Holocaust Day Backfires

By Gilad Atzmon

The UK Jewish Lobby is in a state of panic – the Holocaust Memorial Day boomerangs. If anything it turns the floodlight on the deeply problematic  inclinations that are sadly inherent to Jewish political culture and collectivism.

Last weekend it became clear that in the light of the crimes that are committed by the Jewish State in the name of the Jewish People, many Brits find it somehow difficult to genuinely empathise with Jewish suffering. If anything, it is the other way around, more and more people expect the Jews and their State to become more empathic.

The day before Holocaust Memorial Day, MP David Ward expressed his dismay with the lack of Jewish empathy. He wrote on his blog:

“I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”

MP Ward had to issue an immediate apology following some relentless pressure mounted by the ‘ non existent’ Jewish Lobby. In short, MP Ward and the British public were also privileged to examine the ‘imaginary’ Lobby performing one of its power pirouettes, bringing an elected British politician on his knees.

On Holocaust Memorial Day another shred of truth made it into The Times – a cartoon, by Gerald Scarfe, depicting Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu building a brick wall containing the blood and limbs of Palestinians, just as Britain was preparing itself to commemorate the Shoa.

The notorious ultra Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews was outraged.  It insisted that the cartoon was “shockingly reminiscent of the blood libel imagery more usually found in parts of the virulently anti-Semitic Arab press”.  Obviously it isn’t. The cartoon doesn’t refer to ‘the Jews’ or ‘The Jew’, it actually points at a specific brutal person who happens to be a war criminal as well as the Israeli PM. Moreover, the cartoon depicts the true reality of the Palestinians.  I guess that the Board of Deputies must be convinced that Israel and its politicians are beyond criticism, exactly what you would expect from a Jewish supremacist organisation.

Listen to JC editor Stephen Pollard celebrating his symptoms: http://youtu.be/wA7LwdTIBYI

As if this wasn’t enough, also on the Holocaust Memorial Day, The Independent reported that the Jewish State gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent. Israel isn’t just racist towards the Goyim, it is obviously White supremacist to the bone and discriminatory towards Black Jews. In the context of the Holocaust Memorial Day, the verdict is clear – the Israelis learned something in Auschwitz, but apparently not the most obvious ethical lesson.

I guess that those British Jews who came to their senses probably realised by now that imposing a Holocaust Memorial Day on the British people was a grave mistake. However, I am delighted with this commemoration day. It is indeed a very special opportunity we should all cherish.  Every year we will use this commemoration to remind Israel and its Lobby what we think of the Jewish State, its politics and its repellent operators in our midst.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Egypt: The Return of SCAF

A man walks near graffiti reading: “Leave Mursi , you are a murderer” after clashes between riot police and protesters opposing Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi, on Qasr el-Nil bridge, which leads to Tahrir Square, in Cairo on 30 January 2013. (Photo: Amr Abdallah Dalsh – Reuters)
Published Wednesday, January 30, 2013
On 28 January 2013, Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi delivered the cities of Port Said, Ismailia, and Suez to the military establishment on a plate of gold. When the president declared a state of emergency, it signaled the army’s return to the political arena, its gateway: the Suez Canal cities.

The media campaign against the Sinai can be deemed a success. News coverage caused residents of the Nile Valley to believe their region had transformed into Tora Bora. As such, justifications for deploying the military in its cities and streets were plentiful.

The Suez Canal, which is much more significant than the northeast borders of Sinai, is considered an integral part of citizens’ livelihoods. It’s also one of the most militarized of Egypt’s non-border districts, with the army exerting tremendous control over civil life.

For example, the military intelligence headquarters in Ismailia is a frequent stop of citizens in need of a variety of civil licenses. Furthermore, the canal’s district is home to the largest number of families whose members are officers and soldiers who settled in the area following the 1973 war.
Mursi made a big mistake by declaring a state of emergency in the entire canal district for 30 days. This move will only assist the military in its plans, especially since Mursi gifted the military the governorate of Ismailia, the most populated and diverse in the canal. This was despite the fact that the city did not witness widespread clashes or street wars like in Suez and Port Said.

From the view of military maps, Ismailia is a strategic point that links the two sides of the canal. With the military control of Ismailia, the Nile Valley would be separated from Sinai.

The military is now practically in control of three regions in Egypt; the civil state has no sovereignty. Mursi’s move was a complex strategic mistake that might cost him his presidency or, at the very least, many of his powers.

The military is now confronted with the challenge of bringing order to the streets of the canal and proving to the public that military rule is stronger and safer than Brotherhood rule.

Theirs is a golden opportunity to promote their model on a wide scale in reply to peoples’ needs for security. The announcement of a state of emergency could be the beginning of the end of the Brotherhood rule in people’s hearts.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

One disgruntled State Department official: “For nearly two years we have heard mostly about the downside of getting involved militarily in Syria,”


MEPGS: Excerpts: (Basically, today’s brief is “all Obama’s fault!”)

With his two new appointments as Secretary of State and Defense, President Obama, in the view of a number of veteran observers, has served notice that he will be reticent about employing direct force against anyone who is not engaged in or constitutes a direct threat to the US. “From a `Team of Rivals’,” says one former senior US official, “The President has now appointed a `Team of Lap D ogs’.” If there was any doubt that this was just one man’s opinion, the President made clear in an interview with The New Republic magazine that he could not justify greater military intervention in Syria, despite pressure from various parties including European allies. As he put it in the interview, “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?” Says one veteran US analyst, “In [Senators] Hagel and Kerry, the President has the perfect people to carry out a policy that devolves from `leading from behind’ to “farming out our military capabilities’.”
The practical implications of this new, improved version of, what, one analyst calls, “abandoning the role of a superpower,” can be most readily felt in Syria and by extension in dealings with Iran. Regarding Syria, many US and European officials believe it is already too late for the US to make a difference in the outcome of the civil war there. Saudi Arabia and even more so, Qatar, have provided the rebels with necessary weaponry until now, experts say, as the rebels are able to seize sufficient arms by taking over Syrian government warehouses and arsenals. “We are not in it, no matter the outcome,” says one US analyst. “We are irrelevant.”
Another criticism privately made by middle level US officials is that despite the endless meetings from the top [The President and the National Security Council] on down [a myriad of working groups], is that each and every meeting ends with no change in policy. “For nearly two years we have heard mostly about the downside of getting involved militarily in Syria,” says one disgruntled State Department official. “We were told that it would only lead to more violence and the rise of extremist forces. So we did nothing and all the bad things predicted have come true anyway.”
The Europeans are, if anything, even more frustrated with Administration inaction. “One year ago a simple series of air strikes would have dealt a crippling blow to Assad,” says one European diplomat, who argues that a “no-fly zone” was not required to ground the Syrian air force. Even as recently as last fall’s political meetings in Doha and Marrakech, where the August 12 coalition representing 90% of the opposition was in attendance, bold US follow-up with, at least funding, could have tipped the balance in Syria, say these diplomats. Instead, now, the consensus is that the situation on the ground will continue to slowly deteriorate. “There is no end in sight,” says one US official. “Other than a failed state.” This, in turn, predict US analysts will lead to increased instability among Syria’s neighbors, particularly Lebanon and Jordan.
So far, observers have considered it remarkable that both countries, especially Lebanon, have been relatively quiet. But another feature that concerns many analysts is the impact continued civil war will have on Iran and ultimately the one issue that could bring US military intervention, the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. … As one analyst put it this week, “Syria is beginning to look like a good playing field for Iran.”… More important, say those involved in the Iranian “nuclear file,” will be the increased perception in Teheran that the US is not meant to be taken seriously. Already, key US officials admit privately that, in the words of one State Department insider, “The Iranians are toying with us.” They have not responded to a number of entreaties to resume talks with the P-5 + 1 [US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China]. Some analysts thought that they were waiting until after the US election and hoped that a meeting in Istanbul in January would take place. But January is gone and according to informed sources, Istanbul is no longer a likely venue.
US and European officials are encouraged by the success of economic sanctions….
Iran may be the most “existential” threat to Israel, but it is not the only one that keeps its strategic planners busy. For that matter, their most important concerns, the safety of chemical weapons in Syria, stability in Jordan and the unfolding political crisis in Egypt are also shared by US officials. Egyptian President Morsi’s widely viewed “overreach” has resulted, says one US official in leaving a set of `checks and balances’ in the hands of people on the street. While Morsi continues with his plans to visit Paris and Berlin, European governments are less than eager to help his country’s faltering economy. While Qatar has chipped in several billion dollars in grants and loans, Saudi Arabia has failed to follow suit and, in any event, an internationally-led effort of much greater magnitude and discipline is necessary. Meanwhile, Egypt’s control of the Sinai weakens daily and the burden place on the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty – the cornerstone of US Middle East policy – nears the breaking point, say some State Department experts.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

"Sure, very sure, very very sure about that!"


“… RT: And what about Al Nusra group from Iraq? Are these people fighting for freedom and democracy as well?
GS: They are fighting for freedom and democracy, but maybe we will face some problem with them. Anyway, they are a small part of the revolution in Syria.
RT: But these people are recognized even by the French President as extremists and terrorists…
GS: All over the world you can find extremists, but they are not the real picture, only a small part of it (McClatchy’s & others beg to disagree!)

“… Syrian activists say the councils have become the subject of derision and mockery inside Syria in the weeks since and that other groups, including the al Qaida-linked Nusra Front, have assumed the central coordinating position… Those battalions, which include Nusra and another Islamist brigade, Ahrar al Sham, have been at the forefront of the fighting across Syria… Nusra is believed to have as many as 5,000 men under arms, and Sham is thought possibly to be larger, making the Islamist-led groups the largest fighting organizations of the multi-faceted Syrian opposition….”

RT: So you are absolutely sure that you’ll be able to control them, these peopleGS: Sure, very sure, very sure about that.
Though Sabra claims that extremists make up only a small number of the rebels and are easy to contain, historian Gerald Horne does not agree, and argued that a similar scenario played out in Libya.

“We are reassured by [the SNC vice president] that if dissidents come to power they’ll be able to handle the Al Nusra front, but the Libyan dissidents said the same thing when they worked with NATO in 2011 about toppling Colonel Gaddafi,” Horne said…”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Israel’s nuclear weapons

How Israel Offered to Sell South Africa Nuclear Weapons

Chris Mcgreal | The Guardian
May 24, 2010
Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons 
The secret military agreement signed by Shimon Peres, now president of Israel, and P W Botha of South Africa. Photograph: Guardian
The secret military agreement signed by Shimon Peres, now president of Israel, and P. W. Botha of South Africa. Photograph: Guardian
Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state’s possession of nuclear weapons.
The “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa’s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them “in three sizes”. The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that “the very existence of this agreement” was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of “ambiguity” in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa’s post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky’s request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week’s nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
They will also undermine Israel’s attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a “responsible” power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.
A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were “never any negotiations” between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.
South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.
The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials “formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal”.
Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, marked “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: “In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”
But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: “Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available.” The document then records: “Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice.” The “three sizes” are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.
Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel’s prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.
South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.
The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with “special warheads”. Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.
Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: “It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement… shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party”.
The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.
The existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.
Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.
Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. “The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date,” he said. “The South Africans didn’t seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime’s old allies.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Killing his people

President Mohamed Morsi was keen to allocate a paragraph in every speech regardless of the occasion – to talk about Syria and the need to step down President Bashar alAssad from power because he kills people

Morsi reiterated this paragraph, even in his speech on the occasion of Prophet‘s birthday one day before the ceremony January Egyptian revolution

صورة: ‏‎#Syria #News #freedom #Revolution  Syrian Truth l Arab Times - A point of view between Bashar Al Assad & Morsi  'President Morsi was making sure to allocate a paragraph in each speech he reads - disregarding the occasion - to talk about Syria and the necessity that Bashar Al Assad has to step down because he kills his own people... Morsi even repeated this paragraph in his speech he read on the occasion of the Prophet Muhammad Birthday just one day before Egyptians celebrated the January revolution anniversary.  Yesterday, before ink dried from Morsi's speech, Morsi's forces killed 40 young Egyptians and injured hundreds in different cities and towns in Egypt.  At least Bashar Al Assad can claim he's fighting foreign terrorists who own tanks, air to surface missiles, which was confirmed by the USA, UN and international organizations.. As for Morsi, his forces have killed pure Egyptian unarmed civilians not calling on him to step down, only asking to cancel decisions Morsi took unmatched in any other state in the world.  Don't be surprised if Bashar comes out in a speech tomorrow addressing his people... allocating a special paragraph about Egypt calling on Morsi to step down.. because he's killing his own people.'  By Arabi Souri  http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=471721626222463&set=a.168390429888919.41603.168381096556519&type=1&theater‎‏
And yesterday Morsi forces killed forty young Egyptians and wounded hundreds of people in various cities and villages in Egypt

اشتباكات التحرير

 جنازة ضحايا بورسعيد
At least Bashar alAssad can claim that foreign militants have been fighting with tanks and surfacetoair missiles, which confirmed by the U.S. and the United Nations and human rights organizations
Mursi Egyptian troops have killed civilian not clamoring for the resignation Mursi, but demanding to cancel the decisions taken by Mursi and unparalleled in any country in the world

So don’t be amazed if Bashar came out tomorrow to speak at the people adding paragraph about Egypt demanding the Mursi to step down …. For killing his people

وجهة نظر بعنوان بين بشار الاسد ومرسي
‏الأحد‏، 27‏ كانون الثاني‏، 2013
عرب تايمز – الافتتاحية

كان الرئيس محمد مرسي يحرص على تخصيص فقرة في كل خطاب يلقيه – بغض النظر عن المناسبة – للحديث عن سوريا وضرورة ان يتنحى الرئيس بشار الاسد عن الحكم لانه يقتل شعبه … وكرر مرسي هذه الفقرة حتى في خطابه الذي القاه بمناسبة عيد المولد النبوي قبل يوم واحد من احتفال المصريين بثورة يناير

ويوم امس – اي قبل ان يجف الحبر عن خطاب مرسي – قتلت قوات مرسي اربعين شابا مصريا وجرحت المئات في مختلف مدن وقرى مصر

على الاقل بشار الاسد يستطيع ان يزعم انه يقاتل مسلحين اجانب يمتلكون دبابات وصواريخ ارض جو وهو ما اكدته حتى امريكيا والامم المتحدة ومنظمات حقوق الانسان… اما مرسي فقد قتلت قواته مصريين اقحاح مدنيين وعزل لا يطالبون بتنحي مرسي وانما يطالبون بالغاء قرارات اتخذها مرسي ولا مثيل لها في اية دولة في العالم

لذا لا تعجبوا ان خرج بشار غدا ليخطب في شعبه … مخصص فقرة عن مصر يطالب فيها مرسي بالتنحي عن كرسي الحكم …. لانه يقتل شعبه

ماذا لو أُسقط حكم الاخوان؟

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

South Lebanon: Israel Admits to Stealing Land in Adaisseh

UNIFIL soldiers on the Lebanese-Palestinian border in Kfarkila. (Photo: Hassan Bahsoun)
Published Wednesday, January 30, 2013
A week ago, Israeli newspaper Maariv published an article titled “Kibbutz Lands Over Lebanese Border.” The story indicated that the management of the Misgav-Am kibbutz, a settlement located across from the Lebanese town of Adaisseh, “was informed by the Israeli interior ministry that a part of [the colony] falls on sovereign Lebanese territory.”

The ministry’s statement came in response to the kibbutz’s request to re-zone certain plots of land from agricultural to residential. The ministry said that the request would be considered following “the withdrawal towards Israeli borders and amending the Blue Line.”

It seems the enemy admitted that Adaisseh was confiscated by the occupation – with the collusion of the UN – when the Blue Line was demarcated following the liberation of South Lebanon in 2000.
This is the land where Israeli bulldozers uprooted what became known as the “Adaisseh tree.” That incident in the summer of 2010 led to a battle between the Lebanese army and its Israeli counterpart where soldiers Abdullah Tufaili and Robert al-Ashi, and Al-Akhbar’s correspondent Assaf Abu Rahhal were killed by Israeli fire.

The Lebanese state should raise the issue of occupied lands and reiterate the points of reservation during the drawing of the Blue Line, especially following this latest Israeli admission. This the least of what is expected of the state.

All the while, Israel, which today admits that the land where its soldiers are deployed belongs to Lebanon, recently protested at the UN a plot of flowers adjacent to the army point where the Adaisseh operation was launched, claiming it falls inside the Blue Line.

Adaisseh mayor Khalil Rammal took us on a long tour of occupied lands and the Blue Line. From the borders at Hounin and Markaba in the south, to Kfar Kila northwards, the enemy has stolen around 2,500 dunams (1 dunam = 1,000 square meters) of property since before the 1948 nakba in Palestine.

The mayor says that every time a demarcation was made, the town lost more of its land, beginning with the demarcation based on the the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1920, to the international demarcation of the borders between Lebanon and Occupied Palestine in the armistice agreement in 1949, and finally during the drawing of the Blue Line in 2000.

Rammal recounts the history of settlements since 1908, when the wooden settlement of Kfar Giladi was set up at the Adaisseh borders near the point now occupied by the Indonesian contingency of the UNIFIL.

Misgav-Am was set up in 1945 on a hill called al-Tayyara. Later, a military road was built and more land appropriated between al-Thughra and Abl al-Qamh and into Khalleh, Arabsalim, Dabsh al-Awjeh, al-Marj al-Faouqani, and Mussaisah, up until the 1978 Israeli invasion.

Rammal mentions that his father, who was mayor then, went to the governor of South Lebanon, Halim Fayyad, to complain about Israeli violations of Adaisseh, including tens of dunams with title deeds.

Fayyad relayed the message to the Lebanese government, which sent a complaint against Israel in Adaisseh’s name to the UN Security Council. He says his father told him that the Israeli ambassador in the Security Council claimed that “the appropriation of land is a precautionary measure. When Palestinian fighters withdraw, we will leave the land.”

Rammal says that the occupied territories amount to 2,000 dunams taken in 1948 and a further 1,200 in 1948. As for the Blue Line, Rammal maintains that the demarcation committee ignored Adaisseh and did not ask for the statement of the mayor or the inhabitants.

In this respect, a security source indicates that the borders at Adaisseh and Shebaa Farms are under reservation by the Lebanese government, which rejected the demarcation proposed by the enemy and UN Envoy Terje Roed-Larsen. He maintained that they were sovereign Lebanese territories.

What can owners of lands that Israel admitted to be Lebanese do?

Rammal says that the mission of the Lebanese government today should be to ask the UN to return the land, especially since the foreign ministry had requested from landowners, following liberation, to provide it with the deeds to send to the UN.

But the owners were never informed officially of the status of the dossier. One of them is Salim Hassoun, who inherited 15,000 dunams of land from his father, Abdul-Rahman Hassoun, who had in turn inherited it from his own father.

The grandfather had bought the land from Shaker Said through a deed registered at the Marjayoun Department in 1953. Hassoun says that the barbed wire and the Blue Line cut off his land, whose deed indicates the borders with Palestine.

Based on this, he will be using the Israeli admission to file a complaint against Israel to return his land, either to the UN or to Israeli courts.

However, informed sources say that Israel would never abandon the Misgav-Am hill. It’s one of the tallest along the southern border and Israel has installed long-range surveillance cameras looking into Lebanon and five military posts.

It should be noted that many of the lands liberated in 2000 are still not free of UNIFIL and Lebanese army roadblocks. These are agricultural lands whose owners have been prohibited from visiting since 1968 due to security concerns and the presence of mines – even though demining operations were completed three years ago.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

%d bloggers like this: