US Financial Aid To Israel - Figures, Facts And Impact

Posted by Admin On Saturday, 24 August 2013 0 comments


Summary
 
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)
 
Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000
 
Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200
 
Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000
 
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
 
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
 
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel
 
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
 
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
 
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
 
Total Cost per Israeli
$23,240
 
Special Reports:
 
U.S. Aid To Israel: <http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#STRATEGIC>The Strategic Functions
U.S. Aid to Israel: <http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer>What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
U.S. Aid to Israel: <http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Israel>Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship'
The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers:
<http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Lies>True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel
 
THE STRATEGIC FUNCTIONS OF U.S. AID TO ISRAEL
By Stephen Zunes
 
Dr. Zunes is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco
 
Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.
 
In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.
 
Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign- aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.
 
AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding." Given Israel's relative prosperity, U.S. aid to Israel is becoming increasingly controversial. In 1994, Yossi Beilen, deputy foreign minister of Israel and a Knesset member, told the Women's International Zionist organization, "If our economic situation is better than in many of your countries, how can we go on asking for your charity?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
US Aid To Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
 
By Tom Malthaner
 
This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week. The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2. This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers.
 
Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)
 
When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.
 
Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.
 
I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
US Aid To Israel: Interpreting The 'Strategic Relationship'
 
By Stephen Zunes
 
"The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world," said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. "In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries," added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.
 
He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters" and the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region."
 
Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just . . . one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes."
 
U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern . . . has been just the opposite." According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies . . ."
 
The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as "a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region." "Israel has helped defeat radical nationalist movements" and has been a "testing ground for U.S. made weaponry." Moreover, the intelligence agencies of both countries have "collaborated," and "Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly, . . . Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."' Although the strategic relationship between the United States and the Gulf Arab states in the region has been strengthening in recent years, these states "do not have the political stability, the technological sophistication, [or] the number of higher-trained armed forces personnel" as does Israel.
 
Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S. Moreover, arms to Israel create more demand for weaponry in Arab states. According to Zunes, "the Israelis announced back in 1991 that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it."
 
In the fall of 1993-when many had high hopes for peace-78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain "at current levels." Their "only reason" was the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." The letter neglected to mention that 80 percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S.
"I'm not denying for a moment the power of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the pro-Israel lobby," and other similar groups, Zunes said. Yet the "Aerospace Industry Association which promotes these massive arms shipments . . . is even more influential." This association has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Its "force on Capitol Hill, in terms of lobbying, surpasses that of even AIPAC." Zunes asserted that the "general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC didn't exist. We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia
 
"An increasing number of Israelis are pointing out" that these funds are not in Israel's best interest. Quoting Peled, Zunes said, "this aid pushes Israel 'toward a posture of callous intransigence' in terms of the peace process." Moreover, for every dollar the U.S. sends in arms aid, Israel must spend two to three dollars to train people to use the weaponry, to buy parts, and in other ways make use of the aid. Even "main-stream Israeli economists are saying [it] is very harmful to the country's future."
 
The Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot described Israel as "'the godfather's messenger' since [Israel] undertake[s] the 'dirty work' of a godfather who 'always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business."' Israeli satirist B. Michael refers to U.S. aid this way: "'My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation." 'To challenge this strategic relationship, one cannot focus solely on the Israeli lobby but must also examine these "broader forces as well." "Until we tackle this issue head-on," it will be "very difficult to win" in other areas relating to Palestine.
 
"The results" of the short-term thinking behind U.S. policy "are tragic," not just for the "immediate victims" but "eventually [for] Israel itself" and "American interests in the region." The U.S. is sending enormous amounts of aid to the Middle East, and yet "we are less secure than ever"-both in terms of U.S. interests abroad and for individual Americans. Zunes referred to a "growing and increasing hostility [of] the average Arab toward the United States." In the long term, said Zunes, "peace and stability and cooperation with the vast Arab world is far more important for U.S. interests than this alliance with Israel."
 
This is not only an issue for those who are working for Palestinian rights, but it also "jeopardizes the entire agenda of those of us concerned about human rights, concerned about arms control, concerned about international law." Zunes sees significant potential in "building a broad-based movement around it."
 
The above text is based on remarks, delivered on. 26 January, 2001 by Stephen . Zunes - Associate Professor of Politics and Chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at San Francisco University
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The Cost Of Israel To US Taxpayers:
True Lies About US Aid To Israel
 
By Richard H. Curtiss
 
For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies--true lies.
 
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
 
One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.
 
Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
 
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
 
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
 
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
 
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
 
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
 
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.
 
Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group.
 
In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.
 
More recently, FBI raids on ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.
 
The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.
 
Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL's Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.
 
Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such "enemies" files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called "terrorism experts," and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in black-listing, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC's "opposition research" department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.
 
But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
 
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
 
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
 
Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
 
There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
 
Hiding AIPAC's Tracks
 
In fact, the congressmembers know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.
 
Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results.
 
Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.
 
Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.
 
According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.
 
Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.
 
The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
 
Shocking Comparisons
 
These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for theWashington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
 
They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.
 
As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.
 
But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.
 
It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.
 
Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.
 
Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.
 
Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.
 
Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.
 
By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi attrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
 
True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
 
Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.
 
In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.
 
On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.
 
There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.
 
There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.
 
Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.
 
It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it's a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America's mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.
 
------------------
 
Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
READ MORE

Tereek e Taliban Pakistan – TTP – CREATED BY CIA, FUNDED BY INDIA TO PERFORM TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN PAKISTAN

Posted by Admin On 4 comments

Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan commonly known as TTP is responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Pakistan. TTP attacks on mosques, tombs, Imam Bargahs and kill anyone who speaks in favor of Pakistan. Reliable resources in Pakistani intelligence agencies has given facts of Indian support and backup to TTP terrorists to Pakistani government at number of times, but Pakistani government has done nothing to stop foreign aid to TTP and in our previous government we saw Interior Minister Rehman Malik giving statements that he has found many evidences of foreign elements aiding TTP and other terrorist groups in Pakistan but Rehman Malik never openly said that its India & CIA behind TTP. It has also been confirmed that India has established more then 14 consulates on Durand line with the help of Afghanistan government to support insurgencies and terrorist activities in Pakistan.
So who are TTP terrorists? TTP claims to be a sub division of Afghan Taliban however Afghan Taliban has always denied that any of the terrorists fighting with Pakistan Army, killing innocent civilians, bombing on girl schools and killing Shia Muslims in Pakistan are not related to Afghan Taliban by any means.

Tattoo on a dead TTP terrorist in Pakistan – Tattoo is not allowed in Islam and this so called Mujahid of TTP had Satan Tattoo on his back
TTP terrorists are involved in bank robberies in Pakistan, especially Karachi, kidnapping for ransom and supplying ammunition to any group who wants to fight against Pakistan. Confirmed reports in early 2013 cleared that Afghan Taliban are not happy that a group of Indian terrorists is using their name in Pakistan, Mullah Umer himself denied any coalition with TTP and asked Taliban to stop kidnapping people, killing innocent civilians, bombing girl schools and bank robberies, when denied by TTP, Afghan Taliban started a war with TTP terrorists in Afghanistan as TTP most wanted terrorists are hidden by CIA in Afghan Army camps  at Kunar where Mullah Fazal Ullah is residing with his terrorists group and getting militia training from Indian troops and that was is still on going when SPY EYES was typing this post for our readers.
The reason why India is supporting TTP in Pakistan is very simple, they want our army to stay engaged within the borders so that Pakistan can forget about Kashmir issue and India can keep its genocide of poor civilian Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir. Afghan President is playing a powerful role in this whole terrorist activity by letting Indian government to support TTP terrorists in Afghan Army camps. Afghan Army is also supposed to ensure that all TTP terrorists cross the borders under their cover and enter into Pakistan and for that reason, US Army, NATO forces and Afghan Army start shelling on Pakistan Army and while Pakistan army is busy defending the territories of Pakistan, TTP terrorists infiltrate in Pakistani soil.
We need to understand their motives, they want to destabilize Pakistan and make Pakistani people forget about their brothers and sisters in Kashmir.
READ MORE

Afghan Taliban deny links with Pakistan TTP militants

Posted by Admin On 2 comments


The Taliban have denied any links with the outlawed Tehrik-e-Taliban militants based in the lawless tribal belt in northwestern Pakistan. 

"They have their own policies and agenda in Afghanistan and the TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) has no links with al-Qaeda," Taliban's top commander in Afghanistan Abdul Manan told a local TV channel. 

Afghan Taliban leaders have not crossed the border, they are not hiding in Pakistan, but they are targeting coalition and NATO forces from Afghanistan only, said the militant leader, also known as Mulla Toor jan.

"Our mission is to eradicate from Afghanistan the US and allied forces … who had invaded our homeland. We have no influence over Pakistani Taliban based in the tribal belt." 

Mulla Toor Jan went further to criticize the TTP's bombings and terrorist activities for taking lives of 'innocent people', adding al-Qaeda fighters only targeted foreign occupiers in Afghanistan. 

The commander also condemned US drone attacks in both Afghan and Pakistani territories, warning Washington "has to pay the price for the blood of innocent civilians." 

The statement comes shortly after the US called on Islamabad to mediate direct talks with the Taliban as insurgency hikes in Afghanistan
READ MORE

India’s Military Intelligence Chief conducts covert visits to Afghanistan

Posted by Admin On Sunday, 11 August 2013 1 comments

—General Loomba held furtive, yet detailed meetings with Afghan, US and NATO officials
—Delhi plans Afghan military takeover after US/ ISAF pullout
—Indian Military spy master’s stealth Afghan trip conducted ahead of top US defence officials’ India visit
—Holbrook kept Pakistanis busy in futile talks as per Pentagon, Langley plan
—Indian MI boss visited covert Indian troopers’ positions in Afghanistan, met Indian Army instructors of ANA
—Indian government, army resort to cohesive hostile approach towards Pakistan after Loomba’s Afghan trip
—Analysts smell some secret US development in Afghanistan through Indian army

By Makhdoom Babar in Islamabad & Christina Palmer in New Delhi

While the US special envoy on Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrook and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates were paying surprise visits to India, in a rather mysterious move, the Chief of India’s Military Intelligence (DGMI), Lt. General R.K Loomba has carried out a high profile, yet comprehensively clandestine visit to Afghanistan and held detailed parlays with the Afghan, US and NATO officials, a development that was never officially or unofficially reported to Pakistan by either the US, the NATO or the Afghan officials, reveal the investigations of The Daily Mail
The Daily Mail’s investigations indicate that this stealthy visit of the Director General of India’s Military Intelligence was carried out last week, just ahead of the visits of US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and US Special Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke to New Delhi

The Daily Mail’s findings disclose that Lt Gen. R.K. Loomba visited the headquarters of the Afghan National Army (ANA) in Kabul and also met with officials of Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the military officials, belonging to the US CENTCOM. Lt. General R.K Loomba, who, apart from being accompanied by some senior officials of the Indian MI, was also assisted by 2 senior RAW officials during all the meetings. These findings further reveal that General Loomba, despite holding discussions with the above mentioned Afghan, US and NATO officials, also visited some positions where India has covertly posted around two companies of regular Indian soldiers of Indian army’s Special Services Group in the disguise of members of Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) while he is reported to have held a detailed meeting with the instructors of the Indian army, posted officially in Afghanistan to teach English language to the personnel of Afghan National Army while they actually belong to the Military Intelligence and RAW and are actually training the ANA special units about combat strategies against Pakistan army.

Though a highly credible at the army Headquarters in New Delhi told The Daily Mail that the purpose of the visit of General Loomba to Afghanistan was to assess preparations of the Afghan National Army in the wake of the US announcing a surge-and-exit policy through this year, yet the sources refrained to explain that why the visit was so secret and why the MI Chief had to go to Afghanistan instead of holding same discussions with the relevant officials from the US who were constantly visiting New Delhi.
The sources also say that the Indian military officials assess that the US/ NATO pullout would be gradual and Afghan National Army units would be asked to take over charge of areas sector by sector. India is involved in training ANA officers in India but quiet proposals have been floated for the deployment of Indian instructors in Afghanistan for the Afghan army.

However the findings of The Daily Mail indicate that the things have gone far beyond just appointing some more instructors of Indian Army in Afghanistan but the Indians actually plan to gradually take over the military responsibilities in Afghanistan after the US/ ISAF pullout is completed 

The Daily Mail’s findings disclose that a fresh move in this direction was initiated when the Chief of the US Pacific Command, Adm. Robert Willard, visited New Delhi by the end of last year, apparently for discussions on security assessments in South Asia. And held meetings with top Indian officials including the Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kaporr and MI Chief Lt. General R.K Loomba. Admiral Robert is on record to have said that India had to decide if it wanted to expand its role in Afghanistan.

The Daily Mail’s findings indicate that while Richard Holbrooke was engaging Pakistani civil and military as well as intelligence officials in highly unproductive talks and while he was breaking bread with top Pakistani politicians in Islamabad, he knew that his government’s military officials were having secret meetings with Indian Military Intelligence Chief in Kabul but never disclosed it to anyone during his top level meetings in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. These findings reveal that Holbrooke embarked upon recent Pakistan visit with a different agenda this time while the Pentagon and Langley had set a new menu for him. This time he was supposed to read the minds of Pakistan’s political and military leadership and then to go to the Indians to brief them about the same before the US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates’ visit to New Delhi to evolve a new strategy of US President Obama’s that ciphered chapter of his Af-Pak policy which has never been unveiled to Pakistan. Gates would apparently be visiting New Delhi to discuss the deliberations of the upcoming London Conference on Afghanistan but he is actually carrying an entirely different agenda for talks with Indians and thus Delhi dashed its MI Chief to Afghanistan to come up with certain conclusions to finalize the things with the Americans in the direction of India’s military role in Afghanistan.

The Daily Mail’s investigations indicate that the Indians and the NATO/ISAF as well as the Americans have been desirous a larger military role of Indian in Afghanistan. These investigations indicate that India has for long, cultivated friendship with Afghanistan in order to encircle Pakistan and to extend its influence in Central Asia . (Indeed ‘non-aligned’ India was one of the only countries in the world to recognize the Soviet-installed communist regime in Kabul. ). There has earlier been little prospect of Indian forces helping the NATO-U.S.-Afghan effort against the Taliban. The top brass in the Indian military now sees Afghanistan as belonging to their expanding sphere of influence, there’s a lot of intoxicated talk of ‘superpower’ status at Delhi and thus they are not much comfortable with the U.S. and foreign military presence in Afghanistan and now desire to take over the matters in their hands.

The Daily Mail’s investigations point out that till 2006, NATO, the US led Western military alliance, desperately wanted Indian troops’ deployment for missions in volatile regions like Afghanistan and Kosovo. NATO officials at Brussels-based headquarters, are on record to have said that Indian troops would be part of a wider engagement the alliance envisages with non-member states. The alliance did not expect Indian troops for its missions overnight but as a consequence of a protracted engagement that will drive policy change in New Delhi and reforms within NATO. Beginnings were made at two levels. NATO headquarters briefed Indian diplomats at Brussels . The NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Schaffer met with the then Defence Minister of India Pranab Mukherjee and held detailed discussions over the matter.

The Daily Mail’s findings indicate that India has long been looking for an opportunity to flex its muscles in the Afghanistan imbroglio. It has been traditionally using the Afghan card to spell gloom and doom in Pakistan . As early as the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict, India urged the then Afghan government to deploy its armed forces along the Durand Line to dissuade Pakistan from any adventurism against India and exploit its weakness when it was being routed by the Chinese along Ladakh. During the 1965 and 1971 Pakistan-Indian wars too, Afghanistan sided with India . During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the decade of seventies, Pakistan became a front-line state and with the help of USA and its allies, helped thwart the Soviet invasion and limited to the Durand Line and ultimately force the Soviets into retreat. India aided the Soviet secret service KGB and Afghan spy agency Khad to attempt to destabilize Pakistan through sabotage, sedition, subversion and acts of terrorism. The seeds of rebellion were sown in Balochistan, the fires of which are now again being stoked by Indian spy agency RAW.

The Daily Mail’s findings further indicate that the advent of Taliban Rule in Afghanistan threw a damper on Indian machinations to use Afghan soil to destabilize Pakistan ; however, 9/11 provided a fresh impetus to Indian nefarious aims towards Pakistan . Since its erstwhile allies the Northern Alliance rose to power in Afghanistan , following the US-led invasion, India made the most of it by deploying Indian personnel working on various projects with the Afghan people and government under the grab of the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country. There are approximately 3,000-4,000 Indian intelligence agents, working under cover on several such projects across Afghanistan . India has used its trade centers and its four Consulates to man with RAW and its four Consulates to man with RAW personnel to hatch plots against Pakistan .

“If deployed now, Indian forces will give respite to the ISAF and NATO forces but sink the Indians deep into the Afghan quagmire. The choice is ours if we want to face the humiliation and ignominy of another disaster”, said Major General P.K Singh ( Rtd) while giving his comments over the issue to The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail’s findings reveal that the Indians, around 2008, agreed to make a massive deployment of Indian troops in Afghanistan and planned to send around 120,000 to150,000 soldier to Afghanistan but later New Delhi reversed the decision. Even the current Indian Defence Minister A.K Antony, at one stage clearly ruled out any possibility of sending Indian troops to jointly operate with the US-led ISAF forces in Afghanistan , asserting that it was there for extending humanitarian assistance for reconstruction and rehabilitation of the country. However, it appears that Indians, now are once again desirous of assuming a military role in Afghanistan and perhaps this time they want to make it with a heavy package, but most probably after the US-led/ NATO troops are withdrawn.

The Daily Mail’s findings indicate that the Indian government has recently launched a clandestine media campaign in support of sending troops to Afghanistan . Surprisingly, many Indian writers, intellectuals and media people have suddenly started talking and writing in print and electronic media of India to argue as to why India should not send its troops to Afghanistan . In one such case The Indian national Interest Review in its current edition publishes a report suggesting that “ India has the capacity to equip, station and supply several divisions of its troops in Afghanistan . Many Afghan political leaders from President Hamid Karzai to members of the Northern Alliance are highly likely to welcome India ’s decision. Contrary to the myths that make the rounds in the popular media, the Afghan people do not reflexively oppose foreign troops on their soil; remember they welcomed international troops who came to rid the country of Mullah Omar’s Taliban regime in 2002. Neighbouring countries, including Iran and Tajikistan , will support an Indian military presence in Afghanistan provided their interests are taken into account. So will Russia . And not least, the United States will welcome it for even if Indian troops do not eventually deploy, the very possibility of their arrival will change Washington ’s bargaining terms with the Pakistani military establishment.”

The Daily Mail’s findings further indicate that soon after General Loomba returned to Delhi from his secret trip to Afghanistan , the tones and policies of both the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian army leadership emerged as totally and changed and both became rather hostile towards Pakistan . While the Indian External Affairs Secretary started howling on Pakistan to “Do More” to curb terrorism and stated that there was a huge infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan , the Indian army leadership started snarling that the ratio of infiltration of militants from Pakistani borders had dramatically increased in Kashmir region. This joint premeditated campaign against Pakistan by the Indian External Affairs Ministry and the Indian army leadership simply out of the blue, indicates that Delhi has planned something different for Pakistan now and General Loomba’s covert Afghan trip has a lot to do with it.

The Daily Mail
READ MORE

INDIA’S FAKE INDEPENDENCE VS MINORITIES GENOCIDE IN INDIA

Posted by Admin On 2 comments


At present all minorities in India Christians, Muslims and Sikhs are threatened by the government and patronized by the Shiv Sena, R.S.S., the congress party and the B.J.P which are all Hindu extremist groups supported by the government.

As the Sikhs holy shrine was destroyed under the rule of Indra Gandhi, the holy Muslim shrine, the Babri Masjid was destroyed under the leadership of “the” home minister L.K Advani.  There is no record of those who were killed in attacks. As death certificates were not issued, not only the bodies but the bodies of wounded were thrown into dirty refugee trucks and a mass crematories was held of which the victims’ families had no knowledge of their relatives.

Orissa had one of the worst histories of anti-Christian violence. One of the most brutal incident is that of Mr. Graham Stan, an Australian Christian missionary and his two children, aged 8 and 10 were burnt alive in their car and its innocent occupants went up in flames short time after the headless body of uncle Barik, a Christian priest was found in a village of Muni Gurey in the state of Orissa another ridiculous and senseless act carried out by the Hindu extremists. In the past few months 150 churches have been burned down and 52 Christian were killed in the state of Orissa. More examples of the hateful crimes carried out by the Hindu extremists are given in an article written in the Toronto Star on December 27th, 2007. Hindu extremists ransacked and burned eight village churches in eastern India marring Christian celebrations. Six village churches were torched on Christmas day. Two more were attacked the same day along with the 10 houses belonging to Christians. These examples of extremists against the minority groups in India are just a few of many, they do provide us with substantiated proof that minorities are not safe in India. The lives of minorities in India are treated worthless. In fact, members of minority are killed to please Hindu majority in order to gain political power during election time.

One to all the injustice that the minorities in India face. The United front of Sikhs and Kashmiris are committed to helping all minorities in India either gain their rights of living with dignity and respect or get their own sovereign states. We ask the Canadian government to step in and help eliminate the injustice facing Sikhs, Kashmiris and all other minorities while still maintaining all the integrity and respect of the Canadian law.

We make an appeal to the international community to take notice of the denial of human rights in India. We hope that with the help of the united nation, Amnesty International and Asia watch, there tragedies will come to an end. In this attempt to help the minorities in India and implore the Canadian Government to stop all trade with India until then Indian government allows the United Nations, amnesty international and Asian watch to enter India and investigate the Human Rights Violations occurring throughout the country.

Balkar Singh(647-886-4191), Satnam Singh(416-951-3814), Manjit Singh(905-452-8923), Bhupinder Singh(416-897-7821), Sukhwinder Singh(905-497-0166), Pritpal Singh(416-991-0144), Habib Yousafzai(647-889 2829): Members of The United Front of Sikhs and Kashmir Diaspora Alliance

READ MORE

Wife swapping a common practice in Indian Navy: Naval officer's wife

Posted by Admin On 2 comments
The Indian Navy has been hit by fresh charges of wife swapping. CNN-IBN spoke to the wife of a naval officer, who last month accused her husband of wife swapping. She said that the practice is common in the Navy. Defence Minister AK Antony has ordered an inquiry into the matter.
"It's very common in the Indian Navy. The thing is that everybody doesn't dare to file a case and now girls are coming and complaining. I am happy about it. Instead of tolerating every thing and becoming a part and parcel of wife swapping, it's good that they are coming and filing cases," the naval officer's wife.
Speaking about the Navy shielding its officers, the woman said, "Of course, they have to shield their names, they don't have any other way to save themselves. This is the only way to say that they have, a marital discord. In my case, I am so harassed. Navy is pressuring me, my husband is pressuring me to take the case back. But I have decided that I will not take the case back and that is why they are harassing me in each and every manner."
She also said that she would demand a CBI probe into the matter. "AK Antony has ordered for the investigation, but he should get the investigation report. Investigation is going in such a manner that I cannot get justice because the Southern Naval Command who are friends of the accused officers, they are ones responsible for carrying out the enquiry. I will file a petition in the Supreme Court asking for a CBI investigation and transferring the case to Delhi.
READ MORE

'US fighting proxy war with Pakistan in Afghanistan'

Posted by Admin On 0 comments

Book: Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back
Author: Bruce Riedel Pages: 230 Publisher: HarperCollins

“Those who want a more peaceful world,” wrote USA President Richard Nixon in 1971 about Pakistan, “in the generation to come will forever be in your debt.” Four decades later in 2009, Washington Post, staff writer Karen DeYoung wrote that President Barack Obama’s aim is to “destroy Al Qaeda in Pakistan”. (Obama Plans More Funding For Afghan War, March 27, 2009). Bruce Riedel, a high profile ‘Central Intelligence Agency’ official, who advised four American Presidents, tells that in Afghanistan US and its allied troops are fighting proxy war with Pakistan.
Pakistan is perhaps the only country in the world that negotiated its existence on table without any army or insurgency. Dismembered in 1971 Pakistan became a nuclear power after that. How many countries in the world can boost that? But for author Pakistan cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons because religious fundamentalism is taking root there. Really! Israel, a fanatic Jewish State, despite being surrounded by impotent regimes, can have nuclear weapons but Pakistan encased by belligerent neighbour cannot have it. When have fundamentalist Muslims leashed violence like World Wars.  Religious violence is an aberration.  The two monster imperialistic wars that were fought in the 20th century and which the States ironical call “Great World War” have not been questioned. Why are the wars of imperialism referred as “Great World War”? The Atom bomb was dropped not by a fanatic country but by secular Statist politicians. Yet the religion of Pakistan is a threat! Riedel, like most politicians, while defending the violence of their territorial State warn or advice Muslims not to indulge in religious fundamentalism. Muslim fundamentalism is being touted as the greatest danger on the earth. Yet he may not be able to answer why the former English Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has started tonyblairfaithfoundation.com after butchering millions of Muslims in connivance with US. Religion is dangerous only when Muslims start to follow the Islamic system rather than any model of governance.

Riedel, though, confesses that US is pushing for Pakistan’s exclusion from world community. It was US that pushed “India Israel military entente in 2000”, writes author.  He is also candid in admitting that India is willing for US intervention in Kashmir as America is in favour of status quo. And in the words of Riedel “Kashmir is not soluble in territorial terms.” He also admits that the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was murdered after she had entered into a deal with then President Pervez Musharraf at the instance of USA.

Riedel’s book is riddled with factual inaccuracies. Kashmir has a population of 7 million but not 4.7 million. Indian Parliament was attacked on Dec 13, 2001 not in 2000. He has blamed the attack on Pakistan where as the fact is that it is still unknown who attacked it. Same goes when he accuses that “Muslim mob” attacked a train filled with Hindu pilgrims at Godhra. A disputed claim which the Indian investigations rubbish themselves. Osama Bin Laden was deposed to Sudan not gone to self-exile, as Riedel writes. He further writes that American’s occupation was an “intervention in the Afghan civil war”.  Pakistan never ceded any territory of Kashmir to China, as alleged by the author. The author also alleges that Pakistan orchestrated the hijacking of Indian airlines in 1971. “What made the affair curious,” wrote Col Anil Athale, a former Joint Director of War History, Ministry of Defence, “was the fact that Ganga was one of the oldest aircraft in the Indian Airline fleet and was already withdrawn from service but was re-inducted days before the 'hijack'.” He writes further that surprisingly all the passengers were either Indian service personnel or their families. They were released without any pre-condition. Three months later India uses this pretext to mount operation against Pakistan and successfully dismembers Pakistan into two parts. The person who hijacked aircraft turned out to be a ‘Border Security Force’ trooper. He was helped by Indian intelligence agency to carry out this operation to lunch war against Pakistan (“Did India plant 1965 war plans? http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jun/02spec11.htm).  

 “Avoiding Armageddon” is another book in the long list, which sees Pakistan as a dangerous country. Dangerous: because it is an Islamic country whose majority is increasingly seeding toward Islamic system. Pakistan is dangerous for the world community because it is the only Muslim country that has nuclear bombs. It is dangerous for the world community that Pakistan has survived dismemberment and humongous competition from its largest neighbour. That is why Pakistan is being pasted with drone attacks. A number of insurgencies are being encouraged in Pakistan so that it is reduced to the level of Protectorate State, as envisaged by American Neocons. (Ralph Peters, “Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look”). From 1979 upto now Pakistan is continuously been engaged in war. The efforts to destabilise it have been going at full throttle, as Riedel confesses. 
READ MORE

Pakistan Obtain Authenticated Proofs of RAW Involvement in Pakistan

Posted by Admin On 0 comments


Intelligence Agencies of Indian RAW, Israeli Mossad and the Afghan NDS is engaged in terrorism in different parts of Pakistan, the Indian intelligence agency "RAW" giving financial support to the growing anti-Pakistan activities and terrorist. Supporting separatists in Balochistan as well as in terrorist activities in Karachi. Pakistani agencies obtained highly credible evidence of RAW's involvement in Pakistan. 

The RAW, Afghan intelligence agency NDS supporting separatist parties in Balochistan, and Baloch Republican Army (BLA) and the local FA's, not only through financial assistance but also giving them training in Nimroz and Kandahar terrorists training camps in Afghanistan. Special training is being provided in those training camps. 
They are sending these terrorists from Afghanistan to, India, UAE and European countries to made fake documents. Baloch separatist leader Brahamdagh Bugti's nearby commander Javed Riaz Gul Ahmed Bugti, has been given an Indian Visa with the name of a Afghan businessmen. Riaz Gul Bugti met Indian intelligence officials in New Delhi and he suggested them that they must use the Baloch instructors for Baloch youth for military training. RAW and his Afghan intelligence officials also conducted courses for the Balochi language. 




 RAW has also made a wing on all international forums, to promote this separatist movement in Balochistan. RAW also using a political personality in Canada "Tariq Fateh" for this purpose. In Feb 2013 at (UNHCR) meeting Tariq Fateh also gave speech against Pakistan and he met with India "RAW" officers Vikram Sood and AS for this purpose. Pakistani intelligence agencies found proofs in Karachi terrorism, Balochistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan and those who committed acts of terrorism have been paid several million dollars. Pakistani intelligence agencies also checked social media Facebook and Twitter's fake accounts for this purpose to promote and upload videos of Baloch separatists movement in Pakistan.


Defence PK
READ MORE