REC  #2    HATONN

TUE., NOVEMBER 5, 1991  10:55 A.M.  YEAR 5, DAY 081

ANOTHER  CURRENT  TID-BIT

 

I would like to share a note given to me from yesterday: “I thought you and the Commander would be interested in these few tid-bits.

 

“I have a close friend that works for Walt Disney Records as an XXX (for privacy).  He said the Crisis Management Office of the Walt Disney Company issued a memo on October 1st listing items that people should keep at their offices just in case of a really major prob­lem—water, food, jacket, flashlight, etc.  The CM offices gets its direction from the State of California Of­fice of Disaster Services.

 

“This same friend’s wife works for the Universal Hilton Hotel in XXX (for privacy).  There is a meeting of some 60-people from the Civil Defense, F.A.A., and the White House checking in on Nov. 6.  Everything is very hush, hush!”

 

In addition, and this will be my projection since I fully intend to protect these ones completely: It is now required that in obtain­ing a baby’s birth certificate it is mandatory to file for a social secu­rity number for the child.  This year the requirement is for income tax purposes—begin­ning next year it will be a law for ALL NEWBORNS. 

 

Thank you for sharing this information, R., these become ex­cellent confirmations that the Elite KNOW what is coming down “in general terms”, if not fully.  I suggest you all take note of all these bits and pieces for the Elite and Government ARE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU ANY­THING!

 

 

CONTINUATION:  ISRAEL:  U.S.  FOREIGN

ASSISTANCE  FACTS

 

KEY  ISSUES

 

(1)  Should the United States increase Israel’s aid because of Iraq’s threats against Israel and the Persian Gulf crisis?

 

According to the press accounts, in the autumn of 1990, Is­rael requested an increase in mili­tary assistance from $1.8 bil­lion up to $2.5 billion per year, a doubling of the $100 mil­lion U.S. military stockpile in Israel to which Israel would have access in emergencies, early disbursal of the annual military aid so that Israel can invest the funds in U.S. Government se­curities and earn interest, weapons (F-15 and F-16 aircraft, patriot mis­siles, Apache heli­copters, and access to U.S. intelligence satel­lites) to balance arms being sold to Saudi Arabia, and canceling of Is­rael’s $3.32 billion military debt.  Congress provided $700 million worth of weapons scheduled to be removed from Eu­rope, a $100 million increase in the stockpile, and the early dis­burse (P.L. 101-513, signed on Nov. 5, 1990).  According to Israeli news sources, Israel requested $3 billion for war damages from Iraqi Scud missiles.  [H: There weren’t any “Iraqi” Scud missile attacks which did anything at all.  This was a mock at­tack—staged for this very benefit and to glean public sympathy.  I suggest that it worked very well.  Are you “Yous” waking up a bit?]  The United States provided $650 million in supplemental FY1991 ESF grants.

 

(2)  Should Israel’s aid be cut to allow the United States to provide assistance to the newly emerging democracies of Eastern Europe or Central America?

 

One congressional proposal suggested that Israel and several other countries should have their U.S. aid reduced by 5% (for Israel, a $150 million cut) with the proceeds used to finance aid programs in Poland, Panama, Hungary, Nicaragua, or other countries.  Proponents of the proposal point out that a few countries—Israel, Egypt, Philippines, Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, and others—receive the greatest proportion of U.S. aid, and can afford to take a reduction to allow other nations to receive aid.  Opponents state that Israel cannot afford to have its aid cut, and that Israel is a strategic ally of the United States.  [H: Funny thing—Don’t I remember that Bush just refused to even sign a short extension for U.S. unemployed?  I believe he said some­thing about “not wanting to impact the budget, etc.”  As long as the sheep-skin over the eyes works—IT WILL BE USED AGAIN AND AGAIN AS GOOD SHEEPSKIN DOESN’T WEAR OUT!]

 

(3)  Should the United States provide supplemental aid to Is­rael to settle Soviet Jews?

 

P.L. 101-302, the supplemental appropriation for FY1990, included $400 million in hous­ing loan guarantees and $5 million in additional refugee settlement funds for Is­rael to help Is­rael settle Soviet Jewish immigrants.  Accord­ing to press reports, Israel re­quested an addi­tional $500 mil­lion in grant aid for refugee settlement in October 1989, but the proposal was not introduced in legislation.  The Israeli newspaper Hadashot re­ported on Oct. 5, 1990, that Israel planned to request an additional $1 billion in loans from the United States for settling So­viet Jews.  Israeli radio reported on Jan. 22, 1991, that Israel re­quested an additional $10 billion over 5 years for settling Soviet Jews.  The Washington Post of May 6, 1991, reported that Israel formally requested $10 billion in housing loan guarantees over 5 years for settling Soviet Jews in Israel.  As is true of all U.S. aid to Israel, the housing loan guarantee and the refugee resettle­ment grants cannot be used by Israel in the occupied territories because the United States does not want to foster the appearance of endorsing Israel’s annexation of the territories without negotiations.  Is­raeli Foreign Minister David Levy stated in an Oct. 2, 1990, letter to Secretary of State James Baker that Israel would not use the housing loan guarantees in the occupied ter­ritories (which means that Israel would not use the funds in east Jerusalem).  Some Israelis claim that Israel should use the U.S.-backed funds in east Jerusalem, which they say is part of Israel.  [H: Note that the usual subterfuge is not even brought into play herein as it is so acceptable to simply utilize other funds for the building and substitute the new loans to other depart­ments.  It is the old “crossed finger” Kol Nidre at work in all its wondrousness!  Aren’t all of us “newly born-again, Yous” happy to find these tricks for getting that which we want?]

(4)  Should the United States use aid to extract political or foreign policy concessions from Is­rael?

 

It has been suggested that the United States should provide aid to Israel only if Israel takes actions or meets conditions in keeping with U.S. policies.  For example, the United States might withhold assistance unless Israel stopped establishing set­tlements in the occupied territo­ries, or unless Israel reversed its annexation of the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem.  U.S. Presidents and Secretaries of State have rejected applying such conditions to U.S. aid to Israel, and Israeli leaders reject such conditions as a violation of their sovereignty.  [H: Sovereignty?  WHERE IS YOUR SOVEREIGNTY—YOU-THE-PEOPLE?]  (In 1953, the United States withheld an aid payment to Israel until Israel stopped a water diversion project which violated a U.N. demilita­rized zone.)

 

(5)  Should the United States attach economic conditions on aid to Israel?

 

Opponents of attaching economic conditions suggest that Is­raeli officials are capable of making the changes needed to re­store the economy, and that any such outside interference is a violation of Israeli sovereignty.  Proponents of conditions sug­gest that Israel should demon­strate its capability to implement austerity measures before aid is given to Israel.

 

(6)  Does special treatment granted to Israel set precedents for other countries?

 

As pointed out in the June 24, 1983, General Accounting Office (GAO) report, U.S. Assis­tance to the State of Israel (GAO/ID-83-51), favorable treatment given to Israel may es­tablish precedents for other U.S. aid recipients and may be detrimental to the United States.  Israel’s supporters justify the unusual treatment accorded to Israel because of the special rela­tionship between the United States and Israel and because of Is­rael’s unique economic and po­litical sta­tus.  [H: What in the world would this mean?  What kind of special relationship would they be speaking of?  Do you treat your Mormon or Catholic “states” in this won­drously generous manner?  Think again!  I dare say that you “YOUS” are NOT treated in this fashion at all!  I believe I witness YOU YOUS paying for all this “special relation­ship”.]

