‘Israel’ to Upgrade Fence on Part of Lebanese Border

Local Editor

After a Lebanese civilian managed to cross unnoticed into the ‘Israeli’-occupied territories last week, the Zionist War Ministry is set to begin installing a new fence along two stretches and a number of kilometers of the Lebanese border.

 

‘Israel' to Upgrade Fence on Part of Lebanese Border


The fence will be similar to what the occupation entity has on Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian frontiers.

One area is near settlement of Rosh Hanikra on the Mediterranean coast, and the other is near Metula. The two areas in the $28 million project have been deemed a top priority by the Zionist Northern Command.

The barrier is to be built in two segments of the Palestine-Lebanon border, the Zionist army and ministerial sources told Haaretz.

The plans call for a six-meter-high fence to be built in some sections, similar to what has been installed on the ‘Israeli’-Egyptian border, the Golan border and over 30 kilometers of the Jordanian border.

The fence is to be made of steel and barbed wire, and to be topped with razor wire, along with other technological solutions. In some areas, concrete walls will also be installed.

One officer who served near the Lebanese border called the existing border fencing “junk,” adding that the plans for the new fence were a key response to developments such as the establishment of the Hezbollah Radwan commandos, which will be able to fight in the occupied territories, not only in Lebanon.

Following last week’s infiltration, the army said a deputy company commander had been dismissed and disciplinary action had been taken against the sector’s company commander.

This came after an investigation revealed deficiencies in the performance of the forces in the area.

Four other soldiers will face disciplinary proceedings, though the enemy’s army did not give further details.

Source: Haaretz, Edited by website team

08-05-2017 | 13:16
Related Videos
Related Articles

Interview with Filmmaker Leila Sansour

Last month I put up a post on the film “Open Bethlehem,” and specifically I linked to a podcast discussion about the documentary that was posted by the folks at We Hold These Truths. Directed by Leila Sansour, the film deals with the apartheid wall now encircling the birthplace of Jesus and its impact upon the people who live there.

Sansour, who is a native of Bethlehem and whose father was a founder of Bethlehem University, was recently interviewed over BBC radio. In the interview she discusses why she left Bethlehem in her teen years and why she returned there to make the film she did.

If you would like to watch the full documentary, it is available here for a $4.50 charge. Below is a two-minute trailer.

 

You can also visit the Open Bethlehem website as well as Peace in Our Name.

No Ban! No Wall! No War?

As I watched the corporate news on demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban, I was struck by the fact that on-going wars in the Middle East were not mentioned. It was as if these refugees were fleeing Nazi Germany. No, they are fleeing the wars that we the American people have been waging against them for many years

It is a good thing to show compassion, declare our solidarity with Muslims, or to talk about our own immigrant histories, but we will fail to oppose Trump and make a real difference if we do not act against war and empire.

The corporate media avoids connecting our wars to Trump’s ban because war and empire is a matter of agreement among the political elites, an elite that the corporate media is very much a part of.  In a remarkable reversal of the Russian hacking story — which was broadcast constantly for weeks without evidence — the connection between war and refugees is patently obvious and glaringly absent.  What are they trying to hide?

If a new anti-war movement emerged from the resistance to Trump it would have the potential to shake the entire system. So the Democrats try to focus as narrowly as they can on Trump’s social and psychological pathologies while waiting to make up for their loses in the 2018 mid-term elections as the default party. The corporate media follows suit.

The anti-war movement of the Vietnam era was so powerful not just because of its compassion for others and moral condemnation of evil, but because it was a real political resistance movement that led people beyond the “liberal consensus.” The liberal consensus was a set of interlocking cultural norms and beliefs. It basic assumption was that  America was the supreme and exceptional leader of the free world.   The passage beyond conventional ways of thinking and acting occurred because being anti-war demanded a deep criticism of the established order both liberal and conservative.

Remember that the Vietnam war was fought by liberals like John F. Kennedy  Kennedy’s war advisors became known as the “Best and the Brightest,” a high powered  team of academic and industrial superstars that could, it turned out, calculate everything but understand nothing. Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated the conflict but was also the president that passed civil rights legislation on a scale that no other modern president has even dared. Liberal leaders like Hubert Humphrey and Edward Kennedy pursued the war as well.

Nixon won in 1968 largely because he ran to Humphrey’s left, as an anti-war candidate of sorts.  He returned the war to conservative leadership but, it was a conservatism  that would fit comfortably within the corporate wing of the today’s Democratic Party. Both Nixon and Hillary Clinton embraced Henry Kissinger who, seeking power like a missile seeks heat, has now gone over to Trump’s side.

It was the anti-war movement, against this basket of political icons, that crossed the threshold to a meaningful, principled opposition.  Two example will suffice to show just how deep it all went.

In April 1967 Martin Luther King rocked the civil rights movement and the nation with his first major speech opposing the war in Vietnam and linking war to racism and poverty. King crossed into revolutionary territory, stepped outside the liberal consensus, and became the leader of a movement for peace, racial equality and economic democracy. Let’s not forget that King was not a Democrat or a Republican. Leading up to the 1968 election, King supported dissenting candidates and even considered an independent run for president.

We must also recall the other truly revolutionary frontier crossed by American soldiers and veterans. In an unprecedented political movement, thousands of American soldiers and veterans opposed the very war they had fought in.

The leadership of the GI and Veteran anti-war movement were not reluctant draftees but rather gung-ho volunteers who were willing to risk life and limb to do the right thing. When the reality of combat in Vietnam dashed their high hopes they turned against war and empire. The military peace movement made history in ways no other peace movement could: soldier resistance slowed the war effort through direct action while the political resistance of the veterans challenged the symbolic and cultural foundations of the war.

The Iraq Veterans Against the War and the Veterans for Standing Rock continue this tradition.  The Vietnam Veterans Against the War took the same smears and attacks Tulsi Gabbard does today for her courageous acts against war.

Endless wars have been fought by Republicans and Democrats to secure oil and produce huge profits for major corporations. No wonder the media is silent on just where all these refugees are coming from.

Nothing captures the deception better than Madeline Albright’s claim that she will register as a Muslim given her bloody record of killing Muslims in Iraq.  Albright agreed with New Mexican Bill Richardson, that “the price was worth it.”  That “price,” according to former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and other observers, was the devastation of Iraq including the deaths of up to 500,000 people.

For us protestors, maybe its that war has been normalized. We started this cycle of conflict in the Greater Middle East in 1978 when we organized the Mujahideen in Afghanistan — the same rebels that would later become Al Qaeda and fight alongside of the “moderate rebels” we currently fund in Syria. We started bombing Iraq as far back as the First Gulf War in 1990. For many Americans these wars have been fought for their entire lives.

Trump’s war talk may or may not escalate beyond Obama’s rush to expand US military operations in Eastern Europe and Africa and invest a trillion dollars into nuclear weapons.  Trump is nonetheless challenging us to restart an anti-war movement that wages peace on many fronts: the Middle East, Iran, China, Mexico and the growing dangers of nuclear war.

Trump’s reckless provocations can only be answered by the renewal of a peace movement large enough to disrupt business as usual; by a peace movement that looks to soldiers and veterans for leadership; by a peace movement that understands, as Dr. King did, the deep connections between racism, war, economic exploitation, and now we must add, climate change.

Trump’s war plans, climate denial and support for big oil are a dangerous formula as it becomes increasingly clear that war and climate change are intimately connected. We will fail to oppose Trump and everything he stands for if we do not oppose war and empire.

No Ban! No Wall! No War!

Israeli Company Offers Its Services to Help Build Trump’s Wall

Posted on January 30, 2017

 photo wall_zpsve8wmakk.jpg

Israel-based Magal Security Systems Ltd. seeks this week to persuade officials in Washington to grant it a contract to take part in the construction of the wall the new US administration is planning to build on the American-Mexican borders.

According to Bloomberg News, Magal’s US-based Senstar branch will present its FiberPatrol product at a conference on border security which will be held on Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia.

Continued here

Trump’s Brand

by on November 25, 2016

Trump has been a very successful businessman, not so much as a builder but as a salesman. He sold the brand he created: himself, or rather, his name. It doesn’t matter how many or how few of his buildings he actually owns: the world knows them as Trump towers. The use of his name fetches large fees and a percentage of the profit.

Some of his campaign speeches, in which he talked about the wall he wanted to build on the South border sounded like the rehearsed spiel he must have always used: “It will be BEAUTIFUL! You’ll see.” He sounded confident because, justifiably, he trusts his own spiel based on the track record. It has worked well for him.

The brand he fashioned is recognizably American in spirit: “Bigger is better and biggest is best, and we are the biggest and the best” as well as Jewish: “All that glitters is as good as gold. Ostentation is good because too much of a good thing is wonderful.” Common to both is the belief that who you are is what you have and what you have is the measure of what you can do (and get away with):

 

His America is New York City,a milieu where he made deals with, became friends with, and was helped along the way by many Jews, and where his children married Jews, so it makes sense that he expects this symbiotic cooperation to not only continue but to be taken to a new level.

His ego leads him to expect being able to “best” them in the biggest deal of his life: his project of “making America great again.” In exchange he will give them, say, a completely free hand in Palestine and, as a lagniappe, deeper deregulations here and then, in banking and industry, to make America “competitive.” Israel is already offering help with his beautiful wall project:

“Trump’s Mexican wall a boon for Israeli security company.”
The Israeli company that has built high-tech fences along the country’s volatile borders is now trying to build a bridge to the Trump administration — hoping to use its experience to cash in on the president-elect’s plan to seal the border with Mexico. Magal Security Systems has been a major player in building high-tech fences and walls along Israel’s volatile northern and southern borders, as well as the massive separation barrier that snakes along the frontier with the West Bank. “We believe that the U.S. government is going to increase its security budgets in the upcoming years and definitely we look forward to take part in it,” the company’s chief executive, Saar Koursh, told The Associated Press.”

Mexico also sees his wall as a good business opportunity! Was he right or was he right?

Based on the Gestalt of his life experience he may well sincerely believe that what the nation needs (and only he can provide) is a refurbished “America” brand. One so tall, so big and so intimidatingly shiny that the world will respect it again.

Some have said that the reason his team was so completely unprepared on November 8 — no transition plan, no clearly defined responsibilities of his team, and a vaguely sketched cabinet — was that Trump himself did not expect to win. I don’t believe this. He is not the type who forges ahead prepared to lose. I think he rather regards such preparations as he does the teleprompter: useful but not vital. If not available, he can always improvise. He will appoint “experts” (e.g., Mnuchin has vast expertise in finances, does he not?) to run the various departments, and he will busy himself cutting “deals” with foreign leaders that will all benefit “America” and will pacify areas of conflict in the world. One such obvious unresolved conflict is Palestine-Israel and he is already sketching a solution, working closely with his friend, Netanyahu. It will be beautiful.

Unlike the Clintons, greedy psychopathic liars sold to the highest bidder, which happens to be Jewish Power, I believe Trump is not only sincere, but also a patriot by his reckoning. He is sincere in his belief that the brand not only sells the product, but is the product. He is also a patriot who wants America to be “America” again — the shining brand the whole world used to admire and fear (“nobody will dare to mess with us”) — but his patriotism is local: he is a New York City patriot.

Despite his professions of understanding and identifying with those whom Hillary Clinton stupidly called “deplorables”–  in rural America and in the devastated, formerly thriving industrial states (Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania) — Trump’s campaign visits there were the safaris of a New Yorker for whom civilization as he knows it ends west of the Hudson River. Beyond is another country and “they do things differently there.”

Trump did not “feel their pain,” as Bill Clinton used to lie; I believe he felt sincere compassion for the suffering of those he encountered, and a self-affirming, confirmatory delight at the warm reception his “tell it like it is” spiel received from them. He truly wants to alleviate their plight. He thinks he knows how, and is sure that his friends and long-term associates can help because they are deeply American too: NYC Americans, like him and, in final analysis, all “good people.”

All this is not to say that Trump’s presidency will bring no changes. Whether unwittingly or by sly intent to grab himself a heretofore ignored constituency, he has unleashed a deep national current of distrust, disgust and even hatred for the elites and the “lying media” that will not abate soon, and through his speeches has cut a large hole in the gag of political correctness.

Nationalism, specifically white nationalism, has gone from being viewed as the loony obsession of a few skinheads and survivalists packing ammo in Idaho and Montana to something now called a dangerous trend to be discussed openly (and excoriated, of course) on television and in the MSM. But there is another nascent change in the works: nationalism is being kosherized and defanged  to make it safe for the sensitive, oppressed minorities (among which white Americans are not included yet). With kosher nationalism handed down to them — a sort of papalist populism– white Christian Americans will be able to have their cake without eating it. Jewish luminaries are calling it “pan-ethnic nationalism” and are telling hand-shy white liberals (“progressives”) that it’s ok, it has the rabbinical stamp. Ironically it resembles the democrat slogan, “We’re stronger together.” “America” means diversity, they explain, otherwise it is bigotry and worse: anti-semitism.

The unexpected number of women who voted for the “horrid misogynist” indicates that feminism has passed its sell-by date. No dramatic changes are to be expected on this score, however, but perhaps a more laissez-faire attitude regarding jokes and language so far considered male chauvinist will prevail.

The over-reaching of pro-immigration/open borders activists has fed the flames of anti-immigration sentiment to which Trump’s wall project appealed. This will not diminish and will still demand a solution, which the wall itself, absent changes in immigration and labor laws and social benefits distribution, does not represent.

So political correctness will be eroded in some areas to the chagrin of feminists and pro-immigration advocates, and Hallmark will print more “Merry Christmas” than “Happy Holidays” cards this Christmas.

When all is said and done, was the election joust only a skirmish between two factions of Jewish power? One that was won by the more astute manipulators who saw the surf and decided to ride it rather rail against it?

For now Trump’s deep motivation and intentions are still a puzzle.

What is certain is that the immediate danger of war with Russia has been averted and that is no small thing. It remains to be seen how Trump conducts himself in his interactions with Putin and other world leaders (like the Chinese), and if they see him as Chauncey, the gardner in Being There, or if he impresses them and their productive exchanges lead to mutually favorable agreements.

I agree with those who believe we should give him a chance and wait at least six months after the inauguration. Nevertheless, as physics teaches us, initial conditions determine much of the course of any event/phenomenon, and in the cone of shadow they cast, small indicators at the narrow end of the funnel are much amplified at the other end.

“But what if he fails?” asks Paul Craig Roberts. He answers his own question thus:      “If Trump fails, the only solution is for the American people to become more radical.”

________________________

Note: I chose a few drawings by a pre-eminent New Yorker, Saul Steinberg, to illustrate this essay because they seemed highly apposite.

See Also

 

Pope Hates Walls–Unless They’re Made in Israel

 

popefrancis

You may have missed this. I did until a friend sent me a link to it a couple of days ago. Earlier this year, Pope Francis leveled criticism at Donald Trump over his proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border. The pontiff even went so far as to suggest that Trump, because of his desire to secure the border, couldn’t possibly be a Christian.

The bishop of Rome set off the tiff aboard the papal plane as he was flying home from Mexico, the country whose government Trump has made a scapegoat for all that ails the United States. And as Pope Francis found himself answering questions from reporters about Trump, he did not mince words.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis told reporters in response to a specific question about the presidential candidate, according to Reuters’ account. “This is not in the gospel.”

Asked by a reporter whether an American Catholic could vote for him, the pope demurred.

“As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he says things like that,” he said, before referring to Trump directly: “We must see if he said things in that way, and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

The above comes from an article that appeared on Politico back in February. The pope, of course, is well aware of the wall which Israel has built, but apparently he has nothing to say about that.

 photo wall_zpsve8wmakk.jpg

wallgraphic

Francis is not exactly a man of courage. Bashing Donald Trump is totally risk-free. Criticizing Israel, even its apartheid wall, which has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice, runs considerably greater hazards, and I guess the pope just isn’t up for it.

In responding to the comments, Trump called the Pope’s questioning of his faith “disgraceful.” In a way it’s hard to disagree.

“For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” he asserted. “I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President.”

He also said “they”–without specifying who he was referring to–are using the pope as a “pawn,” and suggested that Francis might have a change of heart were the Vatican ever to be attacked by ISIS.

If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians…

No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.

Who does Trump mean by “they”? I guess you’ll have to ask him that question. All I can really say is this: that while Trump has his faults certainly, it is pretty clear that the neocons, who are just itching to get a war started with Russia, would have far greater influence in a Clinton presidency than under a Trump administration. Maybe that should be of greater concern to us at this point than Trump’s demeanor toward women.

Gaza in Context… Watch it!!!

July 27, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

%d bloggers like this: