you will reconsider the report in this light.

Secondly, the member states of ESCWA requested that a study be commissioned to examine whether Israel’s apartheid policies encompassed the Palestinian people as a whole. This meant that, as authors, we were asked to consider Palestinians living in four geographic regions within four legal categories or “domains”: those living in the occupied territories, those resident in Jerusalem, those living as citizens within Israel, and those living in refugee camps or involuntary exile. For each domain, we found that Israeli policies and practices are, by law, internally discriminatory. But more importantly, we found that all four operate as one comprehensive system that is designed to dominate and oppress Palestinians in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. It is this whole system of domination, too long misinterpreted by treating Palestinians as situated in unrelated categories, that generates the regime of domination that conforms to the definition of apartheid in international law. Moreover, it is this system that has undermined, and will continue to undermine, the two-state solution to which the United States has committed its diplomatic prestige over the course of several prior presidencies. Appraising the viability of this diplomatic posture in light of findings in this report would, we propose, be crucial for the credibility of US foreign policy and should not be blocked by political considerations.

We hoped our report would give rise to discussion of all these issues. Especially, we hope that its findings will inspire a review of this question by authoritative legal bodies such as the International Court of Justice. We did not seek a shouting match. We therefore now respectfully ask, against this background, that our report be read in the spirit in which it was written, aiming for the safety, security, and peace of everyone who lives in territory currently under Israel’s control. As the report’s authors, this was our moral framework all along, and we still retain the hope that the serious questions at stake will not be buried beneath an avalanche of diversionary abuse of our motives and character. Charges of crimes against humanity should not be swept to one side out of deference to political bonds that tie the United States and Israel closely together, or for reasons of political expediency. Such machinations can only weaken international law and endanger us all.

Sincerely,

Richard Falk,
Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University

Virginia Tilley,
Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University

*Excerpts from Haley’s speech March 27, 2017 at the AIPAC convention, as reported by the Times of Israel

“And this ridiculous report, the Falk report, came out. I don’t know who the guy is, or what he’s about, but he’s got serious problems,” said Haley, lightly horrified. “Goes and compares Israel to an apartheid state?”

“So for anyone that says you can’t get anything done at the UN, they need to know there’s a new sheriff in town.”

“The first thing we do is we call the secretary general, and say, ‘This [report] is absolutely ridiculous. You have to pull it.’ The secretary general immediately pulled the report, and then the director has now resigned.”

Israel: Gobbling up more Syrian land with Trump’s approval.

Israel argues that there is no Syria to ‘negotiate with’ — which means the occupation of the Golan is now ‘legitimate’ Israel: Gobbling up more Syrian land Israel’s deputy minister for diplomacy Michael Oren has announced that ‘there is no Syria to negotiate with’, which means that Israel’s illegal occupation of the Golan should be […]

via Israel Makes It Official: The Destruction of Syria Will Legitimise Israeli Land Grabs — Friends of Syria

 

uncle-donald1

 

Story image for golan heights from Jerusalem Post Israel News

IDF strikes targets in Syria after projectile lands in Israel’s Golan

Jerusalem Post Israel NewsApr 22, 2017
The army struck positions in Syria over the weekend after projectiles struck the Golan Heights, apparently errant fire from fighting in Syria.
Israeli Air Force attacks Syrian government positions in the Golan
AMN Al-Masdar News (registration)Apr 23, 2017

MH17: One Thousand Days of Faking

A detailed debunking of the ‘official’ narrative surrounding the downing of MH17

8 hours ago | 1829

By Max van der Werff, Amsterdam

Original in Dutch and English translation, also by Max van der Werff, appear here

On April 12, 2017, a thousand days had passed since Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down above East Ukraine. Up until now, those who did it have not been identified, indicted or arrested, and many questions remain answered.

Foreword

After publication of the final report of the Dutch Safety Board in October 2015, I summarized the results of my two visits to the crash site and more than two thousand hours of Internet research in the article MH17 – Lying for Justice. Since then, I’ve had four meetings with the members of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and in total about 6 hours of talks have been recorded. Finally, I handed over 14GB of data to the Dutch researchers with the assurance that only Dutch researchers would have access to the material.Special credits for citizen journalists Marcel van den Berg, alias MH17research and Hector Reban (alias). I frequently used Hector’s blog and Marcel’s blog for writing this article. No other public source can match the information that can be found on both websites.

For numerous topics related to MH17 I would like to refer you to the interview in Café Weltschmerz where I was interviewed as a citizen journalist myself.
Purpose of this article

1) Analysis of evidence presented by the JIT on September 28th, 2016.
2) Reporting what was not presented by the JIT (including motive, exact weapon, lies of Kiev).
3) Information on MH17 discussions in mass media.
4) Presentation of plausible scenarios of what might have happened to MH17.
5) Speculating on prosecution and quality of the future evidence.

ChronologyThe entire press conference of the JIT is on Youtube and lasts in total 1 hour and 19 minutes. Left channel is Dutch spoken, right channel is with English translation. I divided the presentation into 74 parts and in an excel sheet [link] topic keywords and direct links are provided. This is useful not only as a reference, but is essential to split the press conference and discuss it in chronological order, the way events must have happened in reality, according to the JIT.
Key conclusions drawn by the JIT

– The Buk-Telar was brought to the firing location from the territory of the Russian Federation [26min05s]

– The Buk missile was fired from an agricultural field near Pervomaiskyi. [40min19s] & [29min07s]

– The type of Buk missile which downed MH17 is 9M38 series and Telar after being used is returned to the territory of the Russian Federation. [20min31s] 

Reconstruction of the route and the evidence presented by the JIT

Route of 235 Km that the Buk (on a trailer) might have passed during the night of 16/17th of July 2014 from the Russian border to Donetsk.

The JIT doesn’t indicate which border crossing has been used and neither which route exactly might have been followed, but states: “At eight o’clock in the morning a witness has seen the Buk in Yenakiieve ” [33min27s]. Furthermore, the JIT used animated information from an anonymous Twitter account claiming that the Buk was standing at this crossroads in Donetsk [34min52s].

Route allegedly been driven on July 17th, 2014 is N21. I’ve done this route myself several times, both in the direction from Donetsk to Snezhnoye and back.
Volvo trailer in combination with Buk-Telar was filmed at this spot in Donetsk, by an anonymous freelance reporter claimed to be working for Paris Match.

Paris Match published the first photo on July 23, 2014. The second photo was put online on July 25th. That’s one week after MH17 was downed. The freelancer took this picture in the morning and later in the day MH17 was shot down. It immediately becomes the world news that the passenger plane is probably shot down by a Buk missile.

– Why would a magazine like Paris Match wait one week for the online publication of such huge scoop?
– Why does Alfred de Montesquiou, the leading reporter of Paris Match, claim that pictures were taken in Snezhnoye?Only almost two years later, during the press conference of the JIT it is revealed that these two pictures are screenshots from a video recorded by hand.

– Why didn’t Paris Match ever publish the video and why de Montesquiou talked about photos?

Screenshot of one of the videos I took from within a moving bus:

Despite of shrinking the entire video from 115MB to 3Mb and lowering the resolution to 640 × 360, I didn’t succeed to make the quality as bad as in the ‘Paris Match’ video. There are many other problems with ‘Paris Match’ evidence. Details are here in Hector’s PDF.
JIT mentions Makeevka video, but does not show it.

May 3rd, 2016 (meanwhile, one year, nine months and sixteen days have passed) a new YouTube channel appears which is created specifically for placing of one video. The anonymous uploader uses the alias “Ivan Olifirenko. This video, just like the Donetsk video has abonimable quality and moreover is also edited with special software called Cropipic.
On July 15, 2014 a convoy of the fighting unit ‘Vostok’ is passing a petrol station which also appears in ‘Olifirenko’ ‘s video. This video clearly shows that the road surface is damaged by tanks and other vehicles.

 

But in the video of ‘Olifirenko ‘ that is supposed to be made on July 17, 2014, you can’t see any of this damage.
Thus, this video is from an earlier date than July 15th 2014, or the quality is (made) so bad that it is completely useless as evidence. It is also remarkable that video was put online on the same day as the BBC documentary about MH17 was broadcasted.


Zuhres video and the witness who wished to remain anonymous.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/146179079

The original video has been removed from YouTube. If we search for “зугрес бук” (“Zuhres buk” in Russian), then we find this video with the upload date July 22, 2014. It’s not possible to check via the public sources when the original video was put online and removed.
Also the quality of this video is so substandard that it was a piece of cake to shop in another vehicle without being noticeable which vehicle is added:

https://player.vimeo.com/video/146179080

This is the exact location in Zuhres 2 and I have interviewed many people here. On July 17, 2014 or on any other day nobody has seen a Buk on a trailer passing by and no one has heard anything about it from others.

However, I learned something else that is important for finding the truth. Several residents of apartment 31 told me that an alcoholic was living in the apartment where from the video has been recorded. This man passed away couple of months before my visit, in the summer of 2015.

Following information about registered persons at this address can be found:

Anatoli Alekseyevich Andryushin, born October 9, 959 (АНДРЮШИН АНАТОЛИЙ АЛЕКСЕЕВИЧ)

The neighbors indicate that there were often several people staying for a long time in the apartment while the main occupant was absent and many of them had a key. Three persons are officially registered at the same address:

Elena Anatolevna Andryushina, born on July 17, 1986 (АНДРЮШИНА ЕЛЕНА АНАТОЛЬЕВНА)
Tatiana Alexandrovna Andryushina, born on July 30, 1963 (ТАТЬЯНА АЛЕКСАНДРОВНА)
Andrey Anatolevich Andryushin, born on May 22, 1985 (АНДРЮШИН АНДРЕЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ)

 

Via this link:

Andrey Andryushin
Date of birth: 1985-05-22
Place: Zugres2
Political views: Liberal
Religion: Orthodox
Education: Modern computer information technology

Exactly this Andrey Andryushin appears as a witness in a video from June 30, 2016:

Andrey claims that he recorded this video with the Buk-transport on July 5, 2014 and he didn’t put it on YouTube himself. The video was also on his VKontakte (sort of Facebook) page, but out of fear he deleted his entire account.

– Why does Andrey claim he made this video on July 5?
– Where is Andrey now? Is he safe? (See questions 4a/b/c/d)
– Did  the JIT have contact with Andrey?

It’s worth noticing that the JIT presents the video for few seconds as evidence, but pays no attention to the statement of the creator of the video that he did not record it on July 17th.
Photo of Buk-Volvo combination made at the location ‘Pit Stop’ in Torez.

 

Unfortunately, the same problems as with the videos:

– Abominable resolution
– Anonymous photographer
– Original recording is not an open source
– Metadata unavailable

During the press conference the JIT did not show the pictures, but referred to a until now unknown video supposedly made in Torez [36min03s]. The original link of the Dutch police is removed. Here is a backup.

“Because of the importance to protect the creator of these images, the background is erased,” says the JIT. It remains unclear why the jeep in the video is riding with the door open. Quality of the video is so poor that you can’t see whether the wheels of the vehicle are turning.

Animation JIT: “Around noon, the white Volvo trailer with the Buk-Telar arrives to Snezhnoye. Buk is unloaded from the truck near the supermarket Furshet “[36min24s].

 

The Furshet supermarket is located on Lenin Street, a major thoroughfare. If there was indeed a Volvo with a trailer standing at this place and Buk-Telar was unloaded there from the trailer, many people would have seen it. Let’s look at the map:

The Buk Telar allegedly drove independently from the red cross on the map to the firing location through the green cross in Karapetiyan Street. In this case, the route that the Telar drove according to the JIT animation (red) can’t be right [36min36s].

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/489884062577094656

With a google image search, we find several websites where the picture of Karapetiyan Street has been published, but none gives us a clearer picture of the Buk than this:

If we accept this pixel-salad without metadata as legitimate evidence, then the following photo provides evidence that the rebels have mobile nuclear weapons of Topol-M type:


Photo credit Sergey Mastepanov

Of course, I’ve also been at this location, made measurements and searched for witnesses. Some screenshots of the videos I made on October 19, 2015:

 

After studying the lines of sight it’s obvious the picture must have been taken from an apartment on the top floor, from building No. 3. An old lady told me that this apartment was not occupied in July 2014.

Also valid for this picture: anonymous photographer, low resolution, original file is not an open source and no metadata.

Video of Prospect Gagarin, Snizhne [36min44s]

 

It was not difficult to find the apartment from where the video was taken. Following the lines of sight from Prospect Gagarin, you arrive at ‘Building 1’ with the coordinates 48.014758, 38.761652

 

It was slightly more difficult to find someone who had the keys and was willing to give access to the roof from building 43, but eventually that was solved too. From there it is simple:

 

The apartment from where the video was taken, was on July 17th 2014 inhabited by Vita Volobueva. Address: Prospect Gagarin, house 43, apartment 143, ninth floor.

This video has a low resolution as well, original image is not an open source and there is no verifiable metadata.
a Photo says more than a thousand words

This iconic photo was posted on Twitter three hours after the crash of MH17. The JIT reports: “This picture of the smoke trail is taken in Torez and spread through social media.” [38min14s]

I wrote a lot about the photographer Pavel Aleynikov, the uploader Vladimir Djukov and about the photo. In this article, I will limit myself to few comments:

– The so-called plume of smoke in reality consists of a black and a separate white smoke plume:

There is no explanation for the fact that the black smoke moves strictly horizontally and the white one doesn’t, other than that the plumes are not related to each other.


This photo was taken on June 5, 2015, almost a year after MH17. For better visibility, I increased the contrast slightly. See the original video. (Credit: Yana Yerlashova)

We are sure that no Buk has fired on June 5, 2015 and that it must be another source of the black smoke on the photo of that day.

– I asked the spokesman of the OM three times to confirm that the JIT claims that the presented photo shows the smoke plume of Buk missile which shot down MH17. The final answer was evasive.

– JIT presentation: “The photo is investigated by the NFI. The NFI has no evidence that this picture has been manipulated. “[38min14s]

It is important to know what have been the research questions and what has been studied exactly. That information (just like the original photo itself) is not public. The photo has been investigated by the NFI, the NIDF and FOX-IT. One of the persons who examined the photo wrote me:

“My research did not go beyond determining that these were real RAW files, and therefore in principle, original camera results. About what’s on it, no idea. I haven’t paid attention to that, except being amazed by the value that was tied to the rather obscure images. “

– For more detailed explanation and discussion of other problems with the smoke plume picture, I refer you to this article.

“Painstaking detective work on social media”

JIT presentation:
“Additionally, in spring of 2016 the research team after painstaking detective work on social media found two new photos.” [38min46s] “From the first picture and testimony of witnesses an analysis of sightlines was made. The direction in which the witness looked when he or she saw or photographed the trace. The place where these lines of sight come together is very close to the agricultural field in question at Pervomaiskyi.” [39min04s]

The displayed image is made at exactly the same location as this one ….

… which appeared on Twitter on July 15, 2014, two days before MH17 was shot down. The coordinates of the recording location were calculated and published on the Webtalk.ru forum.

If we place cutouts of the both photos above each other, we see an exact match. Photos (or video recordings) are almost certainly made with the use of a tripod:

The smoke from the ‘new photo’ is located more to the left compared to the two columns of smoke from the picture of the tweet on July 15:

Having the recording location and the coordinates of the launch site claimed by JIT, we can draw on a map a line of sight (white) and an estimated line of sight (red) for the columns of smoke on the picture of the tweet on July 15:

The red line of sight points to Saur Mogila, the highest point of Donbass. A place where in July 2014 fierce battles took place almost daily. On images from Google Earth of July 16, 2014 two pieces of scorched earth can be seen. Probably the smoke spots were caused by an attack on July 15.

It is clear that the apartment from where the recordings were made, served as an observation post, but why did Andrey Tarasenko twitter a photo of July 15 and not the one of the smoke plume on July 17?

Andrey Tarasenko claims he was walking home from work at the time of the attack:

A Ukrainian miner says that at the moment of the catastrophe with the Malaysian Boeing he saw a white trace shooting from the ground into the air. Twenty seconds later, he saw smoke rising in the distance. Andrey Tarasenko said he and his friend were walking home when it happened. “Do you know how does a trace of a plane look like? It was the same, but this was a rocket launched from the ground,” Tarasenko said. Tarasenko estimated that he was on a 16 kilometers (10 miles) distance from the Boeing 777 crash site. He never saw the plane. (source)

From the firing of a Buk-rocket untill the creation of smoke rising from the crashed  MH17, several minutes have passed. Twenty seconds as claimed by Tarasenko is nonsense.

If the rest of Tarasenko’s story is correct, in any case he was not in the apartment when the recording was made. Interesting questions:

– Who made the image(s)?
– Who is the occupant of the apartment?
– How and from whom did Tarasenko get the files?

The main question is of course:

Why was “the long research on social media” necessary and photo (or video?) of the smoke plume from Buk that shot down MH17 wasn’t made public immediately?

 

Most searched weapon in the world – route back to the Russian Federation

JIT presentation: “Immediately after the launch, the Buk-Telar was discharged. There are almost no pictures available of the discharge route because it took place in the evening and night hours.” [41min27s]
“The Buk-Telar presumably was driving independently in direction of Snezhnoye. There he was put again on the white Volvo trailer in the late evening hours of July 17th.” [41min49s]

What we know:

– MH17 was hit around 16:20h.
– The distance of the route from the ‘launch site’ to the square of the Furshet Market is about 7 kilometers.
– Sunset on July 17, 2014 near Donetsk was at 20:22hrs.

If the assessment made by the JIT is correct, then the Buk-Telar was at least four hours within a radius of seven kilometers from the launch location since the launch of a missile and only after that it was loaded back on the trailer in the center of Snezhnoye for transport back to Russia.

– Statistically speaking, how many witnesses should have seen the Buk-Telar during almost four hours in the neighborhood and in the center of Snezhnoye and how likely is it that no satellite or spy images were made after it was known that MH17 was shot down?

Following the JIT story. In the late evening hours of July 17, the Buk-Telar is again put on the white Volvo trailer and drives through Lugansk to Russia. There are 175 kilometers from Snezhoye to Lugansk. That is, if you follow the route that Telar drove according to the JIT. The shortest route is less than 90 kilometers. Why this huge detour of about 80 kilometers?

Lugansk video

JIT-presentation: “In Lugansk in the early morning a video has been made of a Volvo-truck with a loader carrying the Buk Telar. It shows that the installation carries only three missiles. From there the transport drives to the Russian border and crosses the border.” [42min07s]

Arsen Avakov states on his Facebook page that the video is made by a surveillance-team on July 18th, at 04:50 in the morning.

The video displays a lighted streetlight next to the billboard. This is remarkable, as Lugansk was almost entirely without electricity in the morning of July 18, 2014.

Also regarding to this video the following:

– Abominable Resolution
– Anonymous photographer
– Original recording not open source
– Metadata unavailable

Regarding the route the question can be raised once again: why a big detour with a route of about 246 kilometers was chosen…

… while it can also be done more than 100 kilometer shorter.

Rebels phonecalls tapped

The JIT claims to have obtained a lot of evidence  through wiretaps alongside many pictures and witnesses. Joost Niemöller asked the following question [1u6min32s]

“What is the source of the wiretapped telephone conversations?”

Answer by Wilbert Paulissen, head of Dutch Police Investigations:

“These are mainly wiretapped telephone conversations of the Ukrainian service. Thus, these wiretapped telephone conversations are becoming available to the JIT via the court. That is the source of the wiretapped telephone conversations”.

Joost Niemöller:

“You say mainly. Are there any other sources?”

Wilbert Paulissen:

“No, these are: wiretapped telephone conversations from Ukraine. To put it simply.”

 

Ukrainian secret service falsified wiretapped telephone conversations

Almost immediately after it became known that MH17 was shot down, the Ukrainian secret service SBU published some wiretapped telephone conversations that would prove the guilt of the rebels. Here is an analysis of the audio:

The so-called evidence proves something quite different: Ukraine does not hesitate to produce (poorly) falsified evidence.
The fact that the audio was forged is not being denied by anyone. Not even by the top of the Dutch investigation team. However, JIT countries have agreed information is only being made public if no member objects. What this non-disclosure agreement contains exactly is… confidential.

Various wiretapped telephone conversations were played during the JIT presentation. Since it is proven that the SBU forged wiretapped telephone conversations, I limit myself discussing only one tap [43min21s]:

Person 1: “Where is the vehicle now?”
Person 2: “The vehicle is already in Russia for a long time.”

The JIT indicates that the tapped conversation was recorded on July 18, 2014 at 07:44. The Buk, according to the JIT, was filmed in Lugansk the same morning at 04:50 and then still had to travel the entire route to the Russian border.

How is it possible that the “vehicle” at 07:44 was in Russia for a “long time” already?

JIT fails to fulfill its promise to appoint exact weapon

Head of Dutch Police Investigations Wilbert Paulissen:
“Based on the criminal investigation it can be concluded that the flight MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014 by a missile from the 9M38-series.” [20min31s]

The 9M38-series consists of two types: 9M38 and 9M38M1. From the outside the two missiles are almost identical, but according to manufacturer Almaz Antey the warheads of the two missile types contain differently shaped particles. The warhead of the 9M38 contains square particles of two different sizes, while the missile type 9M38M1 contains square particles of two different sizes and butterfly-shaped particles.

JIT: “The warhead of 9M38 is composed of an explosive core with a sheath of preformed particles which are dispersed with great force during the explosion.” [23min35s]

Using the term “9M38” in combination with a warhead of missile type 9M38M1 is at least confusing.

The JIT also shows an explosion of a warhead with butterfly particles in an animation. A missile of 9M38M1 type. And thus, not the 9M38 type.

Why does the JIT say that flight MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014 by a missile from the “9M38-series”, but does not specifically appoint 9M38M1 as the weapon?
Buk manufacturer Almaz Antey during tests has detonated a warhead 9N314M of a 9M38M1 missile near the cockpit of a disused Ilyushin-86 .

After the experiment the aluminum skin of the IL-86 (right) contains many butterfly-shaped entry holes. There are no butterfly-shaped holes found in the skin of MH17. How can this be explained?

Russia claims it has no longer 9M38 missiles in its arsenal. This type of missile is still used by Ukraine, according to the Russians.

Does the JIT use the term “9M38-series” to disguise MH17 has not been shot down by a missile of the 9M38M1 type?

 

Primary radar data absent, primary radar data present.

More than two years ago Russia claimed the primary radar data had been erased, but six days before the JIT presentation it was reported a copy was nevertheless preserved.

Paulissen: “Regarding the new primary radar images the Russian Federation spoke about last Monday, I can report that they are not yet in possession of our research team and that we were not able to see them yet.” [44min15s]

Ukraine claims it has no primary radar data, because all radars were either under maintainance or had been destroyed before July 17, 2014.

 

OVV rapport
Russen hebben primaire radargegevens gewist
Oekraine had ze uit staan vanwege onderhoud.
(dus geen radargegevens raket)

Dutch MP Omtzigt: “DSB report: Russians have deleted primary radar data
Ukraine had them switched off due to maintenance. (So no radar data of the missile)

Westerbeke: “There has been a lot of talk about radar images. Both Ukraine and the Russian Federation provided radar data to the JIT.
Recently the JIT has, after intensive research, also traced a video file with relevant primary military radar data from the area. Recorded by a mobile radar in Ukraine. This radar was used at that time to test new software. Though this radar has a limited range, it did detect MH17 and completes the further completes the entire picture.” [14min16s]

Why Ukraine did not immediately make this primary radar information available to the JIT and why more than two years “intensive research” was needed?

Jeroen Akkermans rightfully states the Russians have wasted a lot of time and that the radar data “could obviously have been forged“.
Since we have already established Ukraine has produced falsified evidence, the uncritical attitude of the Dutch researchers and media towards that country is especially noteworthy.

Westerbeke: “The discussion about the radar images in our opinion can be closed. Today we want to emphasize that the material available to us is more than sufficient to draw conclusions in the criminal investigation. [14min55s]

This might be so as per Westerbeke’s opinion, but fact is the wrangling over the radar images is still ongoing after 1000 days. Point of discussion remains if the Russian radar data proves that no Buk was launched from the launch site designated by the JIT or the following applies:

“In this case the absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence” [46min06s]

 

No doubt about motive

Head of Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaichenko:

“Terrorists and militants have planned a cynical terrorist attack on a civilian aircraft Aeroflot AFL-2074 Moscow-Larnaka that was flying at that time above the territory of Ukraine.”

https://player.vimeo.com/video/212552315

[source]According to Ukraine this false flag operation failed because the Russian crew drove to the wrong place Pervomaiske and accidentally did not shoot down the Aeroflot airliner, but MH17 instead. The shooting down of an Aeroflot airliner with Russian citizens on board would according to Ukraine be used as casus belli for an overt Russian invasion of Ukraine.

What was said during the JIT presentation about the motive?

Paulissen: “The research is still focused on this question, but I have started my story deliberately sketching the context in which the event took place. That context, as we have seen it and as I told you, was that there was heavy fighting and that men sought an answer to the many air strikes by the Ukrainian army. Thus, that is an indication in a particular direction. Whether it is so, the further research will have to clarify, but we are attending to this matter.” [1u08min39s]

Westerbeke “Our research is focused precisely on that question. Was it a mistake? Was it deliberate? Who was in charge there? Who gave the order? These are real follow-up questions, and that is exactly what we are going to look for further.” [1u10min26s]

? JIT member Ukraine announced in August 2014 it possesses hard evidence about culprits and motive, but the JIT reports in September 2016 it is still looking for the culprits and their possible motive ?

The (Dutch) researchers have had two years to verify and evaluate the hard evidence collected by Ukraine. The fact that during the press conference both Paulissen and Westerbeke stated the issue about the motive remains unsolved is a strong indication Ukraine also lies about the motive issue.

 

1000 Days MH17 – the role of the media

Triumphant headline by Dutch state sponsored channel NOS: “These are the culprits

And:

“18 volunteers of research collective Bellingcat are hunting the culprits of the MH17 tragedy. They have reduced the number of suspects down to 20 Russian soldiers.”

No doubt about it. NOS is the leading news source for millions of Dutch citizens. If NOS makes such a claim and puts so prominently on its website, then it must be true. Right?

https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/553633974594314242

Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat: “Here’s members of the Russian 53th brigade whose brigade shot down MH17 with one of their Buks. Time to speak up? ”

Pieter Omtzigt tweet:

“Thus Ukraine is saying: separatists shot down MH17. So, Ukraine distances itself from bellingcat (Russian brigade from Kursk guilty)”

Then number two of Bellingcat, Aric Toler, responds:

“We never said that Russians definitely shot them down, but they definitely provided the weapon for it.”

So what is the truth?

Eliot Higgins:
“You confuse the statements in the investigation report of Bellingcat with my personal opinion. Bellingcat is a group of individuals working together. It would be wrong to attribute statements made by one of them to Bellingcat. It is my personal opinion that it is plausible that the BUK installation was operated by the members of the 53th brigade. The Bellingcat reports do not go that far and leave the question open, so that people can draw their own conclusions on the evidence presented in the reports.” [source]

Another example. The Algemeen Dagblad published in cooperation with Der Spiegel and Correctiv an article in which:

– an incorrect launch site was claimed
– at least one witness testimony was forged

The coverage of AD is based on information from detective buro Correct!v. The factual and demonstrable errors in the analysis of Correct!v have been investigated by Billy Six and myself and Marcel van den Berg discusses not less than eight errors.

 

“Getuigen: Raket werd hier gelanceerd” http://www.ad.nl/buitenland/getuigen-raket-mh17-werd-hier-gelanceerd~ac2cd9ad/  Waarom is dit nepnieuws van @ADnl nooit ingetrokken @HansNijenhuis?

Photo published for Getuigen: Raket MH17 werd hier gelanceerd

Getuigen: Raket MH17 werd hier gelanceerd

Voor het eerst sinds de ramp met MH17 treden getuigen naar buiten die vertellen hoe zij hebben meegemaakt dat een raket werd gelanceerd die MH17 neerhaalde. De vijf getuigen wijzen een akker in het…

ad.nl

Despite all the “overwhelming evidence” spread by (social) media about the involvement and guilt of Russia in the downing of MH17 Westerbeke says:

“We as Joint Investigation Team, on basis of the research, are not going further at the moment than to confirm that the Buk Telar was brought from Russia and that it was transported back. We did not go further in our conclusions and this means we do not comment on the involvement of the Russian Federation as a country or persons from the Russian Federation.” [55min27s]

Marcel van den Berg wrote two orderly posts on it:

(alleged) Russian lies.
(alleged) Ukrainian lies.

Besides, the rebels in Donbass also refuse to provide openness and relevant questions remain unanswered.

Also very interesting and relevant: Marcel maintains a list of events (84! now) indicating the Netherlands is not interested in leaving no stone unturned.
Which scenario can explain why all stakeholders frustrate and even sabotage getting the truth on the table?

This question keeps many people who rely on studying public information busy. What virtually everyone agrees on is the following:
Ukraine should have closed its airspace.

Even DSB (Dutch Safety Board) is clear about it. If the responsible authorities claim to be aware of the presence of weapons in a conflict zone that can shoot down a civil aircraft at high altitude and still do not close the airspace, there is at least a matter of gross negligence.
Professor Giemulla has started proceedings at the ECHR against Ukraine on behalf of a number of German family members of the deceased based on this argument. Professor Giemulla describes The Netherlands as “a black hole“, because until now no Dutch family members have joined this lawsuit.

Paulissen of the JIT: “regarding the closure of airspace, we state that the JIT investigation is not focused on this. That was part of the DSB research. Conclusions have been drawn, so we do not focus on it within the criminal investigation”. [1u02min28s]
Legal proceedings Ukraine vs Russia

Ukraine has filed a case against Russia at the International Court of Justice. MH17 is part of a complaint against Russia because of “aggressive” and “illegal annexation of Crimea”. According to Ukraine Russia has violated two international treaties by “financing of terrorism” and “racial discrimination”. The Court has not ruled on the case and experts do not know what the Court will finally decide.  [April 19th 2017 – first order ICJ]

MH17 is a part of a geopolitical conflict

Main parties in this conflict are the United States and Russia. Netherlands (NATO) and Ukraine are in the US camp. Ukrainian rebels are in the Russian camp.

Opinions about the credibility of the JIT and especially the reliability of the input of the secret service of Ukraine are divided.

Based on public information (and thus not on the basis of information that the JIT claims to possess, but says it does not release due to tactical and strategic reasons), I am not convinced that a Buk coming from Russia shot down MH17. Who doubts the western narrative is being framed as a “useful idiot” and “Kremlin-troll”. So be it.

Back to the question: Which scenario can explain why all stakeholders frustrate and even sabotage getting the truth on the table? It is tempting to speculate on the basis of incomplete information and to fill in the missing pieces as “truth.” The last thousand days I was able to resist this temptation. I did however include a hypothesis of Colonel bd. Rudolph in Lying for Justice. According to Rudolph’s hypothesis, the Ukrainian air defense accidentally shot down MH17 during an exercise. Another hypothesis that also assumes it was an accident:

– Russian-backed rebels captured one or more operational Buks of the Ukrainian army.
– Nevertheless, Ukraine deliberatly did not close its air space.
– MH17 was accidentally shot down by rebels.

This scenario provides an explanation for the following motives:

– Russia does not want it becomes public knowledge MH17 was shot down by rebels backed by Moscow.
– Ukraine does not want to become public knowledge the murder weapon originated not from Russia, but from the arsenal of Kiev itself.
– Rebels obviously do not want to be identified as culprits.
– The Netherlands obediently follows the strategic interests of the United States and is committed to keep Ukraine out of the wind and make Russia look as bad as possible.

* Disclaimer: I still do not know what really happened *

JIT countries claim to know for sure the weapon came from Russia

It is nonsense to think that rebels could have organized a rent-a-buk without the highest authorities in Russia being informed about and having sanctioned it. If the actual murder weapon came from Russia, this claim will have to be substantiated. Eventually The Netherlands will have to initiate a lawsuit against Russia. If this is ever going to happen remains rather questionable.

Less unlikely is one day it will come to trial in which individual culprits with Russian nationality will be accused. (whether or not a trial in absentia).

Westerbeke:
“Which people were involved in the supply, command, protection, firing and discharging of the Buk Telar? [..] We now have a hundred people in the picture who can be in some way associated with the shooting down of flight MH17 or transporting the Buk. We have been able to determine the identity of these one hundred people.” [45min52s]

At the end of this article a reflection and prediction regarding the type of evidence that will be used in case of such litigation.

1) Tapped telephone conversations, videos and other materials that may have been forged by the SBU and of which the authenticity cannot be determined objectively.

2) Anonymous witnesses.

3) Evidence from classified US sources.

“What we have said is we have gotten access from the Americans to all relevant material they have available and that it contains a significant portion of state secrets. We were given access to the material through the MIVD and through a special officer of the district prosecutor’s office. In combination with that we have received a report from the US with conclusions based on that material. We can use that report in a criminal case, it is a part of the case and therefore constitutes evidence. Especially in combination with the possibility that the officer who has seen the underlying material can make a statement. It remains a state secret and is therefore not declassified, but we can now fully use it in the research. [1u3min50s]
[…] As far as the question about the state of confidential information is concerned, it will be some kind of a legal response, it is also a bit complicated… It can be used as evidence, but in an indirect way, the way it has been agreed on for now. Namely, through a statement that will be given by the national officer anti-terrorism. The latter can then declare in court. However, that does not mean that the underlying material becomes available for the court itself or for the legal defense of any suspects.” [1u15min47s]

Thus, the circle can be closed this way. The United States in the background determines  what evidence will or will not be used and which material remains unverifiable for third parties, lawyers of the suspects and even for the judges.

To be continued.


Source: Dances With Bears

Why isn’t the US Media showing how Trump is a War Criminal ?

by Vanessa Beeley Man from Kafarya and Foua,crying in Jebrin centre, Aleppo, after the suspected suicide bombing massacre of 200 civilians, including 116 children, 15th April 2017 in Rashideen. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley) 21st Century Wire says… On April 15th 2017, the people of Kafarya and Foua were attacked, their children mown down deliberately, by a […]

via RASHIDEEN MASSACRE: Children Lured to their Slaughter by NATO State Terrorists — Friends of Syria

NOTHING SAYS I’M GUILTY LIKE TRUMP, UK & FRANCE ALL REFUSING TO SEND REAL FORENSIC SCIENTISTS TO SITE OF THEIR ALLEGED CHEMICAL ATTACK IN SYRIA
Apr 21 at 7:18am
ALSO:
  NOTHING SAYS I’M GUILTY LIKE TRUMP, UK & FRANCE ALL REFUSING TO SEND REAL FORENSIC SCIENTISTS TO SITE OF THEIR ALLEGED CHEMICAL ATTACK IN SYRIA  …

Not on our Dime…Johnson hints parliament votes against Syria invasion

‘Hard to say no’: Johnson hints parliament vote against Syria invasion may be ignored at US request ‘Hard to say no’: Johnson hints parliament vote against Syria invasion may be ignored at US request Published time: 19 Apr, 2017 01:32Edited time: 19 Apr, 2017 07:12 British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. © Alkis Konstantinidis / Reuters AddThis […]

via Boris “the clown” Johnson says an USA request to illegally bomb Syria would override Parliament’s wishes — Uprootedpalestinians’s Blog