 

The GAO list of precedents includes:

 

— Cash flow financing: Israel is allowed to set aside FMS funds for current year payments only, rather than set aside the full amount needed to meet the full cost of multi-year purchases.  GAO believes that cash flow financing creates a commitment to furnish aid in future years at a level sufficient to meet the future payments.  Egypt and Turkey now use cash flow financing.

 

— FMS loan repayment waiver: In 1974, President Nixon suggested that loan repay­ments be waived for Israel.  From 1974 until 1984, the United States waived repayment of part of Israel’s annual FMS, and since 1985, has waived repay­ment of the total FMS.  The waiver avoids es­tablishing a program and personnel to oversee the program if the same amount were given as a Military Assistance Program grant.  Egypt and Sudan also have received loan repayment waivers.

— ESF cash transfer:  The United States gives all ESF funds directly to the Government of Israel rather than under a specific program.  There is no accounting of how the funds are used.  [H: Isn’t this just the most handy way of doing business that you YOUS could imagine?  This is getting the stuff for the cake, having you make the cake and icing, enjoying the cake as col­lateral for more cake, eating the cake, and having you pay them for you to clean up the mess af­ter supplying all in­struments for the baking, the oven and the silver­ware!  Does this strike any of you YOUS as a bit unbalanced?]  (Well, not to be too harsh—”Israel does send an annual let­ter describing U.S. exports to Israel compared to the ESF amounts.)  A num­ber of other nations receive part of their ESF as cash transfers, but not un­der such flexible conditions.

 

— FMS offsets: Israel receives offsets on FMS purchases (contractors agree to offset some of the cost by buying compo­nents or materials from Israel).  Although offsets are a common practice in commercial contracts (countries dealing directly with U.S. firms), GAO said offsets on FMS sales were “unusual” be­cause FMS is intended to sell U.S. goods and services.

 

— Early transfers: In 1982, Israel asked that the ESF funds be transferred in one lump sum early in the fiscal year rather than in four quarterly installments, as is the usual practice with other countries.  The United States pays more in interest for the money it borrows to make lump sum payments.  In March 1985, an A.I.D. official estimated that it cost the United States between $50 mil­lion and $60 million to borrow funds for the early, lump-sum pay­ment.  IN ADDITION, THE U.S. GOV­ERNMENT PAYS ISRAEL INTEREST ON THE ESF FUNDS INVESTED IN U.S. TREA­SURY NOTES, according to A.I.D. officials in March 1988.

 

— FMS drawdown: Israel is permitted to draw down the grant (waived) portion of its FMS credits before the loan portion, thus delaying paying interest on the loans.  Usually, loans and grants are drawn down at an equal rate.  (As of Dec. 31, 1987, Israel had about $156 million in “unexpended” funds in its FMS ac­count.)

 

Another GAO report, Security Assistance: Reporting of Pro­gram Contents Changes, GAO/NSIAD-90-115 of May 1990, pointed out Israel’s unique FMS funding arrangements.  Other countries primarily deal with DOD for purchases from U.S. companies for U.S. military items, but Israel deals directly with U.S. companies for 99% of its military purchases in the United States.  Other countries have a $100,000 minimum purchase amount per contract, but Israel is allowed to purchase military items for less than $100,000.  According to the GAO re­port, Is­rael processed over 15,000 orders for less than $50,000 in 1989, with no DOD review of the purchases as would have been the case with other countries’ purchases.  Other countries have the U.S. Government disburse funds to companies directly, but the Israeli Purchasing Mis­sion in New York pays the companies and is reimbursed by the U.S. Treasury—[H: THAT MEANS “YOUS”, LITTLE ONES!  NOW IS THIS NOT A NEAT WAY TO GET THINGS AND THEN SIM­PLY HAVE THE BILL PAID BY UNCLE SUGAR DADDY?]

 

Apart from the precedents cited by the GAO, there are other unusual features of the Israel aid program:

 

— ESF, loan payment linkage: The continuing Appropriation for FY1985 (P.L. 98-453) stated that annual ESF aid to Israel be at least equal to the annual amount Israel owes the United States in payment on past loans.  [H: Please look at that again!]

 

— FMS for R&D: Israel asked for and received permis­sion for a “one-time-only” use of $107 million in FY77 FMS funds to be spent in Israel to develop the Merkava tank (prototype com­pleted 1975, Merkava added to Israeli arsenal 1979).  Israel asked for a similar waiver to de­velop the Lavi ground-attack aircraft.  In November 1983, Congress added an amendment to the FY1984 Continuing Appropriation (P.L. 98-151) that al­lowed Israel to spend $300 million of FMS funds in the United States and $250 million of FMS in Israel to develop the Lavi.  Be­tween 1983 and 1988, Congress earmarked a total of $1.8 billion (through FY1987) for the Lavi.  GAO reported in January 1987 that the United States provided $1.3 billion of $1.5 bil­lion Lavi development costs between 1980 and 1986.  On August 30, 1987, the Is­raeli cabinet voted to cancel the Lavi project, but asked the United States for $450 million to pay for can­celed contracts.  The State De­partment agreed to raise the FMS earmark for procurements in Israel from $300 million to $400 million to pay Lavi cancellation costs.  For each fiscal year 1988 and 1989, Israel received $150 million for U.S. and $400 million for Israeli procurement of “advanced air­craft”.

 

— FMS third-country sales: FMS funds are intended to be used to purchase U.S.-made weapons and equipment.  Israel has requested, according to press reports, that the United States permit third countries to use U.S.-furnished FMS funds to pur­chase weapons and equip­ment FROM Israel.  Proponents of the proposal say the third-country sales would help Israel’s arms in­dustry and benefit U.S. companies providing components to Is­rael.  Opponents say the sales would hurt U.S. arms industries competing with Israeli industries and that the United States would lose control over the kinds of weapons provided, the use of the weapons (for de­fensive purposes “only”) and the transfer of weapons to other countries.  [H: How many of you “YOUS” still believe you just experienced a “PEACE” CONFER­ENCE?]

 

— FMS for in-country purchase: According to reports, Israel has requested that part of the FMS funds (in addition to the Lavi funds) be transferred to Israel for Israeli defense expendi­tures and purchases from Israeli arms industries.  The Senate foreign Relations Committee set aside $250 million of the $1.8 billion FMS grant for defense procurement in Israel in the FY1986 for­eign aid bill.  The $300 million set aside in the FY1986 contin­uing resolution may be used for the Lavi or for other activities.  Since the Lavi was canceled on Aug. 30, 1987, the Is­raelis have asked that FMS funds for in-country purchases continue.  Israel received $400 mil­lion of the $1.8 billion FMS for use IN Israel in FY1988, $400 million in FY1989, and $400 mil­lion in FY1990.

 

— Multi-year commitment: Press reports say Israel has re­quested a multi-year aid commit­ment rather than a single-year program.  On Feb. 17, 1985, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz re­ported that the United States and Israel signed an agreement which guaranteed Israel $1.8 bil­lion in FMS grants for the next three years, FY1986, FY1987, AND FY1988. [H: Anyone ask you “YOUS” about this?  Surely you “YOUS” were given to know all about it, weren’t you?  My, my—doom and gloom Hatonn must be at it again!]  According to Haaretz, a clause in the agreement allowed Israel to increase its requests if the need arises.  Israeli officials confirmed that a “concurrence” letter in January 1985 set the FMS lev­els at $1.8 billion for FY1986, FY1987, and FY1988, but said that DOD suggested that Israel agree to the levels.

— Camp David aid parity: Egypt claims that it was promised approximate parity with Israel in U.S. aid.  If such a promise were made and if the United States keeps the promise, it is con­ceivable that Egypt will request an increase in aid com­parable to Israel’s request and may ask for additional benefits, such as third-country FMS sales, FMS funds for R&D, FMS in-country pur­chases, ESF loan payment linkage, or multi-year commitments.

 

— The foreign assistance appropriation bill signed on Nov. 5, 1990, provides for Israel to re­ceive the $1.8 billion in FMS in lump sum during the FIRST MONTH OF THE FISCAL YEAR, and that the funds BE INVESTED WITH ISRAEL TO RECEIVE THE PRO­CEEDS.

 

— THE APPROPRIATION BILL OF NOV. 5, 1990, ALSO PROVIDED ISRAEL WITH GRANT MILITARY EQUIP­MENT, VALUED AT $700 MILLION, TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM WESTERN EUROPE.

 

— The $400 million housing loan guarantee provided in P.L. 101-302 of May 25, 1990, waived the $25 million per country ceiling, waived the administrative fee, and waived the pro­vision lim­iting the housing to poor people.

 

(7) Are the charges that Israel has misused U.S. aid valid?

 

The United States stipulates that U.S. aid funds cannot be used in the occupied territories.  In January 1985, U.S. officials questioned Israel about reports that U.S. refugee resettlement assistance was being used to settle Ethiopian Jews [H: Ethiopian Jews?] near Hebron, on the West Bank.  According to the New York Times (Jan. 18, 1985), Israeli officials re­sponded that the Hebron processing center would not necessarily be the permanent home for the Ethiopians.  A Jerusalem Post report (Mar. 12, 1985) said the Ethiopians in Hebron were not recent immi­grants.  Over the years, a few Members of Congress have suggested that Israel may be using U.S. assistance to es­tablish Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, but be­cause the U.S. aid is given as budgetary support without any specific project accounting, there is no way to tell how Israel uses U.S. aid.

 

Also, the United States stipulates that U.S. military equip­ment provided through the FMS program can be used only for internal security or defensive purposes, and that U.S. weapons and equipment cannot be transferred to a third country without U.S. approval.  In 1978, 1979, and 1981, the executive branch notified Congress that Israel “may have violated” U.S.-Israeli agree­ments by using U.S. weapons for non-defensive purposes, and in 1982, the United States sus­pended shipments of so-called cluster bombs after allegations that Israel violated an agree­ment on the use of the bombs.  Israel maintains that the weapons were used for defensive pur­poses.  In 1982 testimony before Congress, executive branch officials said Israel trans­ferred U.S. arms to Iran and the “South Lebanon Army” without U.S. permission.

 

STOP QUOTING FOR THIS SEGMENT.

 

It is extremely elusive to me that you “YOUS” continue to insist on being deceived.  I can per­haps comprehend that “ignorance” is somewhat allowable in that you are not given facts—not even your government.  Note how often a Congressman will respond to a question with, “I only know what I read in the Post.”  The bigger the deceit and lie, the easier it is to pull off more of the same—but, YOUS, this is borderline ncredibility even at best—stupidity is proba­bly more suitable a description for your ab­sence of knowledge.  How long will you write your own slaugh­ter line-up?  WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE YOU OPEN YOUR EYES AND EARS???  TELL ME!  I AM TOTALLY SERIOUS—WHAT DOES IT REQUIRE??  YOU NOW HAVE PROOF AND YOU ARE SHOWN THE LIES FOR WHAT THEY ARE AND WHO ARE THE LIARS—WHAT DOES IT REQUIRE TO GET YOUR ATTENTION??

 

Let us take a break, please.  We will write again today if you are up to the task, scribe.  I re­alize you are “weary” and sick unto passage of the subject in point—but the ALARM MUST CON­TINUE TO BE SOUNDED!  SO BE IT.  BLESSINGS UNTO YOU WHO WILL LISTEN AND IN UNDERSTAND­ING—STOP THIS INSANITY.

 

Hatonn to clear, please.

 

fourwinds10.com/journals/pdf/J039.pdf

 

Feb. 23, 2011