The Humiliation of ’Israel’ in the Eyes of Imad Mughniyeh

The Humiliation of ’Israel’ in the Eyes of Imad Mughniyeh

By Latifa Al-Husseiny

Beirut – You never run out of stories about the time of liberation. It is like a spring of fresh water on a high mountain pouring on the ground. Twenty full years of Imad Mughniyeh and his comrades in jihad. There was planning, implementation, and then achieving an Arab victory that was only difficult in the dictionary of the weak.

It is May 18, 2000. The beginning of the “Israeli” withdrawal from southern Lebanon begins to unfold. The resistance and its mujahideen are prepared and aware of what is going on. Its military leadership and its cadres are meeting in a village.

The goal is to continuously assess the situation to develop hypothetical scenarios in the event of any major retreat by the enemy. Hajj Imad is heading the meeting. He, along with his cohorts of resistance officers, are providing estimates while examining hypotheticals and sny potential plans the Zionists might adopt. Before those in attendance, he repeats one chorus: the “Israeli” enemy must leave humiliated and under fire.

For this purpose, numerous meetings with the command of military operations and mobilization forces were held. Various sources of fire including the artillery and launchers were stationed in the south. Reconnaissance of the enemy’s movements and soldiers was carried out a week before the liberation of the south, especially in light of the evacuations that were taking place along some of the posts. All this was overseen by Hajj Imad personally.

The enemy’s retreat rolled on. Qantara, Al-Qoussair, Deir Siriane, and Tayibe were liberated from the occupation under the strikes of the Mujahideen, while the locals headed to the occupied gate and removed it.

The resistance leadership drew up alternative plans on how to pounce the Lahad army at the time. It also deployed military police to the southern border villages to prevent any disturbances during the “Israeli” escape.

Indeed, some Lahad forces surrendered in Adaisseh, while others fled under fire from the resistance. Bint Jbeil and the towns in that district were liberated. The liberation rumbled from Tayibe to Hula to Beit Yahoun until the miniature security belt drawn up by the then “Israeli” War Minister Ehud Barak to protect the northern settlements collapsed.

A leader in the Islamic Resistance tells al-Ahed about those days.

“We stayed in the south, watching closely how the “Israelis” fled. Hajj Imad managed the military missions and distributed tasks. When the operations began, he was at the helm of those checking the situation. He went to the Palestinian border without escort.”

On May 23 and May 24, “Israeli” soldiers continued their withdrawal. From Ainatha to Kfar Tibnit to the Khiam detention center, the Zionists withdrew defeated. Hajj Imad was waiting, while the resistance men spread around and targeted them.

On the final day of throwing out the occupiers, the battle ended at the Fatima Gate at the border. Through it, the last “Israeli” soldier fled. That moment was historic.

While Benny Gantz, the commander of the so-called Lebanon Liaison Unit in the “Israeli” army, closed the gate and put the key under one of the rocks, Hajj Imad was a few meters away looking at how the “Israelis” were humiliated.

He stood in front of the Fatima Gate, while the resistance apparatus deployed and secured all the villages. Inhaling the breath of freedom and the fragrance of Palestine, he did not care about the people who had been trailing him for years. Those people were fleeing broken, looking for a refuge to hide their failures and surrender. On the other hand, Hajj Imad was defying everything to take a look at the Galilee and beyond. He had accomplished the first step of the inevitable liberation.

Six years after the 2000 liberation of the south, the July War came. Hajj Imad led 33 days of confrontations with the enemy. He thwarted the Zionists’ promise. It was another divine victory on the road to Palestine. Angered by the defeat, “Israel” decided to take revenge. For this purpose, it utilized its tools and agents. The meeting was in Syria.

Away from the commotion of the world, a group of leaders of the resistance axis gathered in one of the party’s centers in the Kafr Souseh area in Damascus.

On the evening of February 12, 2008, a group of leaders of the Revolutionary Guards headed by the commander of the Quds Force, Hajj Qassem Soleimani, met leaders of the Islamic Resistance, headed by Hajj Imad Mughniyeh.

It was a military summit that lasted for about an hour. One of the leaders who attended the meeting explained that the main reason for the meeting was to conduct an evaluation of the general situation at the level of the resistance factions. However, the special relationship between Hajj Imad and Hajj Qassem set the tone of the meeting.

There was laughter and smiles as if they felt that this would be a farewell. Hajj Qassem told our interlocutor, “What Hajj Imad says, I implement. I am a soldier of Hajj Imad Mughniyeh.” When the latter heard that sentence, he quickly said, “No, we are brothers.”

The evaluation session was over, and it was time to depart. Hajj Qassem Soleimani stood at the elevator and embraced Hajj Imad with great affection. That moment was engraved in the memory of the people present. It was proof that the relationship between the two men surpassed the cause. It was a relationship of spirit and sacrifice similar to the relationship between al-Hussayn and al-Abbas (PBUT). They shared redemption, responsibility, and a high jihadist spirit.

Five minutes later, Hajj Imad left to carry out an important mission. When he got to his car, he was martyred.

Hajj Qassem never knew Hajj Imad’s destination. He heard a loud explosion and was informed of the news. He went back to find his companion dead.

What was the nature of the meeting they agreed on minutes earlier? It was a painful separation. However, 12 years later that conclusion was repeated with Hajj Qassem’s spirit rising to the supreme kingdom. Both men’s blood was spilt on the road to Palestine for the sake of Al-Quds.

20 YEARS AFTER THE UNCONDITIONAL ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL FROM LEBANON: WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED? (1)

Posted on  by Elijah J Magnier

A woman mocking an Israeli tank left behind when withdrawing from south of Lebanon in the year 2000, using its cannon as a hanger to dry cloths. Photo by @YounesZaatari

By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

We were Hezbollah trainers. It is an organisation that learns quickly. The Hezbollah we met at the beginning (1982) is different from the one we left behind in 2000”. This is what the former Chief of Staff and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gabi Ashkenazi, said twenty years after the Israeli unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon.

For the first time we met a non-conventional army, but also an ideological organisation with deep faith: and this faith triumphed over us. We were more powerful, more technologically advanced and better armed but not possessing the fighting spirit …They were stronger than us”. This is what Brigadier General Effi Eitam, Commander of the 91st Division in counter-guerrilla operation in south Lebanon said. 

Alon Ben-David, senior defence correspondent for Israel’s Channel 13, specialised in defence and military issues, said: “Hezbollah stood up and defeated the powerful Israeli Army”.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the architect of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, said: “The withdrawal didn’t go as planned. The deterrence of Hezbollah and its capability increased greatly. We withdrew from a nightmare”. Barak meant he had planned to leave behind him a buffer zone under the control of his Israeli proxies led by the “South Lebanon Army” (SLA) commander Antoine Lahad. However, his plans were dismantled and the resistance forced Lahad’s men to run towards the borders, freeing the occupied buffer zone. As they left Lebanon, the Israeli soldiers said: “Thank God we are leaving: no one in Israel wants to return”.

Israeli soldiers are happy to leave Lebanon in the year 2000.

In 1982, Israel believed the time had come to invade Lebanon and force it to sign a peace agreement after eliminating the various Palestinian organisations. These groups had deviated from the Palestinian compass and had become embroiled in sectarian conflict with the Lebanese Phalange, believing that “the road to Jerusalem passed through Jounieh” (the Maronite stronghold on Mt. Lebanon, northwest of Beirut, a slogan used by Abu Iyad). Israel intended Lebanon to become the domicile of its Palestinian conflict. It failed to realise that in so doing it was letting the Shiite genie out of the bottle. Signs of this genie began to appear after the arrival of Sayyed Musa al-Sadr in Lebanon and the return of students of Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr from Najaf to their home country and residency in the Lebanese Bekaa. Also, the victory of Imam Khomeini and the “Islamic revolution” in Iran in 1979 was not taken into consideration by Israel, and the potential consequences for the Lebanese Shia were overlooked.

The 1982 Israeli invasion triggered the emergence of the “Islamic resistance in Lebanon”, which later became known as “Hezbollah”, and it forced Israel to leave Lebanon unconditionally in 2000. This made Lebanon the first country to humiliate the Israeli army. Following their victory over the Arabs in 1949, 1956, 1967 and 1973, Israeli officials had come to believe they could occupy any Arab country “with a brass band”.

Israeli soldiers exited through the “Fatima Gate” (on the Lebanese border, also known as Good Fence, HaGader HaTova) under the watchful eyes of Suzanne Goldenberg on the other side of the border. She wrote: “After two decades and the loss of more than 1000 men, the chaotic Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon leaves its northern flank dangerously exposed, with Hezbollah guerrillas sitting directly on its border. The scale of the Israeli fiasco was beginning to unfold… After the Israelis pulled out of Bint Jubayl in the middle of the night, their SLA allies, already in a state of collapse in the centre of the strip, simply gave up. Branded collaborators, they and their families headed for exile. Behind them, they left tanks and other heavy equipment donated by their patrons. Shlomo Hayun, an Israeli farmer who lives on Shaar Yeshuv farm, said of the withdrawal, “This was the first time I have been ashamed to be Israeli. It was chaotic and disorganised.”

Israeli withdrawal (2000) crossing Fatima Gate.

What did Israel and its allies in the Middle East achieve?

In 1978, Israel occupied a part of southern Lebanon and in 1982, for the first time, it occupied an Arab capital, Beirut. During its presence as an occupation force, Israel was responsible for several massacres amounting to war crimes. In 1992, Israel thought that it could strike a death blow to Hezbollah by assassinating its leader, Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi. He was replaced by his student, the charismatic leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah has proved to be more truthful than the Israeli leaders, and thus capable of affecting the Israeli public through his speeches, as Israeli colonel Ronen, chief Intelligence officer for the Central Command of Israel Defence Forces, has said.

The new Hezbollah leader showed his potential for standing up to and confronting Israel through TV appearances. He mastered the psychological aspects of warfare, just as he mastered the art of guerrilla war. He leads a non-conventional but organised army of militants “stronger than several armies in the Middle East,” according to Lieutenant General Gadi Eisenkot, the former Israeli Chief of Staff. 

The Israeli doctrine relies on the principle of pre-emptively striking what is considered as a potential threat, in order to extinguish it in its cradle. Israel first annexed Jerusalem by declaring it in 1980 an integral part of the so-called “capital of the state of Israel”. In June 1981, it attacked and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor that France had helped build. In 2007, Israel struck a building in Deir Ezzor, Syria, before it was completed, claiming that the government had been building a nuclear reactor.

6 years after its withdrawal, Israel declared war on Lebanon in 2006, with the aim of eradicating Hezbollah from the south and destroying its military capacity. Avi Kober, a member of the department of political studies at Bar Ilan University and researcher at the Israeli BESA centre said: “The war was conducted under unprecedented and favourable conditions the like which Israel has never enjoyed – internal consensus, broad international support (including tacit support on the part of moderate Arab States), and a sense of having almost unlimited time to achieve the war objectives. The IDF’s performance during this war was unsatisfactory, reflecting flawed military conceptions and poor professionalism and generalship. Not only the IDF fail in achieving battlefield decision against Hezbollah, that is, denying the enemy’s ability to carry on the fight, despite some tactical achievements, throughout the war, it played into Hizballah’s hands.”

“Soon we shall pray in Jerusalem” (Portray Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah).

Israel withdrew from the battle without achieving its goals: it was surprised by Hezbollah’s military equipment and fighting capabilities. Hezbollah had managed to hide its advanced weapons from the eyes of Israeli intelligence and its allies, who are present in every country including Lebanon. The result was 121 Israeli soldiers killed, 2,000 wounded, and the pride of the Israeli army and industry destroyed in the Merkava Cemetery in southern Lebanon where the Israeli advance into Wadi al-Hujeir was thwarted. 

Hezbollah hit the most advanced class Israeli destroyer, the INS Spear saar-5, opposite the Lebanese coast. In the last 72 hours of the war, Israel fired 2.7 million bomblets, or cluster bombs, to cause long-term pain for Lebanon’s population, either through impeding their return or disrupting cultivation and harvest once they did return. “An unjustified degree of vindictiveness and an effort to punish the population as a whole”, said the report of the UN commission of inquiry conducted in November 2006 (Arkin M. W. (2007), Divining Victory: Airpower in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, Air University Press, Alabama, pp 67-71).

The battle ended, Israel withdrew again, closed the doors behind its army, raised a fence on the Lebanese borders, and installed electronic devices and cameras to prevent any possible Hezbollah crossing into Palestine.

When Israel’s chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi said “Israel instructed Hezbollah in the art of war”, he was right. Hezbollah has learned from the wars that Israel has waged over the years. In every war, Hezbollah saw the necessity of developing its weapons and training to match and overcome the Israeli army (which is outnumbered) and which enjoys the tacit support of Middle Eastern regimes and the most powerful western countries. Hezbollah developed its special forces’ training and armed itself with precision missiles to impose new rules of engagement, posing a real threat to the continuity of the permanent Israeli violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Today, Hezbollah has sophisticated weapons, including the armed drones that it used in Syria in its war against the Takfirists, and precision missiles that can reach every region, city and airport in Israel. It has anti-ship missiles to neutralize the Israeli navy in any future attack or war on Lebanon and to hit any harbour or oil platform. It is also equipped with missiles that prevent helicopters from being involved in any future battle. The balance of deterrence has been achieved. Hezbollah can take Israel back to the Stone Age just as easily as Israel envisages returning Lebanon to the Stone Age.

Hezbollah is Israel’s worse nightmare, and it was largely created by the Israeli attempt to overthrow the regime in Lebanon, occupy Lebanon, and impose an agreement that Israel could then mould to its own liking. But the tables were turned: a very small force emerged in Lebanon to become a regional power whose powerful support was then extended to the neighbouring countries of Syria and Iraq. The harvest journey has begun.

Proofread by:  Maurice Brasher and C.G.B.

This article is translated free to many languages by volunteers so readers can enjoy the content. It shall not be masked by Paywall. I’d like to thank my followers and readers for their confidence and support. If you liked it, please don’t feel embarrassed to contribute and help fund it, for as little as 1 Euro. Your contribution, however small, will help ensure its continuity. Thank you.

Copyright © https://ejmagnier.com   2020 

New details about Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000: newspaper

By News Desk -2020-04-29

BEIRUT, LEBANON (8:20 A.M.) – An Israel-based newspaper revealed on Tuesday new details about the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.

According to Haaretz, despite the lapse of twenty years since the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, they have learned the real reasons behind this withdrawal.

The newspaper reported that twenty years after the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, there  was still a deep wound in the hearts of the Israelis.

The publication emphasized that among the reasons that prompted Israel to leave Lebanon was the difficulty of finding a safe area in southern Lebanon for their military, along with carrying out useless operations along the border.

“But the truth is that our operations against Hezbollah weren’t of much use. We didn’t gain a thing except for feeling a little better. It reminded me of the body counts of Vietcong fighters by the Americans in the ‘search and destroy’ missions in Vietnam. Those missions were good for IDF morale, but when there’s no final whistle ending the game, they don’t change much,” an officer told Haaretz.

Furthermore, they said there was a lack of confidence in any Israeli operations or missions in southern Lebanon, as the Israel-backed Southern Lebanese Army (SLA) was unable to hold their ground with IDF support.

It is noteworthy that the Israeli Defense Forces decided to withdraw unilaterally from southern Lebanon on May 25th, 2000, after direct orders from the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak.

Every year on May 25th, Lebanon celebrates this day as the end of the Israeli occupation, which had lasted from 1982-2000.

Nearly five years later, the Syrian Arab Army would end their presence in Lebanon, concluding the long period of time in which the small Levantine country had foreign forces inside its territory.

Also Read

‘Israel’ Will See Resurrection Day When Hezbollah Fires Precision-guided Missiles: Zionist Experts

A number of Israeli politicians, military commanders, and experts testified that Hezbollah precision-guided missiles can massively destroy the vital and strategic installations in the Zionist entity during any upcoming war.

The former PM Ehud Barak said that Hezbollah precision-guided missiles can hit the infrastructure, energy plants, governmental installations, the defense ministry headquarters, and the premier’s office.

The commander of operations division in the Israeli army, Aharon Halifa, added that the military bases, seaports, and the transportation network will be hit during the upcoming war with Hezbollah.

The Zionist analysts went on to say that Hezbollah missiles can even hit the Knesset headquarters, describing the Resistance group as a growing monster that is unprecedentedly threatening ‘Israel’.

The analysts also called on the Israeli competent authorities to prepare in a completely different manner for the next war, which will be just as Israel’s Resurrection Day because of Hezbollah precision-guided missiles.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related

Jeffrey Zwi Epstein Migdal

zwi migdal.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

The story of Jeffrey Epstein has lost its mystery as more and more commentators allow themselves to express the thought that it is a strong possibility that Epstein was connected to a crime syndicate affiliated with a Zionist political organisation or Israel and/or at least a few compromised intelligence agencies. Whitney Web and others have produced superb studies of possible scenarios, I would instead like to attack the topic from a cultural perspective. Epstein wasn’t the first Jewish sex trafficker. This seems like a good time to look back at Zwi Migdal, a Jewish global crime syndicate that operated a century ago and trafficked tens of thousands of Jewish women and under age girls as sex slaves. According to contemporary Jewish writer Giulia Morpurgo the Zwi Migdal had turned Argentina, “into a nightmare of prostitution and exploitation.”

During the first three decades of the 20th century Argentina was a rich country. It outgrew Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income. Just before the first world war Argentina was the world’s 10th wealthiest state per capita. When Argentina was a rich country, large parts of its economy, culture and politics were controlled by crime syndicates and particularly a Jewish organised crime apparatus named ‘Zwi Migdal.’

In 2009 The International Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCACA) published a comprehensive article about the Zwi Migdal titled Understanding the Zwi Migdal Society which I am about to quote from extensively.

The Zwi Migdal, was an association of Jewish mobsters who were involved in the “sexual exploitation of Jewish women and children, which operated globally.” Apparently the Zwi Migdal originally picked a pretty innocent sounding name: “Warsaw Jewish Mutual Aid Society.” It does indeed sound almost as innocent, humane and charitable as ‘Anti Defamation League,’ ‘Jews against Breast Cancer,’ or even ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’  but the Warsaw Jewish Mutual Aid Society wasn’t innocent at all. It forced thousands of women and girls to become sex slaves and destroyed their lives.

On May 7, 1906, the Jewish syndicate had to change its title after the Polish ambassador to Argentina filed an official complaint to the Argentine authorities regarding the use of the name ‘Warsaw.’ Clearly, the Polish government did not want to be associated with a Jewish crime syndicate. In that line, it would be appropriate to ask how long is it going to take before the American government  and its politicians insist that AIPAC drop its first ‘A’ or before The Neocon Project of the New American Century are ordered to drop American from their title.

“Zwi Migdal means ‘strong power’ in Yiddish and it also honoured Zvi Migdal, known as Luis Migdal, one of the founders of the crime organization.”

The Zwi Migdal organization operated from the 1860s to 1939. In its heyday, after the First World War, it had four hundred members in Argentina alone. Its annual turnover was fifty million dollars in the early 1900s.

Unlike Epstein and Maxwell who allegedly recruited non-Jewish underage women, the Zwi Migdal specialised in trafficking Jewish women. “Most of the Jewish women and children who were kidnapped were taken from impoverished shtetls (Jewish small towns) and brought to Buenos Aires.”

The recently released documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein affair suggest that Epstein and Maxwell were to be charged with child sex trafficking, and as the alleged procurer of underage girls. It seems none of that is really novel in the Jewish world: “The Zwi Migdal Society lured decent girls and young women from Europe in many inventive and deceitful ways.  A very well-mannered and elegant-looking man would appear in a poor Jewish village in places such as Poland or Russia.  He would advertise his search for young women to work in the homes of wealthy Jews in Argentina by posting an ad in the local synagogue.  Fearful of pogroms and often in desperate economic circumstances, the trusting parents would send their naïve daughters away with these men, hoping to give them a fresh start.”

The last line recalls Virginia Giuffre’s account of her encounter with the elegant British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell  who allegedly lured her victims to ‘escape’ their misery.

The JCACA continues “The girls, aged mostly 13 to 16, packed a small bag, bade their families farewell and boarded ships to Argentina, believing that they were on their way toward a better future. However, they soon learned the bitter truth. Their period of training as sex slaves, which began on the ship, was cruel and brutal. The young virgins were “broken in” ~ raped, beaten, starved and locked in cages.”

The Zwi Migdal Organization reached its peak in the 1920s when some 430 rufianos, or pimps, controlled 2,000 brothels trafficking around 30.000 Jewish women and girls in Argentina alone. “The largest brothels of Buenos Aires housed 60 to 80 female sex slaves. There were brothels all over Argentina, but most of them were in the big city, in the Jewish quarter, on Junin Street.”

Apparently “Prostitutes who failed to satisfy their clients were beaten, fined, or taken to work in provincial houses. Every business transaction was logged. The rufianos ‘held a meat market’ where newly arrived girls were paraded naked in front of traders in places such as Hotel Palestina or Cafe Parisienne.”

One may wonder how all of that fit with Judaic tradition and Talmudic law. “In one brothel,” the ACACA reports,  “the Madam, an observant Jewish woman, would not let her women work on Fridays but instructed them herself in the art of lovemaking.”

Many commentators on the Epstein affair are amazed by the incapacity of America’s law enforcement, legal system and federal agencies to bring justice to Epstein’s victims and its failure to lock him away. Once again, that is not new.   The JCACA writes of the Zwi Migdal criminality: “These activities went on undisturbed because they were frequented by government officials, judges, and reporters. City officials, politicians, and police officers were paid off. The pimps had powerful connections everywhere.”

The Jewish community didn’t rush to save their abused daughters. “The prostitutes, who were mostly illiterate, destitute and despised by the mainstream Jewish community, banded together to form their own mutual-aid societies.” However, rarely, some Jewish ethnic activists stood for the abused women and girls. “One night Nahum Sorkin, a well-known Zionist activist, stood outside the theatre and physically stopped the rufianos (Jewish pimps) from entering. Next, they were banned from the synagogues, and to top it all, they were refused burial in the Jewish cemetery.”


From Rachel  (Raquel) Lieberman to Virginia Roberts Giuffre 

 We learn that the rufianos’ audacity eventually led to their demise. “It happened when they refused to forgo their income from the work of one woman, Rachel Lieberman from Lódž, Poland. She, like so many others, was tempted to travel to Buenos Aires answering a matrimonial ad, but was taken to Jonin Street where she was forced to prostitute.”

“After five years she had enough money to go into the antique furniture business to support herself and her sons but the rufianos made it impossible for her. They did not want her to set an example for their other slaves. But this woman had not been broken.”

As was the case for Virginia Giuffre, it needed brave Rachel to come forward.

 https://vimeo.com/124652938

In desperation, Rachel Lieberman “contacted Superintendent Julio Elsogray. She had heard his name mentioned on the street as one who would not take Zwi Migdal’s money and was actually looking for ways to destroy the organization. She slipped into his office one day and gave a detailed account of the connections among the various pimps in the organization management.

 Her testimony led to an extensive investigation. The findings reached Dr. Rodriguez Ocampo, a judge who would not take Zwi Migdal bribes either.

The lengthy trial ended in September 1930, with 108 detainees. “The very existence of the Zwi Migdal Organization directly threatens our society,” the judge wrote in his verdict, handing down long prison terms.”

As with Epstein and his mobsters friends, things changed quickly and not in favour of justice let alone guided by ethical principles. The Zwi Migdal mobsters were at least as well connected as Epstein to politicians, judges and prosecutors. “While in prison, the pimps pulled some old strings, appealed their sentences in January 1931, and senior Justice Ministry officials left only three of the convicts in jail, discharging the rest.”

As was the case with The Miami Herald’s Julie Brown and many of us in the alternative media who didn’t allow the rottenEpstein  and his pedophile ring’s crimes to be shoved under the carpet, the 1930s Argentinian media didn’t agree to turn a blind eye to the Jewish syndicate’s impunity.

When the media reported the release of the Zwi Migdal’s mobsters from jail, “the public was very upset and pressured the authorities to reverse the discharge decision. Thereafter, hundreds of pimps were deported to Uruguay. “Over the years, they slowly returned one by one, but the era of the huge brothels ended.”

The JCACA sums up the Zwi Migdal saga by stating that the Jewish crime syndicate was “an organization that traded in women while its members wore tefillin (a Jewish religious garment)  and built themselves a synagogue.” I guess the same can be said about Epstein’s ring. They may not be religious, they may not wear Tefillin but they are self identified Jewish Zionists who donate to Israel and vocally support Israel’s criminal  politics.

The JCACA proclaims that the Zwi Migdal’s “history is an embarrassment to all decent Jews. It involved loads of money, corrupt politicians, violent sex, international women trade, hard brutality, rape, and cheating, all lightly spiced with yiddishkeit and God-fearing traditions. Among those traditions, according to Jewish beliefs as expressed in the Torah, is that it is perfectly fine to keep slaves so long as they are not Jewish. Yet these Zwi Migdal also enslaved Jewish girls and a great many who ran the bordellos were Jewish women.” 

I find myself admitting that except for Benjamin Netanyahu who denounced Ehud Barak for his ties with Epstein for political opportunist reasons, I have yet to see a single Jewish organisation express any embarrassment in regard to Epstein and his sex trafficking operation. On the contrary, Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, announced that he is actually a victim of the #metoo movement. He  also occasionally insists that Jews should never apologise for using their strength. Maxwell has kept quiet. Wexner has yet to apologise. Like Dershowitz, he adopted the victim path announcing that Epstein ‘misappropriated’ a few shekels from his family and he regret being associated with the sex trafficker. JVP that cares so much for Palestinians must be slightly less bothered by Guiffre’s plight.  I am left wondering, is it the fact that Zwi Migdal abused Jewish women and girls that provoked Jewish discomfiture? I guess that, at least for the time being, it seems as if Jews do not posses the cultural or psychological means to look refectively into Epstein and his ring. The only question left open is whether the FBI has the cojones to do its job.


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

 

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.

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!

Stop another US military intervention in Iraq

US troops in Kuwait ready to enter Iraq on March 20, 2003.
US troops in Kuwait ready to enter Iraq on March 20, 2003.
Fri Jul 4, 2014 1:40AM GMT

This July 4, the fireworks won’t just be in celebration of Independence Day. There will undoubtedly be fireworks in cities throughout the Middle East, as the region, engulfed in violence, further explodes. The US military and US taxdollars are already deeply entangled in Middle Easterners’ lives (and deaths), and President Obama is under pressure to get further involved in the wars in Iraq and Syria. But what advice would our nation’s founders give the 44th president this July 4?

The Founding Fathers, who revolted against a foreign power, were vehemently opposed to getting involved in military adventures overseas. George Washington cautioned our new nation against the “mischiefs of foreign intrigue.” James Madison said the US should steer clear of unnecessary wars. Thomas Jefferson said, “If there be one principle more deeply written than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.” Secretary of State John Quincy Adams warned in 1821 that America should not go abroad in search of “monsters to destroy”—for such folly would destroy “her own spirit.”
But this Independence Day marks yet another year of seemingly endless US involvement in wars. Despite promising the American public that US troops would leave Afghanistan by the end of this year, President Obama is poised to negotiate a continued US troop presence with the next Afghan president (if the Afghans can figure out who that is!). Current President Karzai has explicitly rejected this decision. Karzai has insisted that the US-led invasion has made his country even worse than it was under the repressive Taliban, and lamented that “Afghans died in a war that’s not ours.”
Obama’s drone wars have gotten the US militarily entangled in the internal affairs of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The President recently called for an alarming expansion of the US role in Syria’s civil war, requesting $500 million to aid the Syrian opposition. US funds continue to fuel Israel’s 47-year-long military occupation of Palestine, an occupation that has escalated recently with the tragic murders of both Israeli and Palestinian children. And in Egypt, where a brutal military coup has been murdering and jailing thousands upon thousands of nonviolent, pro-democracy protesters, the US government is intervening on the side of the coup leader, draconian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, in the magnitude of $1.5 billion of our taxdollars per year.
mccain-obama-whores
In Iraq, President Obama is sliding down the slippery slope of another disastrous intervention. Armed drones are now patrolling the Iraqi skies, ready to unleash their Hellfire missiles at any moment and sink us deeper into this quagmire. And President Obama just authorized sending 750 troops, less than three years after our troops withdrew from a disastrous nine-year war. Those familiar with the history of the Vietnam War might recognize that this is exactly how that 20-year-long conflict was started. The US sent in military “advisers,” and then sent in troops to protect them, and then troops to protect them, and then troops to protect them — ad infinitum.
 As President Obama contemplates even further engagement in Iraq, 70 congresspeople have signed a letter, initiated by Representatives Scott Rigell (R-VA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), calling on the President to respect the Constitutional requirement to go to Congress for authorization before using military force. Indeed, the Founding Fathers made it clear that no individual president should have the authority to drag our nation into war, that a decision of such magnitude had to be debated and decided on by the people’s representatives in Congress.

من هو أسوأ رئيس أميركي؟

Though just because we oppose war and military intervention doesn’t mean we have to be complete isolationists, by any means. What does mean if we should stop spending hundreds of billions of taxdollars on wars that don’t work, harming and killing innocent civilians. If we truly want to help people around the world, there are myriad better ways to do so. The U.S. should put its energy and influence toward a comprehensive ban on the transfer of weapons from outside powers. Rather than attempting additional unilateral moves, the U.S. should be collaborating with regional and international actors to address the root cause of the violence in Iraq. And we should more to help the millions of displaced Iraqis. The US is one of the least refugee-friendly countries in the industrialized world. Given we live in a time with the highest level of refugees since World War II, assisting refugees — often forced out of their homes because of wars we have engaged in or dictators we have supported — could be just one easy way to help others.
Poll after poll shows that the American people agree with our Founding Fathers’ insistence that our nation should disengage from overseas military misadventures.  Indeed, President Obama himself, in his May 23, 2013  foreign policy speech, quoted James Madison’s dire warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
So this July 4th, be a true patriot. Take some action to stop the US military intervention in Iraq. Educate your friends and neighbors, write a letter to the editor, sign a petition. Take signs and banners out into the streets and tell everyone you want to end these pointless wars. Call your elected officials (202-224-3121) and the White House (202-456-1111). Do something to move us towards a foreign policy that uses diplomatic prowess, not military power, as the way to relate to, not violently dominate, the global community.
Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the peace group CODEPINK and the human rights group Global Exchange. She is the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.
GJH/AGB
RELATED
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!

Franklin Lamb: Introducing the Syria Resistance (PFLI) and it’s Leader

ED NOTE: Thanks to our friend Dr. Franklin Lamb for introducing the Syrian resistance and its Leader Ali Kayali fighting in all fronts, shoulder to shoulder with the Syrian Arab Army,  the takfirs sponsored by the zionists world order and its tools Saudia, Qatar, Turkey and the So-called March 14 movement. The resistance will continue until full liberation of Syrian Land, including south Syria (Palestine) and every inch of Syrian Land occupied by Turkey.
I added some pictures and the videos

—-

—–
——
North of Latakia, Syria Posted on 
https://i0.wp.com/www.iskenderun.org/Fotogaleri/Sahil/iskenderun_sahil013.jpg
Every school kid here in Syria learns at an early age about the various colonial land grabs that have lopped off key parts of their ancient country, and they receive instruction about their national duty to recover this sacred territory. The concept applies equally to still-occupied Palestine, or at least it did before the 2011 uprising got started, albeit since then a degree of resentment has arisen over participation by some Palestinians with rebel groups seeking to topple the Syrian government.
https://i0.wp.com/i.imgur.com/COy9D.jpg
Be that as it may, one such land grab historically remembered, and which is currently galvanizing resistance on behalf of Syria, is that of Iskenderun, north of Latakia, in a disputed Syria-Turkish border area. As Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari-sponsored jihadists continue to enter the country, well worth remembering is it that Iskenderun is rich in natural resources and that for thousands of years it was part of Syria. But that status changed more than half a century ago when France cut it off from Syria and grafted it onto Turkey—and now some pro-government militias are fighting to get it back.
iskmap
The name derives from Alexander the Great, who around 333 BC encamped in the area and ordered a city be built, although the exact site of the historic city is subject to dispute. At any rate, the strategic importance of Iskenderun comes from its geographical relation to Syrian Gates, the easiest approach to the open ground of Hatay Province and Aleppo, and the dispute over it has been heating up recently, partly as a result of the current crisis.
It all started on July 5, 1938, when Turkish forces under Colonel Sukril Kanath launched an aggression, with French approval, and ethnically cleansed the local Armenian Christian and Allawi populations. The Turkish invasion was enabled by the French, partners with Britain in Sykes-Picot, who had remained as illegal occupiers of Syria, a holdover from the League of Nations mandate. The French were complicit in a rigged referendum, essentially ceding to Turkey this Syrian territory, which by then was referred to as the Republic of Hatay. It was a land grab. Pure and simple. And it was part of a secret deal to secure Turkey’s help with the fast approaching war with Germany. Paris and Ankara struck a deal: Turkey, while not joining the allies against Germany, declared neutrality and essentially sat out World War II.

frankandali

Commander Ali Kayali, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Iskenderun
Syria, rather than being expansionist, as it is sometimes accused of by Turkey and the Zionist regime, has actually been losing territory, not gaining it. “We lost northern Palestine in 1918, Lebanon in 1920, and the Iskenderun area through French duplicity,” said a retired diplomat here. “Surely Lebanon must also be returned to Syria. It was never a real country and it never will be as far as I am concerned. It is part of Syria!”Indeed, as Robert Fisk points out, after the First World War, most Lebanese wished their land to remain part of Syria (see the results of the King-Crane Commission) rather than live in a separate “nation” under French domination. As we parted, the gentleman shook my hand and declared: “Of course Iskendurun is part of Syria. No honest person can deny this!”
Enter one remarkable Syrian nationalist, Ali Kayali, aka “Abu Zaki”. So how did a polite gentleman from this region of Turkish-occupied Syria end up leading one of the most effective resistance militias in the northern theater in the current Syrian crisis? Basically he did it the same way as untold numbers of Palestinians supporting young Syrian men during the early 1980’s.
Ali went to Beirut to resist the 1982 Zionist aggression. There he was baptized by fire, so to speak, carrying the banner of his new group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Iskenderun (PFLI) under the tutelage of Dr. George Habash and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
Ali fought in a number of south Lebanon fronts, and also inside West Beirut, but then after the PLO withdrawal (on 8/20/82), he returned to Syria, to Tartous, joining the rebellion against PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. Near Bedwari camp he fought, as part of the Fatah Intifada uprising, this following the PLO split along -pro-Arafat and pro-Hafez Assad cleavages.

Later, Ali undertook study on his own in Tartous (Tripoli, Syria), and at one point escaped from prison in Turkey where he had been jailed for demonstrating against the fascist regime in Ankara. Returning to Syria, he joined Syrian Army battles against the Bilal Shaaban-led Al Tawhid Islamic (Muslim Brotherhood ), following which he and the PFLI moved to the area of Halba in Akkar, Lebanon, and organized a resistance training camp. Eventually, however, he returned to Syria to continue the fight to liberate the Syrian territory of Iskenderun, and while supported by Syrian citizens, the Kayali-led group was not formally part of the Syrian security/resistance apparatus.

pflipositions
Commander Ali discussing PFLI positions
Speaking with non-government analysts in Latkia, this observer was repeatedly told that the PFLI has the reputation of understanding the geography and politics of the Syrian coast area where its fighters are currently active, including Aleppo, Banias, between Tartous and the countryside around Latakia, as well as the Idlib, Homs and Damascus areas.

As PFLI fighters and officials put it, “Syria will not kneel to the Zionist-Arab project to destroy the unity and independence of the Syrian Arab Republic.” According to one PFLI spokesperson, the group “supports and stands in the same trench, hand in hand with the state, confronting two foreign projects—the first being to destroy the achievements of the Syrian people and Syria’s social fabric and multi-cultural heritage, and the second being to infiltrate foreign intruders.”

One place the PFLI is currently fighting is the strategic rebel bastion of Yabrud, in the Qalamoun Mountains, north of Damascus, near the Lebanese border. On 3/3/14, during a meeting with this observer and some of his associates, Ali Kyali received a phone call relaying information that Sahel village, about four miles from Yabrud, had come under control of Syrian and pro-Syrian forces, including the PFLI. Remarkably open with battlefield details, Ali explained that pro-Syria forces do not want to occupy Yabrud, but rather the strategy is to control the villages surrounding it in order to trap al Nursa and other rebel militia inside. Asked about the trapped local population and reminded of the fate of the inner city populations of Aleppo, Homs and a dozen other locations, Ali shrugged and turned up his palms.

Today (3/7/14) the PFLI is fighting to try to cut off the road linking Yabrud to Arsal in eastern Lebanon, whose majority population supports the Syrian revolt. PFIL fighters were involved last week with the fall of Al-Sahl, a town a little over a mile south of Yabrud, and now are fighting in and around Yaboud, preparing for the anticipated final assault. According to Ali’s personal bodyguards, they are facing Al-Qaida’s Syria affiliate, al-Nusra Front. Some of PFLI’s 3000 troops are also fighting this week in Douma, Jobar, Aleppo, the countryside around Lattakia, and Deralcia near Nubek on the main Damascus-Homs highway. They also played a key role earlier in Baniyas, in the battle between Tartous and Latakia. One YouTube clip being given to visitors to the PFLI HQ in Latakia shows the group’s participation, including women, in a recent important battle against the ISIS:

The PFLI organization receives a variety of random and sporadic support from the local community, according to Mr. Kayali and his staff, but they, like most militia, need money and weapons and regular supplies of food. Also needed are places for the fighters to sleep, as well as more uniforms to accommodate a sharp influx of applicants seeking to join their ranks. Additionally there is the matter of funding death benefit payments for the families of PFLI men and women killed during resistance.

PFLI fighters are not paid salaries, which sets them apart financially from many Gulf-backed and Western-trained militia, who can garner monthly salaries from $500-$1,000. By contrast, pro-government popular committees, numbering approximately 5,000, and National Defense units, whose fighters number around 25,000, receive approximately 20,000 Syrian Pounds, or $126 a month. Footing much of this bill are Syrian businessmen such as Rami Mahlouf, cousin of President Bashar Assad. Regular Syrian army recruits get only 3000 Syrian pounds, or about $20 monthly, but they also receive food and lodging and health and travel benefits. Syrian army reservists are said to receive approximately $10.50 per month.

jofa

“Joan of Arc” with part of her resistance family
For Ali Kayali, the PFLI is also a family matter. His wife and daughter and two sons are deeply connected with its resistance goals. His sons are fighters, as are his wife and daughter when called upon, though in-between time they do other resistance projects. Nicked-named “Joan of Arc,” his 22-year-old daughter attends medical school, but reportedly is also a ferocious fighter and adept battlefield tactician, with dramatic results in a number of battles against rebels over the past nearly two years. She is a strong, no-nonsense feminist and told me she loves to shock takfiris, who sometimes appear amazed to see her and her female unit chasing them up the side of some mountain.
It is said that an army (or a militia, for that matter) travels on its stomach. This observer was treated to an impromptu roadside lunch with half a dozen PFLI fighters last week. Their favorite cook, Mahmoud, a small guy who always seems to wear the same blue shirt, invited us. Within minutes, Mahmoud gathered some twigs and small chunks of wood, lit a small fire, covered it with a metal grate, grabbed a bag of flour, mixed in water, kneaded it a bit, and shaped and roasted some small, irregular round loaves. On these he sprinkled, from another plastic bag, some handfuls of spices. His fast and hot food was delicious, constituting Mhamra manouche (roasted pita bread with spicy red pepper sauce), Zaatar  manouche (oregano, thyme, & sesame seeds), and Jibneh (cheese) manouche.
Captagon Jihad?
Sitting in the lobby of a run-down, less-than-one-star, dockside hotel opposite the Mediterranean, a lodging establishment occasionally used as quarters by various militia, this observer and his companion spoke leisurely one early morning with one of Ali Kyali’s sons and a companion. When not fighting jihadists (in “Have AK-47, Will Travel”-mode), they are among his father’s bodyguards. I have for a while been interested in claims by Western governments that they are supplying “humanitarian non-lethal aid” to rebel groups, including night goggles, telecommunication equipment, and GPS devices. This observer views all such equipment as misnamed and indeed lethal inasmuch as they facilitate one side killing the other via night snipers or through expedition of troop movements. I was a bit surprised to learn what PFLI fighters thought of this kind of equipment being given to their adversaries and labeled ‘humanitarian aid.’
“Not having night goggles, except for some we take off the enemy, is not much of a problem for us because we can sense where al Nusra fighters are, and they tend not to fight at night,” Ali’s son told me.
I asked why the reluctance to fight at night, thinking maybe it had something to do with a religious edict of some sort, but once more I was mistaken.
“No it’s not that, it’s because they are too paranoid and exhausted, from taking captagon and even stronger drugs, to fight at night.”
According the guys I was sitting with, some with more than two years fighting experience with the PFLI, many, if not most, of the Gulf-sponsored jihadists are given bags of pills to enhance their battlefield courage. And it works to a degree. At dawn each day, jihadists take drugs, including large doses of captagon and other widely available drugs. There also are some particularly potent drugs, known locally as “baltcon,” “afoun,” and ”zolm,” as well as opium, heroin, cocaine, and hashish. The main drug routes into the Syrian battle zones, I was advised, run from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Lebanon, with lesser amounts coming via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. Lebanon’s Bekaa valley apparently produces large amounts of captagon pills for shipment to the Gulf, and now to Syria. Jihadists high on drugs apparently feel invincible, and hostile, and do not fear death. Many are indeed ferocious and fearless fighters during the day, as many media sources have reported. But by nightfall, when the drug wears off, the fighters become exhausted and sometimes are found asleep on the very scene of battle they were fighting from.

“Many of the ‘Gulfies’ are in fact heavily addicted to strong heroin-like drugs. They crave them, and sometimes they even fight with their fellow militiamen to get their ‘fixes.’ We are told by some we capture that sometimes, when one of their comrades is killed, the fallen fighter’s ‘friends’ will descend on his body, not particularly to pray over it, but to rummage his pockets for his drugs.”

In point of fact, in 2011 alone, Lebanese authorities confiscated three amphetamine production labs, in addition to two Captagon-producing labs, which they claim were responsible for sending hundreds of thousands of the pills to the Gulf. The seizure of trucks with captagon in their chassis in Lebanon, and at Beirut airport, shows a growing demand for these products in the Syrian militia market. The UN recently reported that the Middle and Near East are experiencing the majority of drug busts globally.
Al Nusra Front and ISIS—being some of the more extreme “imported jihadists,” as some here call them—claim to be better fighters than Hezbollah, whose units set the fighting skill bar fairly high these days. Some of them claim they have not really started their battle to defeat Hezbollah on its own territory, but will do so when they are ready. But as one PFLI fighter explained, and some of his buddies nodded agreement, only when high on drugs do Qatari/Saudi jihadists exhibit bravery and bravado. Only then do they pose a serious threat, because they ignore normal defensive fighting tactics.
“We know many of these guys quite well. Lots of them were never even religious. There are many who are drug addicts, who get high and lose their fear of dying, so they are dangerous to confront, and they often use strange tactics.”
According to another PFLI source, the “imported Jihadists” die in high numbers because they ignore the battlefield realities. Their average number of dead in any given firefight over the past two years is estimated to be approximately five times the number of Hezbollah casualties, three times the number of PFLI fighters, and twice the number of casualties than the regular Syrian army.
As the Syrian crisis enters its fourth year, with more jihadists arriving and more militia being formed across the political and religious spectrum, the US intelligence community and congressional sources are now predicting the war will continue for another decade or more. It’s anyone’s guess what the post-Syrian crisis period will bring to this region given the rise of ethno-nationalism along with demands for the return of Sykes-Picot land grabs. There are also growing signs of a cataclysmic intifada in Palestine. When you add to all that US intelligence predictions of the overthrow of two, and possibly three, Gulf monarchies, another Hezbollah-Zionist war, plus the deterioration of the social and religious fabric across the region, the future looks bleak indeed.
Franklin Lamb is a visiting Professor of International Law at the Faculty of Law, Damascus University and volunteers with the Sabra-Shatila Scholarship Program (sssp-lb.com).

Chuck Hagel bow down to please Israel

Chuck Hagel who was painted as “Jew-hater, anti-Israel, pro-Iran and receiving funds from Hamas”, has finally learned how to keep his new job for a while. In order to please his pro-Israeli opponents, on Tuesday, Chuck Hagel invited and ‘huged’ Israel’s out-going foreign minister Gen. Ehud Barack. Barack was in Washington to address the AIPAC annual policy conference. Barak’s entire speech was centered against the Islamic Republic. He pleaded Obama administration to “build a regional security framework” against Iran.

Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported on March 5, that after “hugs and Kisses” Hagel held a 2-hour-long meeting with Barak and assured him that the recent $85 billion budget cuts would not affect $3 billion annual aid to Israel.

Hagel assured Barak during their meeting that he was committed to the security of Israel and of preserving the Israel Defense Forces’ qualitative advantage over the armies of the Arab world. He also said that he would work to ensure that US funding toward Israel, particularly with regard to its defense systems, would continue despite fiscal uncertainty,” reported Ha’aretz.

Lawerence Korb, is a Zionist Jew and former top official at the Pentagon. Currently, Korb is a senior fellow at two Israeli advocacy groups, Center for American Progress and Council on Foreign Relations, has claimed that Hagel wouldn’t carry revenge against Israel or Israel lobby groups for their venomous campaign against Hagel in the recent past. “Everything what happened in recent months means nothing now. Chuck Hagel is not the kind of guy who will try to get back at people” said Korb.

In other words, Korb believes that even insulting Chuck Hagel with “antisemite” label by influential Jewish leaders like Abraham Foxman (ADL) and convicted Elliot Abrams (CFR), will not affect Hagel’s support for the Zionist regime.

Minister Louis Frarrakhan talked about Chuck Hagel and the Zionist grip on the US administration during his speech at the NOI’s annual Saviours Day Convention. Watch the video below.

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

From the Womb of Gaza: Geo-strategically Vulnerable “Israel”

Nour Rida

Over and over again, “Israel” commits all kinds of coward and dreadful massacres and crimes, the only difference this time: the Resistance is invincible. A new political and military equation is seeing light in the Middle East, clearly revealing “Israel’s” geo-strategic vulnerabilities.

The Zionist entity, which was once notorious for its invincibility has proved unable to intercept short-range and long-range resistance rockets, while its leaders roll one after the other towards resignation, most recent of which is the Zionist War Minister Ehud Barak.

 
Pragmatically speaking, uprooting the Palestinian Resistance is impossible, and uprooting the neighboring Resistance movement in Lebanon, Hizbullah, is even out of question. “Israel” finds itself entrapped within the Resistance axis, losing international support and living more turmoil on the inside. Not only that but also the Resistance in Palestine manacled “Israeli” ground troops, preventing any ground invasion thanks to the Iranian-made missiles.

Watching the scene in the “Israeli Pillar of Cloud” fiasco reminds right away of the 2006 July war which turned out to be a divine victory for the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, when “Israeli” battleships and helicopters were targeted. The Hamas and Islamic Jihad capabilities and long-sighted vision (unlike that of “Israel”) justifies the absence of “Israeli” Apachi helicopters and the freeze of ground operations in the latest Gaza assault.

The battleships, warplanes, infantry troops, tanks, and the farthest “Israeli” settlements have become within the reach of the Palestinian Resistance missiles.

And despite the fact that “Israel” brutally massacred the Palestinians, leaving more than 160 Palestinians martyred and more than 1200 injured, yet the Gazans stood resolute and unyielding, versus a scene of screams and panic among the “Israeli” military society.

Today, not only Gaza and its resistance enjoy the support of the region’s most powerful states, but also it has started to enjoy a more international backing.

Despite the US past, present, and current support of “Israel”, “Israel’s” so-called deterrence power has been destroyed vis-à-vis the axis of Resistance, and just like it proved a scandalous failure in the 2006 July aggression, and in the 2008 war on Gaza, the Zionist entity reaped the fruits of downfall in the 8-day aggression. “Israel” can no longer attack and expect no response.

The new capabilities of the Palestinian Resistance which surprised “Israel” in striking deep inside the Zionist entity makes it think twice before taking any stupid military strike.

Palestinian leaders have assured that “Israel” lost ‘Big Time’ in the last assault. The Islamic Jihad leader, Ibrahim Najjar, confirmed that the recent confrontation changed the existing balances, which have lasted for six decades, in terms of “Israel’s” vaunting towards the Arab nation in general, and the Palestinians in particular.

The Hamas official Khalil Abu Laila, for his part, assured that the most important elements in this equation were the steadfast of the Palestinians and the resistance weapons, either locally-made or Iranian-made.

Also, the surprises of the Resistance in Lebanon have bewildered “Israel”. On the latest event held in Dahyeh, the Beirut Southern suburb commemorating Ashoura, Hizbullah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addressing the Zionist enemy vowed “Let the “Israeli” leaders listen to this: the battle with “Israel” is not restricted to a 70 km distance, in fact it includes the whole of “Israel” from Kiryat Shmona reaching Eilat (settlements).”

He highlighted that “Israel” could not tolerate some Fajr missiles hitting Tel Aviv during the 8-day “Israeli” assault on Gaza, questioning “How can “Israel” even consider attacking Lebanon when it will be met with tens of thousands of rockets that will rain down on Tel Aviv and other “Israeli” territories?”

With new elements put on the table before the Zionist entity-while many other cards have not been revealed yet- “Israel” stands confused while living the domino effect on the governmental and popular levels.

Source: moqawama.org

  • “Israel” Suffered a Double Defeat
  • What Lessons Did the Lebanese Resistance Derive from Gaza Experience?
  • “Israelis” in Shock, Shame as Gaza Prepares to Dictate Another Lesson of Victory
  • “United in Resistance,” Palestinians in Gaza Remain Steadfast

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

    Operation Security Roof*


     By Gilad Atzmon

    Following the IDF difficulties in defeating Hamas’s ballistic warfare, the Israeli Government is now searching for contractors with some advanced experience in large scale reinforced concrete constructions. The mission ahead is the building of a solid concrete roof over the entire Jewish State.  PM Netanyahu is determined that the only way to defend Israel’s populated area is to cover the Jewish State with a thick layer of iron and cement.

    The Israeli Government’s decision to build a concrete roof followed a considerable debate within the cabinet. Defence Minister Ehud Barak insisted that a massive extension of the current Security Wall would be enough to provide the goods. Barak maintained that a substantial increase of the wall to the height of 90,000 ft. would be more than sufficient to stop missiles from entering Israeli territory. He sensibly argued that Israeli youngsters would benefit from seeing the blue sky when they raise their eyes above. Prime Minister Netanyahu couldn’t agree less. Being fully aware of the nature of ballistic warfare, the PM contended that the only way to provide the Jewish State with the ultimate security is to cover it from above with a reinforced concrete shield. Israeli President Shimon Peres, the legendary peace enthusiast, offered a compromise inspired by the idea of a trampoline. Peres suggested that a Security Wall’s 90,000 ft. extension made of an elastic net would do the job. The elder statesman argued that an elastic net will guarantee that every Palestinian missile aimed at Israel would bounce back to the Arab territory once it hits the net. Netanyahu and Barak dismissed Peres’s suggestion. They argued that considering the excessive Israeli usage of artillery and missiles against the Gazans, the Jewish State would suffer far more from the erection of such a ‘bouncy net’. “Israel,” said Barak, “would never survive the extent of its own fierce artillery barrages bouncing back on itself.”

    In a press conference following the heated cabinet debate, the Government spokesman Mr Zion Zioni stressed that “following the total success of the Security Wall in stopping Palestinian suicidal terror, ‘Security Roof’ is obviously the natural way to proceed.” Mr Zioni maintained as well that the new Israeli project will turn the Jewish State into a “sealed Jewish Bunker”. “In fact,” Zioni emphasised, “‘Operation Security Roof’ brings the Zionist adventure into its final destination. We are now moving from the ‘Iron Wall’ phase into the ‘Concrete Roof’ future. With a reinforced concrete ceiling from above, a Security Wall in the East and the Mediterranean Sea in the West, the Jewish State will eventually become the safest haven for world Jewry. Herzl’s dream comes true. Long Live Israel!”
    Yet, some technical difficulties lay ahead. Probably the most crucial problem has something to do with breathing. Like the rest of the humankind,  most Israeli people consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Apparently, the Israeli cabinet Ministers were made aware of this very crucial fact by the Health Minister Dr. Herbal Krechtzen. Netanyahu, being a man of action, responded immediately. Already in the cabinet meeting he authorised the Defence Ministry to explore different solutions to the acute biological problem.

    We already learned from the Defence Ministry spokesman Lt. Galileo Galilee that ‘Filter On The  Roof’, the Israeli-American High Tech chemical giant (traded on Wall Street, operated from Gush Katif) has been contracted to deal with the problem. We have learned as well from Lt. Galilee that Filter On  The Roof has already come up with more than a few solutions. Although some of the solutions are rather radical, it is crucial to mention that they are all extremely innovative, as you would expect from an Israeli-American High Tech venture. Probably the most conventional and practical solution proposed by the chemical giant was to bore as many as 6 million ventilation holes in the roof. Peres,  Netanyahu  and Barak rejected the possibility without even thinking twice. “Considering our traumatic collective memory of the holocaust,” so they said, “turning the Jewish State into a big room with holes in the ceiling is simply unacceptable.”

    Probably the most radical suggestion made by the Israeli-American company was to train the Jewish population in Israel to breath like fish. By the time the Israeli people are well trained, all that is left to do is just to fill the Jewish bunker with seawater. In other words, Filter on the Roof suggested to turn the Israeli State into a ‘giant Jewish tropical aquarium’. Though this option seems to be very radical and even inconceivable, most cabinet Ministers reacted enthusiastically. They all agreed that such a solution would fit nicely with the concept of modern Jewish life in general and Zionism in particular. Israelis love the sea. Israelis, unlike the Diaspora Jews are not afraid of water. Once the entire Israeli society is covered with water, no one would ever consider throwing them to the sea.

    We will be following this developing story and keeping you informed.

    * This is an old piece of mine, I re-print it today with some minor changes.

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

    Netanyahu: The Mouth that Roars

    My PhotoHis bluster long ago wore thin. Iranian/Israeli/Middle East analyst Meir Javedanfar said he put himself up a tree and wants Obama to bring him down. “It’s come down to threats, threats, threats, but we are at a saturation point.”

    Growing numbers of Israelis reject him for good reason. He menaces them like others. Attacking Iran assures retaliation most Israelis fear. It’ll mean widespread destruction, radiation contamination, and large numbers killed or injured.

    Gush Shalom founder Uri Avnery asked if he and Barak are mad or crazy? Netanyahu “may be crazy, but he is not mad. (Barak) may be mad, but he is not crazy.”

    They’re an incendiary duo, but won’t attack Iran. Avnery quoted the film line: “If you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.” He calls Netanyahu/Barak “beyond rational thinking.”

    Israeli political analyst Yossi Alpher called Netanyahu’s antics “overkill. The US establishment is fed up with him. The Israeli public is fed up with him.” He created a “public controversy” and doesn’t know how to get out of it.

    His vow to go it alone is bluster, not bite. Instead of calming things down, inflammatory comments follow earlier ones. On August 2, the Jerusalem Post headlined “Winograd: Striking Iran may endanger Israel’s future,” saying:

    Former Supreme Court Justice Eliyahu Winograd opposes attacking Iran for good reason. In 2006, he headed the Committee of Inquiry on why Israel’s Lebanon war failed. He said:

    “I am not convinced that the decision-makers will implement the findings of that report. If that is the case, we are all in big trouble.”

    He denounced Netanyahu/Barak hawkishness on Iran despite strong opposition by senior Israeli past and current officials.

    “All the heads of the defense establishment, the Shin Bet, the Mossad, both former and current, and military intelligence, everyone is saying ‘Don’t attack!’ ”

    “(O)nly Barak and Netanyahu have decided yes,” or have they? Bluster often hides intentions. Bullies usually back down when confronted.

    Winograd’s committee called Israel’s Lebanon war a failure. Political leaders didn’t sufficiently consult with military officials before attacking. They left before they looked.

    Home Front preparedness was also inadequate. Little attention was given then and again now. A “rain of missiles” may follow attacking Iran. Israel is woefully unprepared. How many Israelis will die for Netanyahu/Barak’s folly? Why should any when peace avoids bloodshed.

    How much longer will they put up with their bluster? Winograd criticized Netanyahu for complaining about former officials expressing views publicly. He’s more vocal than anyone.

    “You intend to act. Sit down and shut up. Decide secretly if you’re attacking, and if you decide to attack, attack. But what are you talking for? So that the Iranians will be even more prepared and ready their missiles to target us?”

    “You are going to endanger our entire country, everything we have built. Both the country physically and the economy.”

    Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz echoed his comments, saying:

    “Israel cannot act alone to prevent the Iranian nuclear program at this time. Such action might bring us into a very difficult war.”

    Days earlier, Mofaz called Netanyahu “confused, stressed out and unfocused. (He) lost the trust of the security chiefs,” Obama and Shimon Peres. Former Mossad head Efraim Halevy fears a generation of war if Israel attacks Iran.

    “We have to take into account the possibility that if we attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, there will no longer be a political horizon in regard to Iran or sanctions against Iran.”

    “We have to deploy for the possibility that while the immediate result of the operation will be Israel’s glorification in the Sunni Arab world, the later result will be a sharp anti-Israeli public wave in the spirit of the Arab Spring.”

    “We need to understand that after the attack, a deep Israeli complex will develop in Iran, one that crosses parties and opinions and communities, because we will become the symbol of those that humiliated Iran and prevented it from restoring its greatness.”

    “We need to remember that we are very much dependent on the United States and not utter boastful slogans that we are sovereign and therefore will take our fate into our hands.”

    Weeks ago, former Mossad head Meir Dagan said Israel faces no existential threat. He criticized inflammatory warmongering and urged changing Israeli’s system.

    “(W)e need a prime minister,” he said,” who will not be subject to political pressures when deciding on such issues as an attack on Iran or a peace agreement.”

    “The State of Israel is at a critical point in time of great challenges both foreign and domestic. Minority groups are controlling the state and the majority is not being heard.”

    Former Military Intelligence head Major General (ret.) Uri Saguy also believes Netanyahu/Barak are heading Israel over a cliff. He expressed outrage over their dangerous warmongering. He called it “orchestrated and purposely timed hysteria that puts the country into a state of anxiety, artificial or not.”

    His bottom line is that Netanyahu/Barak can’t be trusted. How can they be by putting Israelis and others in danger. IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz and Mossad head Tamir Pardo also oppose war.
    So do Air Force head Amir Eshel, Military Intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi, Shin Bet director Yoram Cohen, and other top Israeli officials. Netanyahu/Barak are increasingly isolated.

    On September 4, Haaretz headlined “In the Iranian poker game, Netanyahu and Barak have overplayed their hand,” saying:

    The Israeli Hayom daily has close ties to Netanyahu. In recent weeks, it’s featured a barrage of worrying reports on Iran’s alleged nuclear progress and Washington’s failure to halt it.

    In the last few days, something changed. On August 31, it highlighted Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey’s comments about America’s unwillingness to be complicit if Israel goes it alone.

    The strategically timed IAEA report got second billing. On September 1, Iran got back page coverage. On September 3, it again made headlines, “but only in the form of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz’s vague statement that the IDF can act ‘anywhere, anytime.’ ”

    In other words, the daily out in front echoing inflammatory Netanyahu comments now backed off. “Does this indicate that (he’s) seeking a ladder to climb down from” his perch high up in a tree and very much out on a limb?

    Perhaps he overplayed his hand. Crying wolf enough times begins falling on deaf ears. Growing Netanyahu/Barak public disapproval also matters. So does disagreement with Washington. It’s over timing, not policy.

    Key is that Netanyahu/Barak talk is bluster. Without Washington’s support, attacking Iran won’t happen. Haaretz thinks inflammatory Israeli comments damaged US/Israeli relations. Perhaps eventually but not now.

    Key is what major media reports don’t say. Their common theme is suppressing truth and full disclosure. On Iran, Haaretz is no different. The Islamic Republic poses no Israeli or regional threat. Its nuclear program is peaceful.

    Top world leaders know it. Over 100 NAM countries support it. They oppose US/Israeli warmongering. Their agenda is peace, not conflict. They respect national sovereignty inviolability.
    They know international law prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. It’s also unequivocal against attacking another one except in self-defense.

    These issues are ignored in America’s media, what’s seen and read across Europe, and what Israeli broadcast and print media report. They’re key above all others. Failure to discuss them advances the ball for war.

    Doing so is reckless, irresponsible, and complicit. It puts culpable journalists in the same category as propagandists. Blood will be on their hands if it’s shed.

    Apologies won’t be forthcoming for being on the wrong side of rule of law principles, support for what should be condemned, and failure to do what good journalists should – their job.

    A Final Comment

    On September 4, Israeli intelligence officials briefed Netanyahu and security cabinet members. They do it annually or when special occasions arise.

    They focused on Iran, Syria, Egypt, and US/Israeli relations. The meeting was closed. Ministerial aides and advisors weren’t invited. Military intelligence, Mossad and Shin Bet participated. So did Foreign Ministry representatives.

    A follow-up meeting is likely. Hopefully opposition to inflammatory rhetoric was stressed. Honest talk about no existential threat needs highlighting and repetition. Truth needs to be separated from what’s not. Above all, avoiding potentially catastrophic war is vital.

    French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is no peacenik. He’s hardline for direct Western intervention against Syria. His no-fly zone/safe haven advocacy means war if either or both are instituted.
    At the same time, he warns about attacking Iran. “I think that if there were an Israeli attack, unfortunately it could come back to haunt Israel,” he said.

    “I am absolutely opposed to the idea that Iran would gain nuclear weapons,” he said, “but I think if there was an Israeli attack,” Tehran will be victimized and gain legitimacy.

    Britain’s defense establishment Royal United Services Institute director Michael Clarke says there’s “no basis in international law for preventative, rather than preemptive, war.”

    There’s no basis for either except when clear evidence shows foreign forces mobilized for attack.
    Israeli borders aren’t threatened. Iran supports peace, not war. Its nuclear program is legal and non-military. It fully complies with NPT provisions.

    Those issues deserve daily headlines. Don’t expect warmongering media to feature them.

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”

    http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

     

    Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

     

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

    Did America Say NO to Israel?

    by Gilad Atzmon

    delusional physic

    In the last few hours we have learned that the US had made massive reductions to joint military exercise with Israel.  Originally slated to include 5,000 US troops, Washington will now only send 1,500 to participate in Austere Challenge 12 with Israel. 

     
    Apparently, the American administration is concerned with a possible Israeli strike on Iran.
    Some Israelis seem unhappy with the American decision. The Times quoted a senior Israeli military official as speculating,

    “Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you.’”

    Well, America has good reason not to trust Israel. The only question here is why did it take America so long to move in the right direction?
    Although Washington will still send the Patriot missile defense systems as planned, the crews that man them will not arrive. And whereas two Aegis ballistic missile defense ships were slated to arrive for the joint drill, now only one is expected.
     
    The message to Israel is clear – if you want to launch a world war without US approval, you’d better find how to defend your people on your own.
    Not specifically referring to the exercise, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey said on Thursday that he did not want to be “complicit” if Israel chose to strike Iran’s nuclear program. Dempsey also added that an attack would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program.”
     
    It should also be mentioned that Dempsey’s views are overwhelmingly supported by most Israeli military experts who also contend that Israel lacks the military capacity to strike Iran, let alone dismantle the Iranian nuclear program. 
    As much as the American Jewish Lobby, together with Barak and Netanyahu are pushing for a new global conflict, America may still be saved by just a few brains who are beginning to realize that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace.
     
    River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
    The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

    Barak: Iranian Threat A Sword on Our Neck

    Last updated 30-05-2012 – 10:57

    Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that the Iranian threat has reached a point that constitutes “a sword on the neck” of the Zionist entity.

    Ehud BarakSpeaking at the annual conference of the Institute for National Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, Barak stated that the Israeli leadership felt like the “Jewish State had a sword to its neck prior to the 1967 Six-Day War”***, and felt their was no choice but to act. He suggested that the “Iranian threat” may have come to this point, or be nearing this point.

    The defense minister, who has often employed the phrase “point of no return” in referring to Iran’s nuclear program, said that a sword on the neck traditionally has meant that one’s enemies have attained weaponry and are poised to strike. When speaking of nuclear capabilities, he added, the ability to obtain the weapon is enough to constitute a sword on the neck. If Iran has already obtained nuclear weapons, it will be too late to act, Barak said.

    Barak said that while “nobody wants to go to war,” Iran was “methodically” working towards nuclear weapons capability. He reiterated the Israeli leadership’s stance that Tehran is buying time to place itself in a position to “pursue nuclear weapons”.

    He said that the Iranian regime was disguising its actions so that the international community would not know when they had “passed the line in the sand.” “The Iranians are trying to lead the entire world astray and breach the directives of the IAEA,” Barak claimed.

    ****Fact check

    There was no united front challenging Israel, no “Arab strategy.” Egypt, Syria, and Jordan distrusted each other. Tarring Israel as an enemy was pure propaganda, propaganda that segued into a policy of baiting, without the means to back up the threats.
    “The creation of a new Israeli cabinet on June 2 brought in hawks such as Moshe Dayan as defense minister and hardliner Menachem Begin. They insisted that the bluff be called to put an end to Syrian threats, deflate Nasser’s prestige, and maintain the IDF’s credibilityall while achieving Israel’s geopolitical goals, that is, expanding the state’s borders and increasing its strategic depth. On June 4, the cabinet voted to go to war.”

    For five years,” IDF chief of operations Gen. Ezer Weizman recalled, referring to the surprise air strike against Egypt,
    “I had been talking of this operation, explaining it, hatching it, dreaming of it, manufacturing it link by link, training men to carry it out.”
    “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches,” Menachem Begin told the New York Times, “do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

    River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

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

    %d bloggers like this: