Breaches to the ’Israeli’ Security System

Source

Breaches to the "Israeli" Security System

Related Video

Related Articles

 

Advertisements

What Was Achieved in Singapore

16-06-2018 | 10:04
All eyes were on Singapore this week where world-class showman and US President Donald Trump took the stage for what was undoubtedly the most important performance of his life.

What Was Achieved in Singapore

In a meeting with his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-un that lasted just over 40 minutes, Trump reportedly managed to hammer out an agreement to denuclearize the entire Korean peninsula “very quickly”.

He then described his new relationship with Kim as a “special bond” and said that “people are going to be very impressed” by what the pair achieved.

Sure, it’s a far cry from Trump’s “fire and fury” days when he was threatening the North Koreans with total annihilation.

It’s also a departure from suggestions by Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton to apply the not-so quick “Libyan model” in the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

But some things have not changed. Sticking to the on-again, off-again approach when it comes to his diplomatic episodes with Pyongyang, Trump told reporters after the summit that he trusts Kim but may later say he “made a mistake”.

In substance, the summit communiqué is equally ambiguous. It is little more than a list of very generalized commitments and nothing that Pyongyang has not already agreed to over the past thirty years.

It offers no timetable or a definition of denuclearization – a term that was previously characterized by North Korea and the US in very dissimilar ways.

The National Director at the ANSWER Coalition Brian Becker, who attended the Singapore summit, believes that Pyongyang is “prepared to carry out the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula but only in exchange for a new policy from the United States.”

“Right now the world sees that North Korea was willing to make many efforts – four unilateral concessions in a row, including a moratorium on these nuclear missile technology tests. They are now waiting for reciprocation from the United States,” Becker adds.

Although the vague declaration does in theory pave the way for further negotiations, any long-term settlement between Washington and Pyongyang requires a painstaking years-long process.

That process would have to address a long list of issues, including the reunification of the two Koreas and the withdrawal of tens of thousands of American troops from the region.

To what extent Trump, his administration or anyone in Washington is truly willing to broach such matters is pure speculation.

But tensions along the Korean Peninsula are a prefect example of a decades-long geopolitical problem that cannot be solved without the participation of all key players including China and Russia.

Washington’s escalating trade war with China and growing tensions with Russia suggest that the Americans are not interested in any such overtures.

The dishonest broker

Unlike the vague pledges in Singapore, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was the product of 18 months of negotiations between seven nations and included specifics on denuclearization and verification.

Both were ‘historic’ events, and both played out before the lenses of the world media.

Unfortunately for all involved, Washington’s nuclear deals never last longer than one presidential term.

Trump ripped-up Barack Obama’s Iran deal. Obama killed Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who signed a nuclear disarmament deal with his predecessor George W. Bush. And Bush brings us back to North Korea, tearing up Bill Clinton’s nuclear deal with Kim Jong-un’s late father.

Journalist and political commentator Shobhan Saxena says that the “North Koreans have to be careful”.

“They should know whom they are dealing with because the Americans have proven again and again that they are not honest brokers of peace and they have failed time and again to keep their word,” Saxena explains.

In essence, all these agreements were little more than short-term strategies in Washington’s quest for hegemony.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and ratchet up tensions with Tehran also implies that the Americans will have to direct more recourses towards the Middle East.

As such, a temporary easing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula would certainly go a long way in guaranteeing that the US avoids a struggle on two fronts at a time when its power and influence are on the decline.

The domestic angle

The optics of the Singapore summit feed the narrative of a major diplomatic victory for the Trump Administration.

Trump, who desperately needs a win, will undoubtedly use the Kim meeting for domestic consumption.

His Republican Party is preparing for midterm elections, and the president needs them to retain their majority in Congress or he risks increasing his chances of being impeached.

Naturally, while waiting for the dust to settle, Trump will also be eyeing a second term in office.

With every White House policy decision being scrutinized, the incumbent will have his work cut out.

And having talking points about a ‘historic’ meeting – the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader – certainly helps.

Source: Al-Ahed News

See also: قمة ترامب كيم

The US proposal of demarcating borders in Shebaa Farms العرض الأميركي بترسيم الحدود في مزارع شبعا

The US proposal of demarcating borders in Shebaa Farms

يونيو 8, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Some Lebanese may want to interpret every movement at the international and regional level related to Lebanon for Lebanese reasons, some say that there is an international regional decision to protect the stability in Lebanon and some deny that. If there is such of a decision then it is a decision to protect the stability under the influence of the Arabs who support the American policies and who do not feel embarrassed to boast of the Israeli ones, and if there is not, then it is one of the repercussions of the “dilemma” in which Hezbollah put Lebanon due to its involvement in region’s wars especially the war in Syria. Those cannot see any positive point that Lebanon obtained from the wars which Hezbollah launched or participated in and led to the defeat of ISIS. Lebanon benefited surely from ISIS’s defeat, and its defeat has confused the American project and the Israeli aggression, and has its influence on Lebanon through the decrease of the level of the exposure to risks.

Some find it difficult to recognize that the Israeli readiness to negotiate on the sea borders in search for a compromise would have been possible without the weapons of the resistance and its announced readiness to destroy the Israeli oil and gas platforms; they want to link the staying of the US Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield in Lebanon with the prevention of the instability without granting the resistance and its weapons any role of imposing anxiety on the American  and the Israeli sides. Those also escape from linking all the American interest in Lebanon with the presence of the resistance and the degree of concern which causes to the entity of the occupation, but they remember this linkage immediately when there is a talk about banking sanctions to express their anger due to the presence of the resistance weapons and their effect on Lebanon and the Lebanese.

The Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri revealed the US proposal to negotiate indirectly on demarcating the land and sea borders with Lebanon including Shebaa Farms. This proposal comes in conjunction with the American seeking to link the settlement in the South of Syria with redeploying the (UNDOF) on the disengagement line between Syria and the occupation enemy in Golan after Israel has done its best to affect the stability on the Syrian front, and tried to build a security belt handled by Al Nusra front, and after it linked between its raids in Syria and the weapons of the resistance in Lebanon, it did not hide its bets on the availability of the opportunities of a comprehensive war on the resistance depending on its bet on a war of attrition which is supposed to be represented by the war in Syria on the resistance and its weapons. It is certain that if the Israeli bet was achieved and the resistance was under greater pressures because of the war on Syria, the US and the Israeli postponement would take place in the demarcation of the sea borders and putting the borders in Shebaa Farms under comprehensive solutions.

The seeking to fortify the front borders of the occupation entity and to end the unresolved files which may turn into a justification or a reason of tension and thus escalation, which Washington and Tel Aviv find it a source of concern from a confrontation that they do not want to wage and to take the risk of its consequences alone explains the US proposal to end the issue of Shebaa Farms.  This seeking results from the ongoing transformations on the Syrian borders and the new balances imposed by the victories of the Syrian Arab Army and the victories of the resistance in addition to the undeniable progress of the Iranian role. Therefore, Lebanon is owed the resistance regarding this transformation in the American and Israeli positions. This requires considering this new proposal a beginning to impose equations of negotiation from the position of force. The first obligations of this negotiation is the exit from the illusions and the dreams of some people who wanted to make use of such of these proposals to put the weapons of the resistance under the negotiation in order to grant Washington and Tel Aviv gains that do not aspire to achieve them.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

العرض الأميركي بترسيم الحدود في مزارع شبعا

يونيو 6, 2018

 

ناصر قنديل

– ربما يرغب بعض اللبنانيين بتفسير كلّ حركة على المستوى الدولي والإقليمي تتصل بلبنان بأسباب لبنانية، غالباً ما تذهب للقول إنه قرار دولي إقليمي بحماية الاستقرار في لبنان، أو العكس. فإنْ كان الأمر إيجابياً فهو قرار بحماية الاستقرار بتأثير المحور العربي الذي يقف مع السياسات الأميركية ولا يُحرجه التماهي مع السياسات الإسرائيلية، وإنْ كان سلبياً فهو من تداعيات «الورطة» التي وضع حزب الله لبنان في قلبها بسبب انخراطه في حروب في المنطقة وعلى رأسها الحرب في سورية. ولا يستطيع هؤلاء رؤية أيّ إيجابية ترتبت للبنان على الحروب التي خاضها حزب الله أو شارك في خوضها، وأنتجت هزيمة داعش، واستفاد لبنان حكماً من هزيمتها، وأربكت المشروع الأميركي والعدوانية الإسرائيلية وانعكس على لبنان ذلك انخفاضاً في مستوى التعرّض للمخاطر.

Image result for ‫الحريري وجعجع‬‎

– يستصعب البعض في هذا السياق الاعتراف بأنّ الاستعداد الإسرائيلي للتفاوض على الحدود البحرية بحثاً عن حلّ وسط، ما كان ممكناً لولا سلاح المقاومة وجهوزيتها المعلنة لتدمير منصات النفط والغاز الإسرائيلية، ويرغبون بربط إقامة نائب وزير الخارجية الأميركية ديفيد ساترفيلد في لبنان، مجرد إيجابية أميركية لمنع تدهور الاستقرار، دون أن يمنحوا المقاومة وسلاحها دوراً في فرض القلق على هذا الاستقرار من الجانبين الأميركي والإسرائيلي. كما يتهرّب هؤلاء من ربط كلّ الاهتمام الأميركي بلبنان أو بعض هذا الاهتمام على الأقلّ بأنه ناتج عن وجود هذه المقاومة ومدى القلق الذي تسبّبه لكيان الاحتلال، ويتذكّرون هذا الربط فوراً عندما يجري الحديث عن العقوبات المصرفية، ليعبّروا عن غضبهم مما يجلبه سلاح المقاومة ووجودها على لبنان واللبنانيين.

– كشف رئيس مجلس النواب نبيه بري عن وجود عرض أميركي للتفاوض غير المباشر لترسيم الحدود البرية والبحرية معاً للبنان، بما في ذلك مزارع شبعا، ويأتي هذا العرض متزامناً مع سعي أميركي لربط التسوية في الجنوب السوري بإعادة نشر وحدات الأندوف التابعة للأمم المتحدة على خطّ فصل الاشتباك بين سورية وجيش الاحتلال في الجولان، بعدما كانت «إسرائيل» قد رمت ثقلها لتخريب الاستقرار على الجبهة السورية، وحاولت بناء حزام أمني تتولاه جبهة النصرة. وربطت بين غاراتها في سورية وسلاح المقاومة في لبنان، ولم تخفِ رهانها على توافر فرص حرب شاملة على المقاومة، انطلاقاً من رهانها على حرب الاستنزاف التي يفترض أن تمثلها الحرب في سورية للمقاومة وسلاحها. والأكيد أنه لو قيّض للرهان الإسرائيلي أن يبصر النور، وأن تقع المقاومة تحت ضغوط أشدّ بسبب الحرب في سورية، لكانت المماطلة الأميركية الإسرائيلية في ترسيم الحدود البحرية ورهن الحدود في مزارع شبعا، كما في السابق، بحلول شاملة.

– السعي لتثبيت جبهات الحدود لكيان الاحتلال وإنهاء الملفات العالقة التي قد تتحوّل مبرّراً أو مدخلاً للتوتر وبالتالي للتصعيد، الذي باتت واشنطن وتل أبيب تريان فيه مصدراً للقلق من الانزلاق إلى مواجهة لا تريدان خوض غمارها، والمخاطرة بنتائجها المقلقة، وحدَه يفسّر العرض الأميركي بإنهاء ملف مزارع شبعا. وهو سعي ناتج حكماً عن التحوّلات الجارية على الحدود السورية، والتوازنات الجديدة التي فرضتها انتصارات الجيش العربي السوري، وانتصارات محور المقاومة، وتقدّم الدور الروسي بصورة غير قابلة للإنكار. وإنْ كان من أحد يدين له لبنان بهذا التحوّل في الموقفين الأميركي والإسرائيلي فهو المقاومة. وهذا يستدعي اعتبار العرض الجديد مدخلاً لفرض معادلات التفاوض من موقع القوة. وأوّل موجبات هذا التفاوض الخروج من أوهام البعض لاستثمار هذه العروض لإحياء أوهامهم وأحلامهم المرتبطة بوضع سلاح المقاومة على الطاولة، لمنح واشنطن وتل أبيب مكاسب لا تطمحان ولا تستطيعان الطموح لرؤيتها تتحقّق.

Related Articles

UN: Assault on Yemen’s Hodeidah Port could Cost 250,000 Lives

Source

 June 8, 2018

Hodeida strike

A long-feared assault on Yemen’s port city of Hodeidah by the Saudi-led coalition could cost up to 250,000 lives, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in the country, Lise Grande, said in a statement on Friday.

“A military attack or siege on Hodeidah will impact hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians,” she said.

“In a prolonged worst case, we fear that as many as 250,000 people may lose everything – even their lives.”

Yemen has been since March 25, 2015 under a brutal aggression by Saudi-led coalition, which also includes UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan and Kuwait, in a bid to restore power to fugitive former president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

Tens of thousands of Yemenis have been injured and martyred in Saudi-led strikes, with the vast majority of them are civilians.

SourceAgencies

Related Articles

 

حكاية إيران وكوريا مع أميركا وأوروبا: الجغرافيا السياسية تغيّرت مع الحرب السورية

حكاية إيران وكوريا مع أميركا وأوروبا: الجغرافيا السياسية تغيّرت مع الحرب السورية

مايو 29, 2018

– كشفت العنتريات الأميركية في الملف النووي لكوريا الشمالية هزال السياسة الخارجية والأمنية لإدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب، التي تلاقى مستشار أمنها القومي جون بولتون ونائب الرئيس مايكل بنس، على تبشيرها بالخيار الليبي، واضطر رئيسها ترامب نفسه لنفي التشبيه وثم الإصرار على بقاء التفاوض رغم الإعلان الكوري عن التشكيك في جدواه. وعاد فأعلن إلغاء القمة مع الزعيم الكوري بسبب الصدّ والممانعة الكوريين، ليعود فيوسّط رئيس كوريا الجنوبية ويرسل وفداً إلى كوريا الشمالية يتبعه وصول وزير الخارجية مايك بومبيو لتقديم ضمانات رسمية طلبتها كوريا للإبقاء على القمة، ويعلن ترامب مجدداً أنه يتطلّع لعقد القمة ويعد كوريا بالمَنّ والسلوى.

– بالمقابل بدت أميركا متشدّدة ومتصلّبة وفي منحى تصعيدي تجاه الملف النووي الإيراني، وصولاً لعدم سماع أصوات الاستغاثة الأوروبية بعدم تطبيق العقوبات على شركاتها ومصارفها التي ستبقى ضمن خط التعامل التجاري مع إيران من ضمن التزام الحكومات الأوروبية بالتفاهم الموقع والمصدّق عليه من مجلس الأمن الدولي برضا وقبول واشنطن نفسها، حتى عندما بلغت الأصوات الأوروبية حدّ التحذير من أنها ستنفرد عن أميركا وتصون التفاهم لم تلقَ إصغاء واشنطن، وترافق التصعيد الأميركي مع تهديد إسرائيلي متواصل وتصعيد محسوب ومتقطع على الجبهة السورية تحت عنوان الدعوة لانسحاب إيران وحزب الله، يرافقها طلب أميركي مشابه، وظهرت إلى العلن حملة عقوبات أميركية وخليجية ذات مغزى سياسي تستهدف حزب الله، رغم عدم قيمتها العملية.

– أمران جديدان على حسابات المحلّلين والسياسيين أظهرتهما الأيام، الأول لهاث أميركي نحو القمة مع زعيم كوريا الشمالية رغم فقدان المهابة بعد كل ما تعرّضت له القمة، وتمسّك أوروبي بالتفاهم النووي مع إيران والالتزام بتخطّي عقدة العقوبات الأميركية بما يُطمئن إيران لمصالحها بعدما حسمت أنّها تلتزم بالتفاهم بقدر ما يلبّي هذه المصالح. فهل هذه بدايات لتبلور مشهد دولي جديد، وهل بدأ زمن تفكّك الغرب الذي عرفناه تقليدياً بقيادة أميركية؟ وهل تلعب الجغرافيا السياسية التي جذبت روسيا كلاعب إقليمي لعبتها الآن مع أوروبا بعدما صارت أميركا لاعباً إقليمياً في شرق آسيا بقوة الجغرافيا السياسية ومفاعيلها ذاتها؟

– الأكيد أن زلزالاً شهدته العلاقات الدولية لا زال في بداياته، والأكيد أن الأحكام المسبقة أو التقليدية لا تصلح لفهم تداعيات هذا الزلزال، والأكيد أن تيويم الاستنتاجات والخلاصات يحتاج لمرونة في التفكير وتلقي المواقف وقياسها ومحاولة فهمها. ومَن يراقب التحوّل الذي شهدته التصرفات الروسية خلال ثلاثة أعوام منذ قرار التموضع العسكري في سورية وتحمّل تبعاته كقرار استراتيجي يحمل تحدياً واضحاً وعلنياً لما كان سائداً من قواعد رسمتها أميركا على الساحة الدولية عموماً، وساحة المنطقة خصوصاً، ويراقب تدريجياً ما أصاب الاتحاد الأوروبي من ملامح تفكك بدأت طلائعها مع الانسحاب البريطاني، وما لحق الاتحاد الأوروبي من ارتباك تجاه كيفية التأقلم مع العالم الجديد الذي يبدو قيد الولادة، سواء لجهة كيفية التعامل مع الحرب في سورية وعليها، أو في التعامل مع إيران، أو في التعامل مع روسيا، وما في كل ذلك من ارتباك وتذبذب، ومقابله العلاقات الأوروبية الأميركية، وكذلك مَن يراقب الانكفاء الأميركي العملي من ملفات المنطقة رغم بقاء ملامح انتشار عسكري وسياسي، انكفاء عبر عنه الانسحاب السلبي من التفاهم النووي الإيراني دون السعي لإسقاط التفاهم ولا الذهاب لحرب يفرضها أي مؤشر لعودة إيران لتخصيب اليورانيوم، وكذلك الانسحاب الأميركي من ملف تسوية القضية الفلسطينية، والاكتفاء بإعلان القدس عاصمة لكيان الاحتلال ولو كانت النتيجة تفجير مشاريع التفاوض ونقل الشارع الفلسطيني وقواه السياسية إلى حالة مواجهة بذلت واشنطن الكثير لتفاديها.. مَن يراقب كل ذلك لا بد أن يكتشف أن قواعد السياسة الدولية تتغيّر نوعياً، وأن ما جعل روسيا تترجم عالميتها بالتحوّل لقوة إقليمية في المنطقة، هو ذاته يجعل أوروبا كذلك، ويدفع أميركا بقوة الجغرافيا إلى خارج المنطقة، ويجذبها نحو التحوّل قوة إقليمية في منطقة أخرى يمسّها كل تحوّل فيها في الأمن والاقتصاد، هي شرق آسيا وليس ما عُرف بالشرق الأوسط، الذي بيقيها على صلة به التزامها بأمن «إسرائيل» وأمن النفط باتصاله بالحكم السعودي.

– عندما تقرّر واشنطن الانسحاب من اتفاقية المناخ والتخلّي بموجب ذلك عن دورها كقوة عظمى قيادية للعالم، فهي تقرّر العودة للمنافسة التي حرمها الغرب نفسه بقيادة أميركية في مرحلة الرهان على رفع أكلاف الإنتاج من بوابة منع تدمير البيئة، وفرض بقيادة أميركية شروطاً على الصناعات تزيد كلفتها تحت شعار حماية البيئة، وتمنح الغرب وصناعاته قدرة تنافسية أعلى، لتأتي واشنطن معلنة بانسحابها أنها عاجزة عن المنافسة بهذه الشروط وأن اقتصادها لا يحتملها، والمنافس هنا هو باقي دول الغرب في أوروبا وكل من الصين واليابان وكوريا الجنوبية في الشرق. وعندما تلحق واشنطن ذلك بقرارات متتابعة برفع الرسوم الجمركية على الحديد والصلب، وصناعة السيارات، وتليها بإعلان الخروج من اتفاقية «نفتا» التي تربطها بدول أميركا الجنوبية للأسباب ذاتها، فهي تقرّر الاحتماء وراء الجدران، جدران السياسة بالانسحاب من قيادة التسويات حيث لا جدوى من الحروب ولا قدرة على خوضها، وجدران الاقتصاد، بالانسحاب من التفاهمات التي شكلت اتفاقية المناخ وتشكيل منظمة التجارة العالمية، لضمان حرية انتقال البضائع، ذروة الحركة الأميركية فيها نحو العولمة.

– سقوط العولمة هو الاستنتاج الأهم الذي يحكم العالم اليوم في ضوء الزلزال الذي مثّلته الحرب السورية، وفشل السيطرة الأميركية عليها، وتبلور معادلات دولية جديدة بضوئها، تُعيد رسم مفاهيم الأمن القومي والاقتصادي للدول الغربية بصورة لا تتيح بقاء أميركا وأوروبا في ضفة واحدة، بل ربّما تؤسس لتقارب روسي أوروبي، وتنافس ومساكنة أميركية صينية، من موقع دور وفعل الجغرافيا السياسية والاقتصادية، في زمن باتت ترسم فيه البحار مناطق الأقاليم الجديدة، وفقاً لما تميّز بكشفه الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد بنظريته عن البحار الخمسة، التي تجعل روسيا وأوروبا وما عُرفَ تقليدياً بالشرق الأوسط وإيران وتركيا والخليج ضمناً، منطقة إقليمية واحدة، فالقضيتان الجوهريتان لأمن أوروبا هما النازحون والإرهاب، ومصدرهما زعزعة الاستقرار في الشرق الأوسط التقليدي. وهي زعزعة لا تزعج أميركا، وتضاف إليهما مخاطر مواجهة مع إيران التي تملك ترسانة صاروخية تقع أوروبا في مداها، وتتحمّل أوروبا لتفادي المواجهة فاتورة الانكفاء الأميركي لإدارة ملف إيران النووي بما لا يزيد درجة الخطر بذهاب إيران للتخصيب الخطير، بينما أولويات أميركا كورية وصينية، أمنياً واقتصادياً، فواشنطن في مدى صواريخ نووية كورية جاهزة، وتحت تأثير ديون تملكها الصين، وفي مواجهة منافسة اقتصادية قوتها المحورية تمثلها الصين وبنسب أقل اليابان وكوريا الجنوبية وأوروبا.

– هذا ما يفسّر الموقف الأوروبي المخالف لواشنطن في قضية القدس، وفي الملف النووي الإيراني، وفي ملفات ستتبلور أوضح تباعاً، كالحرب السورية والحرب في اليمن، وبالتالي تغليب أوروبا للغة التسويات على العنتريات والمواجهات، عنتريات يقودها كيان الاحتلال والكيان السعودي، ككيانين هيجينين لا تقرّر السياسة فيهما لغة المصالح، واحد لكونه مصطنعاً سكانياً بقوة الاستيطان، وآخر لأنه مصطنع اقتصادياً بقوة النفط، بينما ولاعتبارات الجغرافيا السياسية نفسها بدأ التحوّل التركي، ولو سار بطيئاً، فهو لن يعود إلى الوراء.

Related Videos

Related Articles

One Year On – The Truth About The Manchester Bombing Scorpion

C:\Users\user\Desktop\assad truth.png

The Saker

May 22, 2018

 

by Nick for The Saker Blog

“Terrorism is like a scorpion; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time”. Among the Western nations to discover the bitter truth of Bashar al Assad’s 2013 warning was Britain, when a Libyan suicide bomber killed 22 people attending a pop concert in Manchester. But while the UK media covered the May 22nd first anniversary of the massacre, not a single mainstream outlet so much as hinted at the fact that the attack was intimately linked to the attempt by the Cameron regime to use Jihadi terror as a weapon of foreign policy.

The truth emerged during the trial last December of Mohammed Abdullah, a Libyan national living in Manchester who was jailed for ten years for belonging to ISIS/Daesh.

Press coverage of the trial confirmed that Abdullah and his friends joined the terror group after fighting in Libya in 2011. But the same mainstream media carefully avoided the fact that the Manchester terror cell to which Abdullah, and his close friend Manchester bomber Salman Abedi, belonged was formed as a direct result of the British government and security services trying to use radical Muslims as weapons to achieve ‘regime change’ in Libya.

The Daily Mail was among the media outlets that reported on the conviction of Mohammed Abdallah:

“Footage has emerged of the jihadi linked to the Manchester Arena bomber fighting with militants in Libya before he tried to become an ISIS sniper.

“Mohammed Abdallah and his brother Abdalraouf were at the centre of a Manchester-based terror network which included Salman Abedi, who killed 22 at the Ariana Grande concert earlier this year.

“As unemployed former drug dealer Abdallah was jailed for 10 years today, footage showed him and his brother during a spell they spent in Libya fighting along militants in the country’s civil war.

“The brothers, who grew up in Manchester had dual Libyan nationality, joined the ‘Tripoli Brigade’ when the North African country fell apart in 2011.”

http://knightstemplarinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/tripoli-265x300.png

Hold it right there! Because the Tripoli Brigade was not some random bunch of Jihadi crazies. It was a part of the so-called National Liberation Army, the umbrella force organised to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. The NLA was the ground-force backed by none other than David Cameron, who turned the RAF into the air arm of the Islamist rebellion.

It was founded, organised and led by Mahdi al-Harati, a Libyan-Irish citizen. It was armed by the CIA, through the American puppet regime in Qatar. The brigade included officers who had lived most of their lives in English speaking countries including Ireland, Canada, UK and the US.

An article in Ireland’s Sunday World drew attention to relations between Mahdi al-Harati and an unnamed US intelligence agency.

According to the article on November 6, 2011, €200,000 in cash was stolen from al-Harati’s Dublin house a month previously.

The Sunday World reported that a criminal gang working the area found two envelopes stuffed with €500 notes during a raid on the al-Harati’s family home, October 6.

The article, apparently relying on police sources, stated that al-Harati, who has been a Dublin resident employed as an Arabic teacher for 20 years, claimed, when contacted by police, that the stolen cash was “given to him by an American intelligence agency.”

Image result for mahdi al harati cia

The article continued, “Astonished officers made contact with Mahdi al-Harati who told them that he had travelled to France, the United States and Qatar the previous month and that representatives of an American intelligence agency had given him a significant amount of money to help in the efforts to defeat Gaddafi. He said he left two envelopes with his wife in case he was killed and took the rest of the cash with him when he went back to Libya.”

When Abdallah’s brother was shot and paralysed from the waist down, he was flown back to Britain to get NHS treatment. But the UK’s aid for the rebels went far beyond the ‘health tourism’ we’ve all come to expect in Soft Touch Britain.

Middle Eastern Eye blew the whistle on what really happened on 25th May 2017, in a major investigation entitled ‘Sorted’ by MI5: How UK government sent British-Libyans to fight Gadaffi. This included the following revelations:

“One British citizen with a Libyan background who was placed on a control order – effectively house arrest – because of fears that he would join militant groups in Iraq said he was “shocked” that he was able to travel to Libya in 2011 shortly after his control order was lifted.

“‘I was allowed to go, no questions asked,’ said the source, who wished to remain anonymous.

“He said he had met several other British-Libyans in London who also had control orders lifted in 2011 as the war against Gaddafi intensified, with the UK, France and the US carrying out air strikes and deploying special forces soldiers in support of the rebels.

“‘They didn’t have passports, they were looking for fakes or a way to smuggle themselves across,’ said the source.

“But within days of their control orders being lifted, British authorities returned their passports, he said.

“‘These were old school LIFG guys, they [the British authorities] knew what they were doing,’ he said, referring to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi Islamist militant group formed in 1990 by Libyan veterans of the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

“Belal Younis, another British citizen who went to Libya, described how he was stopped under ‘Schedule 7’ counter-terrorism powers on his return to the UK after a visit to the country in early 2011. Schedule 7 allows police and immigration officials to detain and question any person passing through border controls at ports and airports to determine whether they are involved in terrorism.He said he was subsequently asked by an intelligence officer from MI5, the UK’s domestic security agency: “Are you willing to go into battle?

“‘While I took time to find an answer he turned and told me the British government have no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi,’ he told MEE.

As he was travelling back to Libya in May 2011 he was approached by two counter-terrorism police officers in the departure lounge who told him that if he was going to fight he would be committing a crime.

But after providing them with the name and phone number of the MI5 officer he had spoken to previously, and following a quick phone call to him, he was waved through.

“As he waited to board the plane, he said the same MI5 officer called him to tell him that he had ‘sorted it out’.”

Image result for manchester bombing victims

The victims of David Cameron’s scorpion nest in Manchester

The Manchester Bomber’s own father first came to Britain with the help of the security services as a leading member of the LIFG. And the December 2017 trial confirmed that his close friend Mohammed Abdallah was a fighter with the Tripoli Brigade – David Cameron’s allies and “boots on the ground” in the war on Libya.

So we see that the terrorist cell which murdered 22 innocent people in Manchester were not a group who slipped in and out of Britain to wage terrorist war without anyone noticing. Rather, they were part of a terror gang deliberately encouraged and aided and abetted by the British political elite and intelligence services.

They were yet another example of the way in which Britain and key allies, including the USA, Israel and France, have continually treated Wahhabi-inspired terrorists as pet scorpions which they can drop down other people’s shirts in the hope that they will do their dirty work for them.

The Manchester bombing was a terrible and classic example of the accuracy of President Assad’s warning against this wickedly cynical policy. One year on, with defeated Daesh fighters using every possible route to try to escape final annihilation by the Syrian Army by slipping into Western Europe, the resulting danger is now worse than ever.

The West no longer even knows where its scorpions are. Its short-sighted political and media elites need to check their own boots!

 

US Complicity in Gaza Massacre

US Complicity in Gaza Massacre

EDITORIAL | 18.05.2018 | EDITORIAL

US Complicity in Gaza Massacre

The horrendous bloodshed this week in Gaza is directly related to US President Trump’s controversial decision to relocate the American embassy to the contested city of Jerusalem.

The US bears responsibility in large part for the atrocity in which more than 60 unarmed Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli military. This was a cold-blooded massacre.

Thousands of others were maimed from live fire. An eight-month-old baby girl, Layla Ghandour, was among the victims after she died from asphyxiation from tear gas fired at the protesters.

Washington’s shameless defense of Israel’s brutal use of lethal force as “restrained” and its subsequent blocking of an independent UN inquiry into the mass shootings only compound Washington’s culpability in the massacre. A massacre which threatens to add further tensions to an already combustible region.

The question is how much of US complicity was a deliberate calculation by Washington to provoke widespread violence, not just in the occupied Palestinian territories, but in the wider Middle East?

Trump’s decision to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was implemented despite international warning that the move violated global consensus that Jerusalem should be a shared capital between Israel and a future Palestinian state. Trump’s decision recklessly snubbed Palestinian rights by symbolically siding with Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its “undivided capital”.

Not only that but the US embassy move was pointedly scheduled to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel’s foundation as a state on May 14, 1948. The date is also marked by Palestinians as the “Nakba” or “Catastrophe”, when millions of Palestinians were forced from their homes and ancient land by Israeli settlers.

Such a move by the Trump administration was bound to exacerbate already heightened Palestinian grievances after decades of injustice against their right to statehood and their right to return to ancestral homelands. Some 70 per cent of Gaza’s two million residents claim to be refugees who demand the right to return to their homelands in what is now Israeli-occupied Jerusalem and elsewhere in the modern state of Israel.

Trump’s blatant partisan intervention on the side of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory flies in the face of UN resolutions and international consensus which views Palestinians as having an inalienable claim to statehood. Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory has expanded without relent despite countless UN resolutions condemning such expansion as illegal.

At least one thing is incontestably clear now. Washington’s role in the decades-old conflict no longer has the pretense of being “an honest broker” or “neutral mediator”. For decades, the US has tacitly sponsored Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. It is 25 years since President Bill Clinton oversaw the Oslo Peace Accords. Today, the so-called peace process is dead and Palestinians are further than ever from realizing their right to a state in coexistence with Israel.

Trump has made it clear that as far as the US is concerned there is no peace process, that there is no “Two State Solution”.

It is telling that Palestinian leaders no longer recognize the US as a mediator. The US is part of the ongoing problem of an illegal colonialism against Palestinian people. Israeli governments are not interested in finding an honorable peace settlement. Their tacit position seems to be one of relentless conquest and driving the remaining Palestinian population out of the entire land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

What is the solution? It seems now that the only decent arrangement is for a One State Solution to be striven for, in which all the people of the Holy Land are entitled to share equal rights. However, that is something that is anathema to the Israeli leaders who want only to create a solely Jewish state.

The international community must face up to the illusion of a Two-State Solution. The world must somehow muster the political will to advocate for the rights of Palestinians to live in the land which was formerly known as Palestine.

For seven decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the source of ongoing conflict in the entire Middle East. Without a proper, just peace settlement that recognizes and delivers on the rights of Palestinians the region will continue to be wracked by violence.

Washington’s brazen and reckless intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be recognized now as an incendiary role. The US has forfeited any claim to be a mediator. It is a malevolent actor.

Israel’s project of conquest is part and parcel with the wider US ambition to control the Middle East for its imperialist designs. America is not some benign player as its mythical image-making would pretend.

The mass murder this week in Gaza in conjunction with the US giving its stamp of approval to Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory is a fitting proof of Washington’s real role in the Middle East. Washington cares not a jot for democracy or peace in the region. It is motivated entirely by hegemonic control for American imperial power.

Chaos and conflict is the fuel for American presence and control. Dispossession of Palestinians goes hand-in-hand with Washington’s strategic planning to balkanize and destroy states. We have seen this nefarious policy with regard to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. Washington needs Israeli conquest in the same way it needs a cluster of other client despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab dictatorships. To crush indigenous democratic rights in order to project its power interests, chiefly for the huge oil wealth of the region, as well as for denying perceived global rivals from gaining influence, especially if that influence might be more progressive.

The US is hellbent on keeping the Middle East in turmoil and conflict. Forget about lofty claims of “democracy building”. Washington’s power relies on creating war and bloodshed. The Project for a New American Century, and other neocon strategy documents, have long prescribed this very policy of creative-destruction, in hoc with Israel, as a formula to consolidate US power, no matter the cost in millions of innocent lives.

Washington’s callous and criminal disregard for Palestinians is a piece of its strategy for mayhem. The renewed confrontation with Iran is also testimony to this pernicious policy.

The cynicism of the US is staggering. This week at the UN, the American ambassador Nikki Haley walked out when the Palestinian envoy, Riad Mansour, began his address to the Security Council about the atrocity in Gaza. For months, Haley has been denouncing Syria, Russia and Iran over alleged violations. Yet she had not the conscience to listen to how Israeli troops butchered unarmed Palestinians in cold blood.

Haley’s rank hypocrisy is closely matched by Western mainstream news media. Their saturated coverage and hysterical distortions over Syria blaming the Assad government and Russia for alleged atrocities was in stark contrast to their muted response to the US-backed cold-blooded murder in Gaza this week.

The criminal arrogance of the US and its complicity in mass murder was exposed this week. It was an object lesson on how the US is not a force for good, as it so often proclaims. Rather, it is evidently a force for destruction in the interests of its own selfish imperialist designs.

%d bloggers like this: