Alan Dershowitz: “Feeling Bad is Part of my Job”

Dershowitz is working hard these days. He understandably desperate to clear his name. This video is a short deconstruction of Dershowitz’ recent appearance on Israeli TV.

Advertisements

By Way of DecEpstein

by way of decepstein.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday, prosecutors revealed that Jeffrey Epstein kept a fake Saudi passport in his home’s safe along with diamonds and piles of cash. It also emerged last week that Epstein invested millions in a deal with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.  Barak acknowledged to the Daily Beast that he, like other world leaders, visited Epstein’s Island and that he was first introduced to Epstein by Shimon Peres, former Israeli prime minister and president.

Barak’s high-tech company financed by the arch sex trafficker is called Carbyne. The Israeli enterprise develops “call-handling and identification capabilities for emergency response services,” essentially it seeks total access to your phone, its GPS system and its camera. This shouldn’t take us by surprise. By now we know that Epstein was very excited by cameras.

In a world with functioning media, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and every other Mainstream Media (MSM) outlet would compete mercilessly to dig out the dirt all the way from Epstein’s Island to Tel Aviv but, it seems our MSM is doing the opposite. It conceals the shame. It invests its energy into diverting attention from that which has become obvious to the wider public: Epstein wasn’t just a disgusting paedophile. It is likely that he was serving an intelligence agency and perhaps more than just one.

Four days ago one of the most courageous writers around, former CIA analyst Philip Giraldi, produced a detailed article dealing with the  obvious question: was Epstein an Israeli spy? Giraldi ends his piece:

“it will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes. One can expect that efforts will be made to protect top politicians like Clinton and Trump and to avoid any examination of a possible Israeli role. That is the normal practice, witness the 9/11 Report and the Mueller investigation, both of which eschewed any inquiry into what Israel might have been up to. But this time, if it was indeed an Israeli operation, it might prove difficult to cover up the story since the pedophile aspect of it has unleashed considerable public anger from all across the political spectrum.”

I admire Giraldi and would like to think that he is correct here.  In Britain, however, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, pretty much collapsed when Lord Janner, became a centre of its focus. Lord Janner was a former chairman of the BOD, a Body that claims to represent British Jews. He was also the founder of the Holocaust Memorial Trust. Some people, so it seems, are either above the law or beyond scrutiny.      

We may have to admit that in a world where the Labour Party is terrorised, in the open, by a foreign lobby, in a world where Penguin press stops publishing  a book because it referred to the Rothschilds a as an ‘influential Jewish family,’ in a world where the British national broadcaster is reduced into a Zionist propaganda unit, no one in proximity to power dares to look into the possibility that the intelligence agency of a close ally might have invested millions if not billions of dollars in the formation of a spectacular blackmail apparatus that abused underage children through sex trafficking.

If Epstein wasn’t a lone operator, it is time to ask what his senders had in mind when they formed such a sex trafficking operation. Did they think of the possible consequences if the network were exposed? Did Ehud Barak or Shimon Peres consider the possible implications of their association with a convicted sex offender? Did they care about the possible ramifications to world Jewry, or Israel’s reputation, or Israel’s political affairs and its relationships with the USA? Did they have a plan B? Or maybe you don’t need a plan B in a world where the political class is deeply compromised and the mainstream media as a whole does little but veil the truth.


My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.

Donate

This is Nasrallah in Hebrew

Mustapha Khazem

“We devote this evening to Hassan Nasrallah, not for the love of him; but because he is our toughest enemy, and the most wonderful of all. Hassan Nasrallah turned Hezbollah into one of the strongest and richest ‘terrorist’ organizations in the world. There is no Arab enemy who inhabits the “Israeli” public like Hassan Nasrallah. He has received our attention like no other other leader of an Arab state. And we, the “Israelis” listen to him and believe him. The Secretary General of Hezbollah knows this and exploits it in an excellent way to instill fear in us to the extent of terror.” With these words, Guy Zohar presented ‘The Analysis of Nasrallah’ documentary.

From an underground location, using a state of the art camera and shifting between the studio and documented scenes of the Secretary General of Hezbollah in the open, “Israel’s” Channel 11 aired the documentary. Those being interviewed were dressed in black with a dominant dark background. Meanwhile, the historic scenes of Hezbollah’s secretary general varied in time, background and occasion. The selection of the segments showed courage, strength and the firmness in his stance as well as the extent of the depth of his Eminence’s words and positions in the consciousness of the Zionists, contrary to what the producers of the documentary intended to show.

Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Moshe Ya’alon, media specialists as well as military and security experts all agreed that Sayyed Nasrallah knows the most accurate details of their usurper entity. He employs events to deduce the accuracy of his opinion and logic using excerpts from the aforementioned officials themselves.

Olmert and Falling into Nasrallah’s Trap

The first person interviewed following the introduction was former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the most prominent loser in the Second Lebanon War and a convict serving a prison sentence on corruption charges.

“We fell into Nasrallah’s media trap. We made a mistake broadcasting his speeches during the 2006 war as if he was our foreign minister and our prime minister, allowing him to instill doubt in us,” Olmert said.

This statement follows several “Israeli” surveys. Those surveyed confirmed that they believed Sayyed Nasrallah more than the leaders of the entity because he always tells the truth.

Olmert also spoke of Sayyed Nasrallah following-up on events. He referred to Sayyed’s famous Spider Web speech on the occasion of the 2000 liberation in the town of Bint Jbeil.

“The disillusioned and disorganized withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 was the basis of the Spider Web speech delivered by (Sayyed) Nasrallah,” Olmert said.

Then one of the experts involved in the investigation explained that, “Nasrallah succeeded in appearing before the Arabs as the one who expelled the occupation from his land in 2000. He was the greatest victor.”

Barak: Nasrallah Should Not Be Underestimated

According to former “Israeli” Prime Minister, Minister of War and the one defeated in Lebanon in 2000, Ehud Barak, “Nasrallah, without a doubt, represents another kind of enemy for “Israel”. He is a leader with good political skills and should not be underestimated.”

The former Northern Corps commander, Eyal Ben Reuven, echoed Barak’s sentiments saying, “He is a bitter and harsh enemy. He is worthy of appreciation. He is a bookish man (educated). He studies us and knows us.”

Yaalon on Sayyed and Hezbollah being Lebanese

Former “Israeli” War Minister Moshe Yaalon dealt with Sayyed Nasrallah’s personality in terms of identity, belonging and action. He focused on Sayyed’s achievements in gaining international legitimacy as well as legitimacy in Lebanon for resistance’s operations against “Israel”. He also talked about the strategy Sayyed used to confirm this identity saying, “Nasrallah firmly stigmatized our presence in Lebanon as an occupation and continued repeating this description … occupation .. occupation.”

He also referred to the special capabilities His Eminence possesses.

“Certainly, when we were in the security belt, we realized that he is an enemy that understands us more than others. He is intelligent. He knows how to exploit our disadvantages to his advantages. He works admirably. He is intelligent in all fields,” Yaalon added.

The Zionist experts continued to talk about Sayyed’s creativity in guiding the media in how to “broadcast fighting scenes. No organization has reached the level that Hezbollah did in this area.”

As for Sayyed not sending his martyred son, Sayyed Hadi, to university, this point was intended to be disgraceful. However, it turned to Sayyed’s favor. Sayyed Hadi’s martyrdom in the field discredited all other narratives about his fate. One commentator said, “Nasrallah is not a leader who sent his son to foreign universities, but he sent him to the battlefield.”

The Zionist experts did not reveal anything new about Sayyed Nasrallah’s knowledge of the usurper entity, its structure and the ways its leaders think. Colonel (Res) Ronen Cohen, the head of the so-called Terror Arena in the production division of the Intelligence Directorate, revealed that, “there is no one who studied the enemy the way he did.”

“If you wanted to be victorious, you have to know the points of weakness and study them from all sides,” he said.

This is another confirmation that what bothers the Zionists is an Arab superiority over them. This is different from the image of the Arabs in the “Israeli” media and consciousness.

As for what Sayyed Nasrallah thinks about the future of the usurper entity, the deputy commander of the Northern Corps in the reserves unit, Chico Tamir, exclaimed that “Nasrallah had a great understanding that victory would not be achieved in the valleys of southern Lebanon. He will be triumphant in the consciousness.”

In this context, the experts addressed what the enemy’s media called the excess of power in the resistance society, noting that Sayyed Nasrallah “worked to build a strong society and rose with it.”

They revealed that at a time when Sayyed knew everything about them, “we did not know anything about Nasrallah.” Writer and expert on Arab affairs, Avi Issacharoff, added: “Nasrallah is the biggest threat to “Israel” today in the Middle East.” The presenter of the program Zohar concludes, “With time we understood the power of this person!”

Related Videos

Related Articles

Lessons Learned From Hezbollah

04-09-2017 | 15:14

During the 1999 election campaign Ehud Barak, who challenged and defeated Benjamin Netanyahu, promised to withdraw the “Israel” Occupation Force from the south Lebanon security zone. As prime minister and defense minister, he made good on that promise and unilaterally withdrew IOF forces to the international occupied Palestine-Lebanon border.

Southern Lebanon

Betrayed and left behind was “Israel’s” ally, the “South Lebanon Army” that had for years fought shoulder to shoulder with the IOF against Hezbollah, sustaining more than its share of casualties.

A great sigh of relief was heard throughout the land – it was hoped that this would put an end to the casualties the IOF was sustaining, while protecting “Israeli” settlers in the north. The theory presented to the public was that after the IOF withdrawal, Hezbollah would have no further motivation to attack “Israel”. In any case, “Israel” would now be in a position to carry out drastic retaliation in the event of a Hezbollah attack, and that this would suffice to deter Hezbollah. Lebanese earth would tremble, Barak warned, if that should happen. But it did happen again and again, and Lebanese earth did not tremble. Hezbollah did not become what we wished it would be. It grew many-fold in size and strength, and continued to be an implacable enemy of “Israel”.

What had been a limited danger from Katyusha rockets to the towns on the “Israeli” entity’s northern border, grew in the intervening 17 years to a major danger to the entire settlers population and much of the country’s infrastructure, which are threatened by a Hezbollah arsenal of more than 100,000 rockets and missiles aimed at all of “Israel”. It is the primary threat facing the entity at this time.

The “Israeli” entity received a reminder of the growing threat six years after the withdrawal, during the Second Lebanon War in 2006, in which 121 soldiers and 44 settlers died and over 2,000 soldiers and settlers were injured. The threat has grown dramatically since then, magnified by the presence of Hezbollah and Iranian forces in parts of Syria.

What went wrong? How did successive “Israeli” regimes allow a minor danger to northern “Israel” to grow into a major threat to the entire country?

It started with the withdrawal from the south Lebanon security zone. It was an abandonment of David Ben-Gurion’s credo that it was the task of IOF soldiers to protect the entity’s settler population and that in performing this task it would inevitably suffer casualties.

This change in policy was never announced, but gradually, almost imperceptibly, it became part of the entity’s attitude toward the dangers it was facing. It reflected a feeling that it was more painful to suffer casualties among the “Israeli” entity’s soldiers than among its settler population.

The withdrawal, far from convincing Hezbollah to refrain from further aggression against “Israel”, created the impression that Hezbollah had scored a victory over “Israel” and eventually led to Hezbollah taking control of Lebanon.

It was the result of a misreading of the rationale motivating Hezbollah, which was and continues to be a revolutionary organization pledged to bringing about the destruction of “Israel”. An organization whose leaders believe that they are following the orders of Allah will not be dissuaded from pursuing its goal.

And relying on deterrence, a concept which in any case is ill-defined and nebulous, has little meaning when applied to a terrorist organization. While “Israeli” decision makers over the years felt that they were deterring Hezbollah from attacking “Israel”, that the increasing arsenal of Hezbollah rockets and missiles was destined to rust away on the scrap heap, Hezbollah succeeded in reaching a point where it was successfully deterring the entity from taking action to destroy its growing arsenal of weapons.

Now the Hezbollah missile threat constitutes the most immediate and major threat facing the “Israeli” entity. There are no easy answers in dealing with this threat, but it is important to be aware of the mistakes the entity has made over the years in dealing with Hezbollah. This awareness of past mistakes is part of the answer to dealing with this threat.

Source: Haaretz, Edited by website team

Related Videos

Summing Up Russia’s Real Nuclear Fears

Summing Up Russia’s Real Nuclear Fears

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 31.12.2016

Summing Up Russia’s Real Nuclear Fears

Jonathan Marshall is author of many recent articles on arms issues, including “How World War III Could Start,” “NATO’s ProvocativeAnti-Russian Moves,” “Escalations in a New Cold War,” “Ticking Closer to Midnight,” and “Turkey’s Nukes: A Sum of All Fears.”

The conflicts between Washington and Moscow keep on growing: Ukraine and Syria, rival war games, “hybrid” wars and “cyber-wars.” Talk of a new Cold War doesn’t do justice to the stakes.

“My bottom line is that the likelihood of a nuclear catastrophe today is greater than it was during the Cold War,” declares former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry.

A nuclear test detonation carried out in Nevada on April 18, 1953

If a new Trump administration wants to peacefully reset relations with Russia, there’s no better way to start than by canceling the deployment of costly new ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. One such system went live in Romania this May; another is slated to go live in Poland in 2018. Few U.S. actions have riled President Putin as much as this threat to erode Russia’s nuclear deterrent.

Only last month, at a meeting in Sochi with Russian military leaders to discuss advanced new weapons technology, Putin vowed, “We will continue to do all we need to ensure the strategic balance of forces. We view any attempts to change or dismantle it, as extremely dangerous. Our task is to effectively neutralize any military threats to Russia’s security, including those posed by the newly-deployed strategic missile defense systems.”

Putin accused unnamed countries — obviously led by the United States — of “nullifying” international agreements on missile defense “in an effort to gain unilateral advantages.”

Moscow has reacted to this perceived threat with more than mere words. It is developing new and deadlier nuclear missiles, including the SS-30, to counter U.S. defenses. It has rebuffed new arms control negotiations. And it has provocatively stationed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad to “target… the facilities that… start posing a threat to us,” as Putin put it last month.

If a new arms race is underway, it’s not for lack of warning. The Russians have voiced their concerns about missile defenses for years and years, without any serious acknowledgment from Washington. From their vantage point, the apparent bad faith of successive U.S. administrations, Democratic as well as Republican, is a flashing red light to which they had to respond.

Russia’s Nightmare

From the earliest days of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense (“Star Wars”) Initiative to make ballistic missiles “impotent and obsolete,” an alarmed Moscow has viewed U.S. efforts to build a missile shield as a long-term threat to their nuclear deterrent.

President Reagan meets with Vice President George H.W. Bush on Feb. 9, 1981. (Photo credit: Reagan Presidential Library.)

In 2002, President Bush one-upped Reagan and unilaterally canceled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. He did so after Russia’s foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, publicly pleaded with Washington not to terminate this landmark arms control agreement.

Writing in Foreign Affairs magazine, Ivanov warned that such a move would set back recent progress in Russian-U.S. relations and destroy “30 years of efforts by the world community” to reduce the danger of nuclear war. Russia would be forced, against its desire for international cooperation, to build up its own forces in response. The arms race would be back in full force — leaving the United States less secure, not more.

But with Russia still reeling from the neoliberal “shock therapy” that it suffered through during the 1990s, the neoconservatives (then in charge of U.S foreign policy) were confident of winning such an arms race. In 2002, President Bush adopted a National Security Strategy that explicitly called for U.S military superiority over every other power. To that end, he called on the Pentagon to develop a ground-based missile defense system within two years.

Since then, that program has lined the pockets of major U.S. military contractors without achieving any notable successes. Critics – including the U.S. General Accountability Office, National Academy of Sciences and Union of Concerned Scientists – have blasted the program for failing more than half of its operational tests. Today, after the expenditure of more than $40 billion, it enjoys bipartisan support mainly as a jobs program.

Russia fears, however, that it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. perfects its missile shield technology enough to erode the deterrent capabilities of Moscow’s nuclear arsenal.

Promoting U.S. Nuclear Primacy

That specter was highlighted in 2006 when two U.S. strategic arms experts declared in the pages of the establishment-oriented Foreign Affairs that the age of nuclear deterrence “is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. . . . Unless they reverse course rapidly, Russia’s vulnerability will only increase over time.”

President George W. Bush in the Oval Office, Oct. 7, 2008. (White House photo by Eric Draper)

The authors, Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, added, “Washington’s pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile defense strategy.” Missile defense, they pointed out, is not the same as population defense. No conceivable defense could truly protect American cities against an all-out attack by Russia, or even China. Rather, a leaky shield “would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield.”

“If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China),” they explained, “the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal — if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.”

As if to make that scenario a reality, the Bush administration soon announced plans to install an anti-missile base in Poland and a radar control center in the Czech Republic — ostensibly to counter a nuclear threat from Iran. No matter that Iran had neither nuclear weapons nor long-range ballistic missiles — or that Washington had rebuffed Russia’s offer to cooperate on building missile defenses closer to Iran. No, Moscow was supposed to believe President Bush’s assurance that “Russia is not the enemy.”

Republican hawks in Congress didn’t get the message. Said Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, “This is not just about missile defense; this is about demonstrating to Russia that America is still a nation of resolve… and we’re not going to let Russian expansionism intimidate everyone.”

Yet when Russian officials reacted with alarm, and warned of the potential for a “new Cold War,” American news accounts accused them of being “bellicose.”

Obama Blows Up the Reset Button

Taking office in 2009, President Obama promised a new era of nuclear sanity. Again, the Russians pleaded for an end to the missile defense program in Eastern Europe. Privately, they expressed a new and genuine concern — that a future U.S. administration could secretly fit interceptor rockets with nuclear warheads and use them to “decapitate” Russia’s top leadership with “virtually no warning time.” Russia’s response: retaliate at the first sign of an incoming strike, without hesitating to check if it’s a false alarm.

President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Obama and his team didn’t heed the warnings. Instead, they snubbed Putin — and the entire Russian leadership — by marching ahead with the missile shield deployment in Eastern Europe, still insulting Moscow’s intelligence with the pretense that it was a defense against Iran.

Obama’s “reset button” was the first casualty of his nuclear policy. In 2011, a despairing President Dmitry Medvedev warned that Russia would have no choice but to respond exactly as Putin has done, by upgrading the offensive capabilities of Russian nuclear missiles and deploying Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. Still to come may be a Russian withdrawal from the New START treaty, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed as her greatest accomplishment in the field of arms control.

President Obama never intended to expand his limited missile defense program into an existential threat to Russia’s nuclear deterrent, but he opened that door. Exactly as Moscow has long feared, hawks in Congress now are chomping at the bit to spend what it takes to build an all-out missile defense system, which former Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned would be “enormously destabilizing not to mention unbelievably expensive.”

One 2003 study pegged the possible cost of a full defensive shield covering the United States at more than $1 trillion. But that’s a small price compared to what could happen if a jittery Russian military command, armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles set on hair-trigger alert to counter a successful U.S. first strike, receives a false warning of just such an attack. Such a scenario has happened more than once.

One of these days such a mistake may prompt an all-out Russian nuclear launch — and then, not even a full missile defense will spare the United States, and much of the world, from devastation.

consortiumnews.com

Israel: From terrorism to Fascism

Rehmat

Israel’s new lunatic defense minister Avigdor Lieberman has proposed death penalty for all imaginary or real terrorists as long as they’re not Jewish. I bet, Lieberman understands his Talmud better than kosher Pope Francis.

In fact, this double standard has existed since the day European Jewish terrorists stole land from Muslim and Christian Palestinians in 1948. Palestinians accused of terror (resistance) offenses are prosecuted in Israeli military courts, while Jews charged with terrorism against Palestinians are usually tried in Israeli civilian courts.

Earlier this month, Israeli Army’s deputy chief of staff, Gen. Yair Golan in his Holocaust memorial speech compared Israel with Nazi Germany. When Israel’s former defense Gen. Moshe Ya’alon defended Golan’s ‘antisemitic’ remarks, Benjamin Netanyahu sacked him.

If that’s not enough to prove the ‘good nature’ of ordinary Jewish Israeli settlers – some blood-thirsty cockroaches from the past have reappeared. For example, former prime minister and defense minister Gen. Ehud Barak, a War Criminal, said in a interview on Israeli TV on last Friday night that fascistic, extreme right-wing politics are on the rise in the country.

What has happened is a hostile takeover of the Israeli government by dangerous elements,” he cautioned. “And it’s just the beginning.”

Last year, American Jewish writer, author and radio talk-host Stephen Lendman said:

Let’s not mince words. Israel is a fascist police state, masquerading as a democracy. How when state terror is official policy, when soldiers, police and Zionist zealots brutalize and murder Palestinians unaccountably, when institutionalized apartheid exceeds the worst of South Africa’s regime (here).

During the 1940s, the Jewish fascism and vandalism was exclusively directed against the Native Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Latter, it was expanded to include Israeli Jews and foreigners who dared to oppose the Zionist regime.

Ehud Barak Warns ’Israel’ Unprepared for Hizbullah Missile Threat

Local Editor

The threat to “Israel” from Hizbullah should not be underestimated, Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak stated Monday night, referring to “Israeli” forces estimates that the group possessed more than 100,000 rockets.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak

Barak, who gave a speech at Tel Aviv University said that the Zionist entity had “never had to cope with 100 thousand rockets and we have not even begun to deal with their accuracy.” Accurate rockets, he said, “are not more of the same thing, they are something completely different.”

Fifteen years ago, while serving as prime minister, Barak ordered the withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

“If you’ve already been forced to take something, think twice before you leave it,” he said, referring to the security belt “Israel” held in southern Lebanon from 1985 to 2000.

“At no point were we going to plant a tree there [i.e. settle there permanently],” Barak added. “We had to keep asking: what purpose does this serve?”

“The move was intended to boost security,” he noted. “The width of the security zone was not enough to protect communities from even short-range rockets. Therefore, we had to ask what, exactly, we’re doing there.”

“It was a situation of ambiguity in the political echelon and each time someone asked why we do not move away, then the answer is: ‘It’s none of your business, it’s the political echelon’s business,” continued the former prime minister, defending the decision.

Moreover, Barak stated that two lessons could be learned from the Zionist forces’ conduct in Lebanon: to plan well in advance, but also to be open and flexible to adapting to new security situations and to re-evaluate every few years.

Barak said, “We aren’t the reason Hamas exists, but we are a factor.”

“Even about Hizbullah, our behavior contributes to [how it behaves] and we have to take everything into consideration,” he declared. “The reality is not deterministic. Each decision can affect everything.”

“Our opponent is serious, we have no room for complacency on any front. Superiority is the result of serious work,” he added.

Regarding the missile threat from Hizbullah, he sounded an urgent tone. “The state has no choice but to draw conclusions,” he said.

“It is impossible to deal with this challenge by deploying troops in all places, which can fire missiles. “Iron Dome” and “David’s Sling”, “Arrow and Super-Arrow” are very expensive projects” he continued.

Further, Barak argued that the Zionist government needed to act against the missile threat now.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

02-06-2015 | 14:28

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

%d bloggers like this: