Parasites Which Take Over Their Hosts

Posted on 

The fact that Israel receives billions each year from the US taxpayer as our politicians in Washington endlessly pledge their devotion to the “special relationship,”  has led many observers to liken the pro-Israel lobby in America to a parasite that has invaded a host.

It’s a powerful analogy, so much so that even books have been published expounding at length upon the idea.

Most of us, when we hear the word “parasite,” think of such creatures as ticks, tapeworms, or giardia, which, upon gaining a foothold, may feed upon a host’s blood or gastrointestinal microbiota.

But within the world of parasitology, we come across the phenomenon of parasites that literally take over the host, compelling it into certain acts and behaviors that it otherwise would not exhibit. In many cases these actions can be quite pronouncedly detrimental to the host’s own interests.

In other words, there are certain parasites that can, strictly speaking, literally take control of the host’s mind.

Examples of this in the biological world can be found herehere, and here.

One such example is a microbial creature known as Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite that infects rats and mice. Upon ingestion, it produces a condition known as toxoplasmosis, the main symptom of which is that the rodent is drawn to cats, losing its natural fear of them. This occurs because the rodent, under the influence of the parasite, becomes sexually attracted to a pheromone in cat urine.

In inducing this effect, the Toxoplasma gondii is clearly acting in its own interests rather than the mouse’s. The parasite’s goal is to get inside a cat’s stomach–because cats are the only medium in which the parasite can sexually reproduce. But of course it produces a pattern of behavior in the rodent that eventually leads to the latter’s own destruction.

Another example is the Glyptapanteles, a genus of wasp that is classified as a parasitoid, a parasite that kills its own host. This wasp will single out a baby caterpillar and lay its eggs upon the rather hapless creature, and as the caterpillar grows, so do the eggs–inside the caterpillar.

When the eggs, or larvae, reach a certain stage of development, they will emerge from the caterpillar, literally boring through its skin, to reach the outside, and once out of the caterpillar they then settle nearby and begin pupation, i.e. the metamorphic transformation from a pupa to an adult insect.

It is at this point that the caterpillar becomes the protector of the wasp pupae. It covers them with silk in order to protect them until they reach maturity. It refuses to eat until they hatch, and if another insect approaches it will fight it away with violent head swings. Eventually, after the adult wasps emerge from their pupae, it dies.

The photo I’ve posted above shows such an enslaved caterpillar–one that has become obsessed with protecting the wasp pupae. The video below shows a similarly-situated caterpillar in action–basically fighting wars on the wasp’s behalf:

It’s of course one way of looking at America’s endless wars on behalf of Israel, particularly the war now taking place in Syria.

In a post yesterday I included a video which featured an edition of the RT program “Cross Talk.” One of the guests on the program is Mohammed Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran.  I usually find Marandi’s commentaries interesting, and his February 15 appearance on Cross Talk was no exception. In one segment of the show, he commented how “everything that the United States does in this region is about Israel.”

In a later segment in the same show, Marandi commented that “one wonders who is in charge in the United States.” He could perhaps just as easily have contemplated the question of who is in charge–the host or the parasite:

A bit earlier I alluded to a type of parasite known as a “parasitoid.” This is a parasitic organism that kills its own host. If we think of Israel and its lobby as a parasite, the question might leave us wondering, then, if the calamitous effects we are seeing in our country today are a result of the deleterious actions of a parasitoid.

Or maybe to put it another way: will the fighting of needless wars abroad and the seemingly endless attacks on the First Amendment here at home eventually do us in completely–much like the mice running up to befriend the cats or the caterpillars banging their heads on behalf of the Glyptapanteles wasp?

If you look at the caterpillars infected with the Glyptapanteles, the mice infected with the Toxoplasma gondii, or numerous other animals vitiated and contaminated by parasitoids, it is, as Marandi puts it, hard to know “who is in charge.”

This is something all Americans need to think about. Our own survival could be at stake.

Advertisements

Achieving a Palestinian Right Of Return

February 15, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

right-of-return-copy.jpg

By Eve Mykytyn

The Middle East Monitor reported this week that The Committee of the March of Return has announced that Palestinian refugees will start peace marches towards Israel to return to their homes. The Monitor quotes the Committee:

“The 1948 war ended 70 years ago and there is no reason that refugees should remain away from their homes…returning is your right…There is no longer any point in waiting for just political solutions that will return the refugees to their homes or prevent the occupation from settlement, land confiscation, repeated aggression and siege.”

For most Americans whose exposure to the conflict has been limited to Israel’s version, this may seem surprising. Zionists have been inordinately successful in controlling the narrative in the US. I can’t think of another conflict in which, for so long, the victors got away with blaming the indigenous people whom they ousted.

It may be that the only effective option the Palestinians have to regain their land is to return to their property. The act of reclaiming their property puts the lie to Israel’s claim that it was never Palestinian property to begin with.

Instead, under its law of return, Israel offers citizenship to all Jews, their spouses, children and grandchildren. This is a law like no other, since Jews are not defined by religion or place of birth; it is purely and openly race-based.

How can Zionism justify  taking  land from Palestinians and offering it to any Jew?  First there is the somewhat tortured biblical explanation. For the secular and political, the Zionist narrative relies upon the supposed nonexistence of Palestinians  and with Palestinians ‘running away’ and thereby somehow losing rights to land. (Presumably this logic does not apply to holocaust survivors who fought relentlessly to get back their assets.) Leaving aside the falsity of these allegations, even if true, do they really matter?  Seventy years ago and ever since, Israel has claimed land belonging to others.

A peaceful return by Palestinian refugees will likely disrupt the flow of Israel’s depiction of itself as the victim and place the Palestinians in their rightful place as the ousted owners of the land.

This is a dangerous situation. Nothing Israel has done in the 70 years of its existence indicates that Israel will voluntarily relinquish land to the Palestinians. We can assume that those who profited from stolen goods in World War II would not have returned a thing had those with ownership claims not asserted them. Similarly, and much more crucially, Palestinians have no hope to regain any of their property without asserting ownership.

I would not be so brave. There is no doubt that such Palestinian action will be met with violence. I’ve always wondered at the bravery of those who effect this kind of change. History is replete with scenes of masses of civilians fighting heavily armed soldiers. I wonder, how can their leaders urge them to battle when so many will die? I think I am beginning to understand. Their circumstances are such that change may never come about in any other way.

For years, Palestinians have protested by martyring themselves, attacking Israelis, joining the knesset, boycotting Israeli goods, etc. These techniques have had limited success. Palestinians have been ‘allowed’ ever decreasing freedoms and land. I don’t envy the Palestinians their battle.

The israel Lobby – an ‘Epidemic’ of Wholesale Corruption

Source

“It is political corruption on an epidemic scale, perpetrated by powerful figures from the worlds of gambling, share dealing and international banking: all conducted without any official or public scrutiny or inquiry.”

Oprah Winfrey in her powerful speech at the 2018 Golden Globes awards said that ‘Speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have’.

And the truth for America today is that our legislative assembly, the Congress of the United States of America and the US Presidency, have both been corrupted by the pro-Israel lobby to an extent that it impacts not only the life of every ordinary American citizen but also that of hundreds of thousands in states around the world.

The millions of dollars that are expended in ensuring that only those who profess allegiance to the Israel lobby will succeed in election to Congress is the defining practice that has corrupted American politics and successive White Houses ever since President Harry S Truman was persuaded by Bnai Brith to go against his natural instincts and to support a Zionist state in Palestine

Now, however, it has reached a peak with millions of dollars from casino profits having been used to swing the last presidential election for Trump in exchange for a promise from him to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city, in defiance of the will of the United Nations which has declared the Holy City to be an international metropolis with free access to all faiths, in perpetuity.

A lot of water, guns, planes, bombs, missiles and American money has flowed under the bridge since then, totaling well over 100 billion dollars – enough to build and operate a new hospital for every city in every one of the fifty states of the Union!

The Israel lobby has a far-reaching influence on foreign policy concerning countries throughout the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the Americas – notwithstanding that it is an unelected political pressure group that operates through agents in major capital cities worldwide, from London through Paris, Berlin, Nairobi, Lagos, Dubai and Toronto to Buenos Aires, Beijing, Delhi and Melbourne who infiltrate national governments in order to promote its own political agenda.

The impact on global affairs is enormous – but no one person is ever held to account. It is political corruption on an epidemic scale, perpetrated by powerful figures from the worlds of gambling, share dealing and international banking: all conducted without any official or public scrutiny or inquiry.

The first political act of any US President in recent times is not to appear before their electorate but to address a meeting of AIPAC,  a powerful, pro-Israel, unelected political pressure group. That one fact speaks volumes and says everything on how democracy in America has been subverted for the benefit of a single political entity acting for a foreign state.

When Theodor Herzl envisaged a Jewish Homeland to end centuries of antisemitism, it was an altruistic vision. Today’s reality of the Likud/US Zionist Movement is a sombre indictment of personal greed and ambition that has the reverse effect.


Source: Global Research 

A Clean Break from israel (What America Needs Most)

A Clean Break from Israel (What America Needs Most)

” Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? 

Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.” [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online.]

Every time we do something you tell me Americans will “do this” and will “do that”. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.’ — Statement by the then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon in response to possible American concerns from cabinet colleague Shimon Peres about Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, during an October 2001 Cabinet Meeting. [Numerous Sources: Kevin Barrett from Veterans TodayWashington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, and others. Whilst the veracity of this comment is much disputed, it is in the considered view of this writer it is genuine. Either way, as the following will attempt to demonstrate, the proof is in the pudding as it were.]

‘I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily; move in the right direction. They won’t get in the way’ — Comment by current Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu — presumably unaware he was being filmed — in a private discussion in 2001 about honoring the 1993 Oslo Accords. He stated he would put an end to “this galloping towards the 1967 borders”. Since a key plank of the Accords called for Israel to revert to the pre-1967 borders in Palestine, an individual in the group with whom he was discussing these issues expressed disquiet as to how the Americans might respond. The statement above was his unequivocal reply. [Source: 2016 documentary, Occupation of the American Mind — Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States.]

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” ― Voltaire (attr.)

—*—

Brief: America’s interminable meddling and interventions in the Middle East have wreaked havoc upon the region. Although the U.S. is the principal curator of the chaos, it seems more people are beginning to recognize it’s the region’s resident hegemon Israel that’s been the real driver of the turmoil and violence that defines the Middle East. Greg Maybury reports on what may be the most portentous geopolitical issue of our time.

 

— A Trout in the Milk —

Although not in the manner of its original intent, Winston Churchill‘s axiom ‘Truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies’, seems purpose built for framing a debate involving one of the most contentious issues of the day — this being the realities of the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Indeed, whether related to the historical hard truths behind the affiliation or the contemporary bonds that underpin and define it, we come close to inverting the original intent of Churchill’s observation.

Moreover, in deliberating on the always-contentious measure of influence Israel exerts on America and the concomitant state of play within and across the Greater Middle East deriving from that influence, we might also invoke Henry David Thoreau’s droll maxim, ‘Some circumstantial evidence does exist, such as when we find a trout in the milk’. As we’ll see, both aphorisms have singular relevance to our discussion going forward.

Some preliminary background though is necessary to prepare readers for the road ahead. The assassination in 1995 of then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a right-wing Jewish extremist hastened an early election in 1996 after which the uber-hawkish Likud Party assumed office. This elevated estimable hardliner — and Zionist poster-boy of the U.S. neoconservative cabal — Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, to the premiership.

Although not unexpected, for both Israel itself and its relationship with the U.S., Rabin’s assassination and the occasion of Bibi’s subsequent rise to power was a game changer, but possibly not in ways many might’ve imagined, regardless of whether they were Likud supporters or not. By availing ourselves of the benefits of hindsight and from there reflecting on how much that “game” has changed, we can say there were indications of what was to come in the wake of Netanyahu’s ascension to power.

Shortly thereafter, an elite group of U.S. foreign-policy wonks concocted a manifesto for the new administration in Tel Aviv — expounded on herein briefly by Ray McGovern. It was called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. The membership of the “Clean Breaker” ‘club’ is notable.

It included neoconservative luminaries who would later take up important positions within the George W Bush administration. After 9/11, they went on to play forceful roles in the development and roll-out of its Greater Middle East policy, one whose disastrous legacy is still very much a work in progress.

According to Anti-War’s Dan Sanchez, the “Clean Breakers” — including leader Richard PerleDavid Wurmser, along with Douglas Feith and John Bolton and others — nominated Iraq first as a candidate for regime change. After Iraq, Libya and Yemen would then become ‘stepping-stones’ to overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria, with next on the list being the regional biggie of them all, Iran. As Sanchez says, the essence of the Clean Break manifesto went like this:

‘The weight of its strategic allies would tip the balance of power in favor of Israel, which could then use that leverage to topple the regimes of its strategic adversaries by using covertly managed “proxy forces” and “the principle of preemption.” Through such a “redrawing of the map of the Middle East,” Israel would “shape the regional environment,” and thus, “[Israel] will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them“.’ [My emphasis]

It was the Clean Breakers’ front man Perle (aka the “Prince of Darkness”) who throughout the ’90s was the chief carny-barker for regime change in Iraq, principally under the auspices of the now-defunct Project for a New American Century. Whilst serving as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a high-level Pentagon advisory committee, he was instrumental in the lead-up to war in Iraq in usurping foreign and national security policy in the George W Bush administration.

Sanchez reports, ‘9/11 paved the way for realizing the Clean Break, using the U.S. as a gigantic proxy, thanks to the Israel Lobby’s massive influence in Congress and the neocons’ newly won dominance in the Bush Administration.’

Though Perle himself appears to have gone MIA of late, there’s been no shortage during the Obama era of like-minded individuals still ‘redrawing the map of the Middle East’, a situation unlikely to change. And as we now know, the truth behind the real motives for the Iraq war — and by extrapolation we can safely say the same for all the other wars since then and those that might still be on the ‘drawing board’ — was accompanied by a battalion-sized “bodyguard of lies”.

This latter reality is one recently brought home to us once more with the release of the Chilcot Report in the U.K., even if Chilcot studiously avoided identifying the covert rationale for the war and the hidden motives of those who concocted it.

As for what Israel’s game plan for the Greater Middle East might be, it started well before Bibi and his Likud ‘Party-goers’ rose to power. We might first ask how did the Iraq invasion, the Carthage-like destruction of Libya, and the current war in Syria, fit into that game plan? In this Israel Shahak identifies the 1982 Oded Yinon Plan (OYP), called “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, as something of a precursor to the Clean Break strategy.

In other words, it was an earlier key marker for how the game plan was to play out, one uncannily resembling events that have unfolded since then and indeed, the present reality.

For his part, Shahak observed firstly that the OYP provided a blueprint for the Middle East for the then Zionist regime of Ariel Sharon, ‘based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states.’ To underscore this, the following brief summary of Shahak’s interpretation of the OYP is instructive:

  1. all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, [something which] occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking; [and that]
  2. a strong connection with neo-conservative thought in the U.S. is to be established and maintained, the aim being to make an Imperial Israel into a world power.

With this in mind, it’s the degree to which Israel under the ‘Likudniks’ has propelled these changes and how much it continues to do so to this day — overtly or covertly, indirectly or directly — that we are mainly concerned with herein. Of particular interest aren’t just the developments that Netanyahu’s ‘Notables’ in Tel Aviv and in Washington (the latter faction of which I’ve come to calling the “Beltway Bedlamites”) have themselves precipitated. It is the implications of these developments for the future that are of equal concern.

— Grabbing the Third Rail —

In revealing the ‘trout in the milk’ in all of this then, one of the most publicized and criticized efforts in recent years to attempt this was undertaken by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. According to one commentator, the publication of their 2008 tome The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy“set off a political firestorm.”

All this was despite the reality the book — itself a much expanded version of an earlier article published in 2006 in the London Review of Books because of the difficulty of getting it published stateside — offered impeccable documentation and measured, unimpeachable arguments in support of the basic premise — which was: The inordinate influence Israel exerts over the U.S. domestic political scene and especially over its foreign and national security policy.

After observing that the US-Israeli relationship is so unique it has “no equal” in U.S. history, they asked a profoundly important question, one even more relevant today: Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? 

They rightly surmise any such bond between two countries might be justifiably grounded in ‘shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives’. But as they argue, in this case neither of these purported rationales accounts for — nor we might add, legitimizes — the ‘remarkable level of material and diplomatic support’ that the US provides Israel. Nor does it account for the manner in which Israel has been able to corral U.S. public opinion in support of its cause, both points to which we shall return. To this they add:

‘[T]he thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the Israel Lobby. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country — in this case, Israel — are essentially identical.’ [My emphasis].

Now though additional context and perspective is useful at this point, the very nature of our subject matter necessitates it is thoroughly explored whilst being cautiously advanced. As we’ll see, the response to Walt and Mearsheimer’s book is ample evidence of the latter. Which is to say no matter how gingerly, well intended, or dispassionately it might be proffered, any critique of Israel is fraught with peril for those prepared to undertake the challenge.

Indeed, we might say it’s tantamount to an exercise in ‘grabbing the third rail’. This is irrespective of whether it’s related to Israel’s past conduct and present actions in the occupied territories and concomitant treatment of the Palestinians; the authority it wields over U.S. national security and foreign policy decision-making especially via academia, mainstream media, and various lobby groups and think-tanks; and/or the influence it exerts within and across the broad legislative and democratic process in America.

To be sure, the taboos associated with such critiques are many. The all-too-lethal accusation of “anti-Semitism” (a WMD of sorts, or ‘weapon of mandatory disparagement’), is frequently applied in knee-jerk fashion to those who simply call into question, leave alone criticize or condemn, the clout Israel wields, its motives, or its policies. We can never rule out of contention its easy application in such discussions.

Like so often happens when anyone simply questioning, much less openly challenging, the validity of official explanations of events (e.g. the 9/11 terror attacks, the JFK hit), or the rationale for the actions and conduct of various groups or states (e.g. the real reasons why many Muslims hate America and want to attack it, or why the U.S. really did invade Iraq) — after which they are promptly labeled a “conspiracy theorist” — the singular reality is that far too many otherwise intelligent, informed, and rational people far too frequently conflate criticism of, and opposition to, any/all things Israel, with “anti-Semitism”.

As Stephen Sniegoski observes in his 2008 book The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel,

‘The neoconservative support for and ties to Israel have been obvious. If a comparable relationship existed involving other peoples, there would be nothing extraordinary about pointing that out. Analysis of the role of ethnic groups in American politics is commonplace in political science and history and it is not considered evidence of hostility toward the groups being analyzed. For instance, political commentators do not hesitate to link Cuban-Americans’ goal of making the elimination of Castro a central element of American foreign policy with the fact that they are Cuban émigrés.’

Insofar as such responses go, when it comes to rational debate and informed discussion of some of the Big Issues in an open, democratic society, therein lays a very big problem. To the extent that such a mindset prevails in this milieu, we might argue this it is at its most prevalent in the citadel of free speech that is America. This is especially when we consider the parlous state of America’s mainstream media reporting on any number of those “Big Issues”.

Which is to say the “anti-Semite” appellation is often the first and last refuge of those who, whether Jews, Israeli citizens, or part of the diaspora, and even non-Jewish supporters of Israel, constantly seek for whatever reason to vindicate or justify that country’s actions and conduct, the aim to redirect, invert or distort the narrative, or prevent them speaking out about the real issues such “actions and conduct” raise. Again, not unlike the readily applied “conspiracy theory” epithet, this is a none-too-subtle — indeed, insidious — form of censorship, thought control, and enforced groupthink.

In this age of strident, uncompromising political correctness, to be sure then, in the ‘battle’ to establish one’s own unique brand of discrimination, prejudice or racist smear as the premium exemplar thereof — and, by extension, cement its place as the one that unfailingly attracts the most opprobrium when its adherents perceive anyone ‘guilty’ of any behavior or utterance however/whenever it might loosely be identified, arbitrarily defined and/or expediently applied — the appellation “anti-Semitic” has long since commanded ‘market leadership’ status. In the ‘marketplace’ of moral disapprobation, no other condemnation comes even close.

Either way, in his book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of Historyas the title suggests,Norman Finkelstein goes to some length to articulate this view: That anti-Semitism itself, and broader global opposition or even antipathy toward Israel — such as might be exemplified by the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions or End the Occupation movements — will prevail as long as Israel resists addressing current policies and tackling the consequences of them.

Of course it is in Palestine where these policies manifest themselves most obviously, destructively, and — for those willing to look closely enough — most criminally and reprehensibly. Finkelstein — a man notable for the fact he is a prominent Jewish intellectual who has been for some time now attempting to bring a measure of sanity, objective insight and coherence to the discussion of the issues at the heart of our narrative, to say little of the reality that he’s been pilloried by many for his efforts in doing so — notes that whenever Israel comes under international pressure to genuinely address then satisfactorily resolve the Palestinian question or faces some other public-relations debacle,

‘…its apologists mount a campaign alleging that the world is awash in a “new anti-Semitism“, the purpose of these periodic extravaganzas is not hard to find: on the one hand, the perpetrators are turned into the victims, putting the spotlight on the alleged suffering of Jews today and diverting it from the real suffering of Palestinians; on the other hand, they discredit all criticism of Israeli policy as motivated by an irrational loathing of Jews…’

It should hardly be surprising then that for their efforts Walt and Mearsheimer were subjected to a barrage of ad hominem criticism, even abuse, from the Israel Lobby and the broad spectrum of Israeli “apologists”, one that indeed is exceedingly “broad”. This included being called “liars”, “extremists”, “bigots” and of course, the de rigueur, all-purpose, one-size-fits-all “anti-Semitic” sobriquet.

It is a measure of the collective vehemence — to say nothing of the choleric incoherence of some individual critics — that they took the extraordinary step of countering the criticisms in a follow-up essay. Though this response was remarkable as much for the breadth of its coverage as it was for its length (it ran to about 35,000 words), by and large they stuck to their guns concerning the main premise of their book, and of course they are to be commended for doing so.

Yet for all the righteous indignation these authors attracted, if anything they were ‘pulling their punches’. Their book though might’ve been something of a watershed moment; increasingly more and more folks seem to be now speaking out about the vexatious issues that arise directly or indirectly from Israeli foreign and national-security policies with a view to bringing about change, and well might we say it’s not before time.

In these matters then such reactionary tactics employed to that end (subverting the debate and/or silencing dissenters by imposing upon them the standard, garden-variety groupthink), have well and truly passed their ‘use-by date’. This includes – a development as gratifying as it is encouraging — many Jewish individuals and groups, to which the number of such on Facebook and Twitter provide ample testament. (See here and here.)

The reality is that the “clout and influence” Walt and Mearsheimer identified has always been prevalent, even before Israel’s inception in 1948. Few objective observers would argue the following singular reality: Israel’s very creation would not have been possible without American support, a reality laid bare in Alison Weir‘s book Against our Better Judgment.

For her part Weir herself is another author who has attracted the eternal opprobrium of the Lobby and many neocons for daring to inform the American public of the true nature of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, and speak truth to the Zionistas power and influence and those simpatico with their agenda.

It is instructive to note that this occurred at a time when there was considerable opposition within the United States to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine (ironically, though not coincidentally, when America was held in especially high regard in the Arab/Muslim world), with many senior and influential figures in the then administration and the broad foreign-policy establishment — along with prominent Jewish figures such as Albert Einstein — envisaging the very problems that have plagued the region ever since.

But again this extraordinary power and influence has been especially prevalent — and for those looking, more evident — since the 1967 Six-Day War against Egypt, with further consolidation occurring after the Yom Kippur War of 1973. That these two events together did much to shape and consolidate the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Israel in general is a given.

They proved to be key turning points in the way the Washington establishment responded to Israel’s supporters in the U.S., in the main represented by the much-vaunted Israel Lobby. Significantly, they also served to strengthen Israel’s geopolitical hegemony and regional military supremacy.

That this state of affairs has compounded since the bloody carnage that characterized the 1982 War in Lebanon (the aftermath of which brought about a complete rethink in how Israel ‘told and sold’ its narrative and from there managed perceptions of its conduct and behavior, particularly in the U.S.), the First Gulf War and especially since the events of 9/11 and the War on Terror, is axiomatic.

— One Dangerous Ally (With Friends Like These) —

Though it would not normally be deemed necessary — at least not for reasonable, rational people concerned with the application of international law and respect for human rights or any other matters that go to the heart of the conflict — such is the nature of our subject matter herein, one feels compelled to stress the following: Any ‘gripe’ I might have is not now, nor has it ever been, with Jewish people per se. Irrespective of whether they are Israeli or American citizens or those within/across the broader diaspora, whether secular or otherwise, such ‘gripes’ are most definitely not with those who authentically identify with, or might have a legitimate claim on, their rightful heritage, whether it be cultural, religious, racial, regional and/or ethnic in origin.

But the political ‘heritage’ — and the historical baggage that comes with it — is an altogether different beast. This is especially as it pertains to Greater Israel and the contemporary reality of its past and present policies in the Greater Middle East.

And it’s not just the “reality” of those policies and how they are playing out that is of major concern here (along with the degree the U.S. itself is directly and indirectly complicit in facilitating how they do play out), it is the morality and legality. One might also want to ponder the necessity of it all, to wit: What is Israel’s ultimate endgame in Palestine and in the Greater Middle East?

For many the answer to this question is patently, indeed, frighteningly, obvious! The Clean Breakers’ as we have already noted were not shy about setting out their stall therein.

Yet by the same token, it is also vitally important we consider the Palestinians and their own cultural, religious and/or ethnic heritage — to say little of everything else such as their basic human, moral, property and legal rights — that’s been denied, rescinded or destroyed by successive Israeli administrations (a process that began before Israel’s inception) with the tacit support of successive US administrations.

Who’s standing up for them, we might ask?, this being the 64K-shekel question! It’s not Jewish people in general or Israelis in particular who require folks standing up for them; they seem to be quite capable of looking after themselves.

All of which is to say, however such views might be interpreted by anyone outside an otherwise objective frame of reference, one’s views on Israel such as they are and its connection to, and relationship with, Zionism (that is of course the aforementioned “political” dimension), are necessarily based on what are the policy realities and outcomes.

These are especially those to do with the inordinate, manipulative, and pernicious influence that AIPAC and its numerous affiliates, sympathizers and supporters in both the US and beyond, along with the hard-right neoconservatives — many of whose leading lights are either dual US/Israeli citizens, evangelical Christians (of the extreme ‘end-times’ kind, some of whom identify with Zionism or as Christian Zionists), and/or sundry apologists for Israel — have on US foreign and national security policy in particular. This, to say little of the influence they exert on the overarching democratic process.

Either way, there can be little doubt that both the George Bush and Barack Obama administrations were/are heavily influenced by any number of powerful special-interest groups, not least the Zionist dominated, neo-conservative cabals, as already noted, in cahoots with the media ‘opinionocracy’, sundry think-tanks, along with countless perception managers and merchants of doubt who append themselves to any cause in the untrammelled, unprincipled pursuit of the filthy lucre irrespective of the morality or legality of the issue.

Though ‘Jewishness’ itself — however it might be defined as it is something of a moving feast — is not a necessary condition for being neo-conservative and/or Zionist, a not-insignificant number of prominent neocons identify themselves as Jews if not avowed Zionists (many by all accounts with dual citizenships and, by definition, potentially conflicted loyalties), and are inarguably the most forceful and influential of any discrete group.

Then there is the exorbitant (some might say extortionate) amount of aid and support in all of its variant forms that America provides Israel, the no-strings-attached largesse of which no other nation in the world comes within a country kilometer. This is a reality indisputable for all but the most politically myopic or reality impaired.

The recently renegotiated Israel aid agreement by all accounts is more favorable than ever, despite the additional reality there appears to be little love lost between Bibi and his minions, and the Obama administration. Indeed, this time round, Netanyahu — a man not averse to wearing his chutzpah on his sleeve — was not shy about demanding even more aid from Washington.

Doubtless, these demands will be met with renewed forbearance if not equanimity when the new administration is sworn in next January, irrespective of who is the POTUS.

— A Highly Successful Act of Hypnosis —

For those folks predisposed then to questioning — or doubtful about the broad content of — the narrative herein, they may wish to watch the recently released documentary The Occupation of the American Mind — Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States. Narrated by Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters, himself a vocal opponent of Israeli policy, this powerful and timely film provides a much needed ‘tonic of truth’ to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. After viewing this film, anyone with any illusions or uncertainties about who the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ are in this interminable standoff will — unless afflicted with an incurable case of cognitive dissonance — be disabused of all of the above in one fell swoop.

As the film’s title suggests, the narrative therein delivers an essential insight into the inordinate power and influence — along with the self-serving duplicity, mendacity and unalloyed hypocrisy — of the Israel Lobby. It also provides us (if indeed one is needed) another exemplar of how America’s elected representatives so poorly serve their primary constituency, and we might say their country’s own national interest! Just as significantly, it serves as a no-punches-pulled indictment on the venality, irresponsibility and double standards of the corporate (mainstream) media establishment in the U.S., especially in the way it unfailingly caters to special-interest groups at the expense of truth, balance, and integrity in their reporting of the Big Issues. To be sure, of all the “Big Issues”, they don’t come much bigger than the Palestine-Israeli conflict, and of all the so-called “special-interest groups”, few come much more “special” than the Israel Lobby.

(In addition to the film itself, I recommend readers take time to watch an extended interview conducted by Paul Jay of the Real News Network with Waters and the film’s producer Sut Jhally. It contains many of its own revealing moments, and is a superb complement to the film proper.)

By way of summary, the following is apposite. In relation to the Palestinian question alone, for this writer Israel has over the years forfeited vast chunks of the seemingly inexhaustible moral capital it accrued — whether solicited or unsolicited — as a result of revelations about the Holocaust, and AIPAC and its institutional ilk for their part have been instrumental in facilitating this outcome. As indicated, these of course have all been ably abetted by the MSM and the so-called “Friends of Israel” who we might say ‘overpopulate’ Capitol Hill and the broader Beltway.

Likewise, for its part Israel — and the principal drivers past and present of its own overarching narrative and its trajectory since its inception in 1948 as a newly formed national entity in the aftermath of the Holocaust — had a ‘heavy-duty’ moral obligation to present to the world at large an historically unprecedented example of how a civilized, authentically liberal nation populated by a peaceful, just, lawfully minded, empathetic people, itself one built on the very notion of an inarguable recognition and acceptance of inviolable, universal human-rights principles — might conduct itself in the modern age on the world’s stage. To say Israel has singularly failed — or refused — to live up to these expectations is a statement of epic, nay in this case especially, heroic, dimensions. Just ask any of Israel’s ever growing coterie of vociferous critics!

Moreover, if as some people seem to think that anti-Semitism is on the rise, to the extent this might be true then there can be little doubt much of it, if not most, is fuelled by the policies of the very country that purports to act in the interests of all Jews. For his part Steven Spielberg is one such notable who recently mused on his own ‘naiveté’ in thinking that anti-Semitism was a thing of the past. Yet on this point, we might have all thought apartheid was also similarly consigned. But as the record clearly shows, it is in Palestine under Israeli occupation that that other “A-word” – like anti-Semitism, a brand of discrimination and disenfranchisement at least as equally repulsive as it is loaded — is alive and kicking as it were. It’s uncertain if the acclaimed director of Schindler’s List reflected much on the latter consideration before publicly airing his misgivings on this score.

If anti-Semitism is any more pernicious, or for that matter more prevalent, than any other form of racial, ethnic or religious bigotry, intolerance, prejudice and/or animus (and this writer is not one inclined to this view), then right-thinking, fair-minded Jews — in particular those with a strong sense of individual morality and common decency towards those not just of their own ethnic, racial, cultural or religious persuasion, but to the people who’ve been mercilessly and relentlessly hounded out of their homes and homelands and upon whom extraordinarily vile and inhumane injustices have been perpetrated and atrocities visited in their name — ethnic cleansing bordering on genocide — have an inarguable obligation to stand up and be counted.

More than that, as the presumptive representative of the interests and ostensible defender of the rights of Jewish people generally, Israel had an historical opportunity to present itself as such and act accordingly. The benefits of doing so would’ve been incalculable to its prestige and stature as a nation and as a people, [to] the Middle East region, [to] America itself, to say nothing of the rest of the world. From there then we might well opine that anti-Semitism, to all intents and purposes, may have finally been — and rightly so — consigned to history’s trash bin. And whilst it may not stop the spread of terrorism in its tracks, few would argue that doing so would take the wind out of the sails of many a jihadist — potential or active — bent on suicidal retribution against Israel, its principal benefactor America, and the West in general. Yet it seems tragically on all the above counts, that ‘train’ may have already left the station.

In the final analysis, in the matter of Israel’s criminal treatment of the Palestinians along with the tragic and bloody history that has brought things to this point, the following conclusion appears inescapable. It must be one of history’s greatest ironies that the very people who identify themselves as history’s most persecuted, vilified and discriminated ethnic, racial or religious group, has been perpetrating — and continues to do so — upon another ethnic, racial and religious group, an equally inexcusable, reprehensible form of persecution, vilification, and discrimination. This is especially so in an age when many of us might rightly have expected such treatment of one group of human beings by another group in such a gratuitous, prolonged, violent fashion would simply be unacceptable to civilized nations and civilized peoples. Yet in much the same way the U.S. blithely courts deep-seated resentment, animosity and hatred — that is, anti-Americanism — from many peoples and nations as a direct consequence of its own disastrous and destructive foreign policies over several decades, so too does Israel have no-one else to blame for any rise in anti-Semitism.

If Israel cannot then make a “clean break” from its past and present policies, then America — along with those nations broadly supportive of said policies and approving of their conduct, including my own country Australia — needs to make a “clean break” from them. This will I believe be the only way the country is ever likely to come to its senses, and from there begin the long hard process of recognition, renunciation, reconciliation and restitution. By necessity and by definition, this should involve the following:

  1. recognition their actions, behavior and conduct defies all legal, moral and ethical standards and norms and that it is not longer acceptable to the international community;
  2. renunciation of the hegemonic goals and ambitions identified in the Clean Break strategy, the Oded Yinon Plan, and similar manifestos such as The Likud Charter;
  3. reconciliation with not just the Palestinians but their neighbors in and across the Greater Middle East; and
  4. restitution of sorts that fully compensates those who have lost the most from this conflict and redresses the transgressions of the past.

I can think of no more fitting coda to the narrative herein than to quote from an acceptance speech the English playwright Harold Pinter delivered when he received his Nobel Prize in literature in 2005. In reference to the lies we were told about the Iraq invasion, and from there intoning that ‘the truth is something entirely different, [which] is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it’, he continued with the following:

‘Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, [and] ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified. But my contention here is that the U.S. crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognized as crimes at all. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the U.S. have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.’

With Pinter’s withering indictment ringing in our ears, one might substitute Israel here in place of — or indeed for that matter, down there alongside — America.


Source: Pax Amerikana

America: A Military Nation

Source

Written by Jacob G. Hornberger

undefined

Americans like to think of their country as different from those run by military regimes. They are only fooling themselves. Ever since the federal government was converted into a national-security state after World War II (without a constitutional amendment authorizing the conversion), it has been the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA that have run the government, just like in countries governed by military dictatorships.

Oh sure, the façade is maintained — the façade that is ingrained in all of us in civics or government classes in high school and college: that the federal government is composed of three co-equal, independent branches that are in charge of the government.

But just a façade. It’s fake. It’s a lie.

It’s true that the federal government used to consist of three branches. But that quaint notion disintegrated when the federal government was converted to what is known as a “national-security state” after World War II. Even though it was done without a constitutional amendment, that conversion effectively added a fourth branch of government to the federal government — the national-security branch, which consists of the NSA, the CIA, and the Pentagon.

The addition of that fourth branch fundamentally altered the original three-branch concept, especially because the fourth branch quickly became the most powerful branch. The reason is because ultimately government is force, and the fourth branch is where the most force was concentrated within the new, altered governmental structure.

As law professor Michael Glennon has pointed out in his book National Security and Double Government, the result is a federal government in which the military, the CIA, and the NSA are in charge. They are the ones actually calling the shots. But they permit the other three branches to maintain the façade that they are in charge, including periodically going along with decisions in the other three branches to keep Americans thinking that everything is the same as it always has been.

Consider the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s torture center, prison, and kangaroo tribunal system at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They set that up with the aim of establishing a place to hold people and do whatever they wanted to them, without any judicial interference. Guantanamo was a dream-come-true for the military and the CIA. Like most conservatives, they had long lamented those “constitutional technicalities” that let people go free. If only America stopped coddling criminals, we could finally establish order and stability in our land. Guantanamo was going to be their showcase, their model for the United States and the world for dealing with criminals.

That model, as we now know, entailed kidnappings, bounties, torture, indefinite detention, no criminal defense attorneys, denial of speedy trial, kangaroo military tribunals, use of hearsay evidence, use of evidence acquired through torture, denial of due process of law, and other violations of long-established criminal-justice procedures that stretch back to Magna Carta in 1215.

Contrary to what the Pentagon and the CIA and their acolytes within the mainstream press have long maintained, terrorism is a criminal offense, not an act of war. If you don’t believe me, go look up the US Code. That’s where all federal crimes are listed. You’ll see that terrorism is in fact a federal criminal offense.

Alternatively, go into any federal courtroom in the land where a federal criminal prosecution for terrorism is being held. Ask the judge why he’s holding such a trial. He will tell you that it’s because terrorism is a federal criminal offense.

The Pentagon-CIA torture-prison-tribunal center in Cuba didn’t change that fact. It simply meant that the CIA and the Pentagon were now getting into the law-enforcement business, which would enable them to punish people they were certain were guilty of terrorism.

Now, let’s turn to President Obama, the president who vowed to shut down this Pentagon-CIA model torture-prison-military tribunal facility. He made that vow at the very start of his presidency, if not before.

Obama was a two-term president. That meant 8 years in office. When Obama left office, he still had not fulfilled his vow. The Pentagon-CIA torture, indefinite detention, and kangaroo center at Guantanamo was still open. It still is.

The reaction of Obama supporters and the mainstream press? “Oh, poor President Obama. He meant well. He really wanted to shut down Guantanamo. He just wasn’t able to pull it off before his 8-year term ended.”

What?

Hey, this guy was commander-in-chief. No, not of the American people but of the federal government’s military and para-military forces. That means that he is supposedly the head honcho. As such, he gives the orders to everyone below him. In a military structure, the superior officer gives the orders and the subordinate officers obey and carry out the orders.

That means that all that President Obama, as commander in chief, had to do was issue an order to his military subordinates: “Close it down. Now!”

But that’s not what happened. The Pentagon and the CIA obviously would not let Obama issue that order. And he understood that if he did, it was a virtual certainty that they wouldn’t have obeyed it.

Then what?

Some Obama supporters say it was all Congress’s fault because Congress passed a law that forbade the president from bringing any Gitmo prisoners to the continental United States.

But Obama is president. He could have vetoed that law. And even if the veto was overridden, he didn’t have to bring any prisoners to the United States. As commander-in-chief of the military and the CIA, he could have simply said, “Close it down and release them all.”

After all, that’s how our regular constitutional system — the one whose principles the CIA and the Pentagon rejected — works. Government officials have to charge a person with a crime and try him within a reasonable period of time or they are required to release him.

The real question is: Why was Congress so intent on keeping Gitmo open, over the president’s objections? After all, keeping a US kidnapping-detention-torture-kangaroo tribunal center in place in a foreign country, over the president’s vehement objections, is not the type of thing that we would ordinarily expect from the elected representatives of the American people.

There is only one explanation that makes sense: That the national-security establishment told Congress that it wanted Gitmo to be kept open. We know that the CIA has assets in the mainstream press. We know they have assets in state and local governments, including police departments. It would stand to reason they would have assets in Congress, ones that they can call upon whenever necessary to protect the interests of the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA.

And there is also the matter of military bases, programs, and projects in the district of every member of Congress. Congressmen knew what would happen to them if they bucked the Pentagon and the CIA on Guantanamo. All that the Pentagon would have to do is announce a closure of major military bases or other facilities in that Congressman’s district. Immediately, the press would denounce him as an “ineffective congressman,” one who was incapable of bringing home the political bacon to his district.

What about the Supreme Court? Early on, they rejected the Pentagon’s arguments that they had no jurisdiction over Guantanamo. The Court held it did and said that the federal courts would entertain habeas corpus cases brought by Gitmo prisoners. The Pentagon acceded to the ruling but it was all part of the façade.

After all, given that there is no constitutional authorization for the federal government to have a bifurcated judicial system — one run by the federal courts and the other run by the military — the Court should have ordered an immediate closure of the facility and a termination of the kangaroo judicial system that the Pentagon and the CIA established.

Instead, unwilling to cross any red lines when it came to the national-security branch of the government, the Supreme Court has left Gitmo standing. That’s why dozens of prisoners have been held there for more than 10 years without trial and without the hope of a trial, much less a fair one.

Look the people who surround President Trump: US “Defense” Secretary: A general. National Security Council advisor: A general. Trump’s chief of staff: a general.

Think about those flyovers and all other glorification of the military and US sporting events and in US airports and churches and most everywhere else. Think about how so many Americans profusely thank the troops for protecting our rights and freedoms by killing people abroad who aren’t threatening our rights and freedoms. Think about how Trump wants to have “patriotic” military parades, which would undoubtedly feature the latest missiles, rifles, tanks, and planes.

Remember President Trump before the election? He was criticizing the Pentagon’s forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East. He was criticizing NATO and the UN. He was fighting a political war against the CIA. He was all for making friends with Russia.

Today? Trump is expanding the Pentagon’s forever wars. He let the CIA continue its decades-long secrets in the JFK assassination. He’s extolling NATO. And he’s imposing sanctions on Russia. Trump has been absorbed into the national-security establishment blob.

Consider Egypt or, for that matter, Chile under Pinochet. In Egypt, the military-intelligence establishment runs the government. Same for Chile under Pinochet. America’s system is not much different, at least not in principle. The only difference is that in Egypt, the military-intelligence role is overt, just like it was in Chile. Here in the United States, the role is more disguised, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches being permitted to have a fig leaf of ostensible control.

Welcome to America, one of the world’s premier military nations.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Trump’s Iran War Push is a Replay of Bush’s Iraq War Push

Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump’s Iran War Push Is a Replay of Bush’s Iraq War Push

undefined

The Trump administration “is using much the same playbook to create a false choice that war is the only way to address the challenges presented by Iran” as the George W. Bush administration used to gain support for the Iraq War. College of William & Mary Professor Lawrence Wilkerson presents this argument, along with abundant supporting evidence, in a Monday New York Times editorial.

Wilkerson should know. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson was chief of staff for United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose United Nations presentation regarding Iraq Wilkerson, at the beginning of the editorial, credits with boosting support among Americans for a war against Iraq.

Wilkerson, who is a Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Academic Board member, has frequently disparaged that effort to build up support for the Iraq War. Indeed, in the editorial he laments that “[t]hat effort led to a war of choice with Iraq – one that resulted in catastrophic losses for the region and the United States-led coalition, and that destabilized the entire Middle East.”

The consequences of a war with Iran would also be dire. Addressing some of those consequences in his editorial, Wilkerson predicts that “this war with Iran – a country of almost 80 million people, whose vast strategic depth and difficult terrain makes it a far greater challenge than Iraq – would be 10 to 15 times worse than the Iraq war in terms of casualties and costs.”

Read Wilkerson’s editorial here.

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

الجيش «الإسرائيلي» جبهة داخلية ولا حرب في الأفق والأمر لنا سلماً أو حرباً…

فبراير 5, 2018

محمد صادق الحسيني

«وجهتنا ليست إلى الحرب، لكننا سنفعل المطلوب لحماية أنفسنا».

هذا ما نشره الصحافي «الإسرائيلي» هيرب كاينون Herb Keinon على موقع صحيفة «جيروساليم بوست» الإلكتروني قبل ساعات ليقطع الشك باليقين…!

والكلام أعلاه لنتن ياهو والذي يأتي بعد كلّ الضجيج الفارغ لرموز حكومته البائسة وضباطه المتخاذلين…

كما قلنا نعيد ونؤكد أنهم أعجز من أن يشنّوا الحرب ضدّنا الآن لا في لبنان ولا في سورية، وقطعاً لا في إيران…!

ذلك لأنّ جيشهم الذي كان يُصوَّر بأنه لا يُقهر بات هشّاً ولأول مرة في تاريخه صار جزءاً من «الجبهة الداخلية» التي لا تتحمّل ظروف الحرب القاسية، كما يصرّح جنوده وضباطه!

وطبقاً لتحقيقات ميدانية يتمّ تداولها في بيوت القادة العسكريين والحكوميين، فإنه لم يعُد يوجد «صهاينة» في الجيش «الإسرائيلي»، بل جنود وضباط يُباعَون ويُشترَون على الحواجز وبثمن بخس، كما ينقل مسؤولون فلسطينيون كبار على احتكاك مع حكومة نتن ياهو…!

فلماذا إذن كلّ هذا الصراخ والضجيج الذي يبعثونه باتجاهنا..!؟

من المعروف أنّ أغلبية الصحافيين والمعلقين والمحللين السياسيين «الإسرائيليين» هم ضباط استخبارات سابقون يستقون معلوماتهم ويأخذون توجيهاتهم من قادة أجهزة الأمن «الإسرائيلية».

فعندما ينبري هؤلاء إلى تفسير تصريحات وزير الحرب «الإسرائيلي» والمسؤولين السياسيين والعسكريين وتهديداتهم للبنان ومقاومته ولسورية وإيران أيضاً على أنها ليست تهديدات بشنّ حرب، وإنما الهدف من ورائها هو منع شنّ هذه الحرب، فإنّ ذلك يؤكد أنّ الجيش «الإسرائيلي» غير قادر على شنّ اعتداءات جديدة على الأطراف المُشار اليها أعلاه.

ويرجع سبب ذلك إلى عدم قدرة الجيش «الإسرائيلي» على تحقيق الانتصار في هذه الحرب أولاً وإلى عدم قدرته على حماية جبهته الداخلية ثانياً. فمن المؤكد أن هذه الجبهة ستتعرض لخسائر هائلة في أي حرب مستقبلية نتيجة طبيعة هذه الحرب والقدرات النارية الكبيرة التي يمتلكها حلف المقاومة.

وهذا ما يفسر قول وزير الحرب بأنه لن يسمح لسكان بيروت بالاستجمام على شواطئ البحر بينما يقبع سكان تل أبيب في الملاجئ، أي أنه يُقرّ بقدرته على منع سكان بيروت من الاستجمام ولا يأتي على ذكر أي احتمالية لنصره في مثل تلك الحرب.

يُضاف الى ذلك أن القادة العسكريين والأمنيين «الإسرائيليين» على قناعة بأن مقاتلي حلف المقاومة سيتمكنون ليس فقط من إفشال أهداف العدوان وإنما بقدرتهم على تحرير الجليل وما بعد بعد الجليل، وصولاً إلى القدس المحتلة.

وما يؤكد هذه القناعة هو معرفة القادة «الاسرائليين» ليس فقط بالوضع المزري لجبهتهم الداخلية، وإنما هم على قناعة بأن وضع جيشهم لم يعُد يختلف عن وضع جبهتهم الداخلية، أي معرفتهم بأن جيشهم أصبح جزءاً من الجبهة الداخلية الهشة وليس جيشاً قوياً قادرًا على حماية هذه الجبهة. وهذا ما أكّده مؤخراً الجندي الوحيد الذي بقي على قيد الحياة من جنود قوة المهمات الخاصة «الإسرائيليين» التابعة لهيئة الأركان «الإسرائيلية»، الذين شاركوا في عملية الإنزال البحري وأبيدوا جميعاً في كمين أنصارية عام 1997. إذ قال هذا الجندي في مقابلة صحافية قبل حوالي أسبوعين إنهم واجهوا جهنم آنذاك وإن نيران جهنم هذه ستكون أشدّ بكثير بعد مرور عشرين عاماً على تلك العملية، وما طرأ من تزايد كبير لإمكانيات حزب الله العسكرية.

اما مناورات الجيش «الإسرائيلي» التي بدأت يوم أمس الاول في جنوب فلسطين والتي ستتواصل بالاشتراك مع وحدات من سلاح الدفاعات الجوية الـميركية المضادة للصواريخ في الأيام المقبلة والتي ستحاكي مواجهة هجوم واسع بالصواريخ على «إسرائيل» على أكثر من جبهة بعد أن تحوّلت منذ يوم أمس الأحد مناورات شاملة ، فما هو إلا تعبير واضح عن الخوف الذي تعانيه المؤسسة العسكرية «الإسرائيلية». كما أنه يمثل محاولة أميركية لطمأنة الجانب «الإسرائيلي» وإيصال رسالة له ولمن يعنيه الأمر بأن الولايات المتحدة مصمّمة على حماية «إسرائيل» وجيشها من الانهيار خلال الحرب المقبلة.

أي أن هذه المناورات ليست أكثر من استعراض للقوة بهدف إيصال رسائل معينة، ولكنها لا يمكن أن تصل الى حد وجود قدرة فعلية أميركية على تحقيق هذه الحماية، بخاصة أن 38 في المئة من إجمالي طائرات سلاح الجو الأميركي ليست في وضع يسمح لها بالقيام بمهمات قتالية، بسبب مشاكل في الصيانة. كما أن نصف الأساطيل البحرية الأميركية خارج الخدمة للأسباب نفسها. وهذا ما أعلنه العديد من المسؤولين العسكريين والأمنيين الأميركيين في وسائل الإعلام.

وحتى لو قامت الولايات المتحدة بتقديم الدعم الجوي والبحري لـ»إسرائيل» في مواجهة هجوم شامل لقوات حلف المقاومة، فمن هو الجيش الذي سيمسك بالأرض ويدافع عنها في ظل حالة الاهتراء التي يعاني منها الجيش «الإسرائيلي»؟ وهل الولايات المتحدة قادرة على إرسال ربع مليون جندي للقيام بهذه المهمة المستحيلة؟

ومَن قال إن المقاتلات الأميركية وقطع الأسطول السادس ستكون قادرة على تنفيذ أي مهمة قتالية، إذا قامت فرق الحرب الالكترونية لحلف المقاومة بتعطيل كافة أنظمة الاتصالات التي تعمل على تشغيل هذه الأساطيل الجوية والبحرية؟

ألم تقم «جهة مجهولة»، قبل حوالي الشهرين، بالسيطرة الالكترونية على كامل الأجواء الإسرائيلية وتمكّنت هذه الجهة من تعطيل كامل وشامل للحركة الجوية المدنية والعسكرية في تلك الأجواء مما اضطر الحكومة «الإسرائيلية» للإعلان عن إغلاق مطار تل أبيب وتحويل الطائرات الآتية الى المطارات القبرصية ولمدة تقارب الساعة؟

فماذا لو تحوّلت هذه التجربة عملية ليست محددة بسقف زمني، كما حصل في هذه المرة؟ كيف سيتم تأمين الغطاء الجوي والبحري لـ»إسرائيل»؟

لكل هذه الاعتبارات نقول إن تهديدات «إسرائيل» الأخيرة ليست أكثر من صراخ الخائف للاحتماء بصدى صوته غير الملموس والمتلاشي في الفضاء.

إنه الرعب والارتعاد الذي يعيشه حتى رموز النخبة لديهم من لحظة وثوب رجال الله إلى الجليل أو الجولان أو كليهما في آن. من هنا حديثهم الدائم للمراسلين الأجانب وآخرهم توماس فريدمان بأن جل جهدهم هو الحفاظ على الوضع الراهن، لأنه الأفضل من أي حالة جديدة مجهولة لا نعرف أفقها…!

وعلى الرغم من ذلك، فإن من المبادئ العسكرية اتخاذ كافة إجراءات الحيطة والحذر في حال قيام العدو، أياً كان، بمناورات وتمارين عسكرية سواء مثل الحالية أو حتى لو كانت على شكل مناورات أركان، أي مناورات افتراضية يتم تطبيقها نظرياً في هيئة الأركان.

الحيطة والحذر دائماً جزء لا يتجزأ من سياسة ردع العدو ومنع قيام الحرب، كما من قواعد الاستعداد لخوض الحرب في حال نشوبها..

إنهم الآن بالذات أوهن من بيت العنكبوت فعلاً…

وإننا الأعلى والأكثر إشرافاً على مسرح العمليات الحربية…

بل الأمر لنا، واليد العليا لنا في السلم كما في الحرب، بخاصة أنه بات لدينا من السلاح النوعي ما يُعمي بصر الكيان!

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: