In Memory of Robert Fisk: “The Forgotten Massacre” – Reposted

In Memory of Robert Fisk: “The Forgotten Massacre” – Reposted

By Staff

In memory of Robert Fisk, a journalist who was “renowned for his courage in questioning official narratives” and publishing “frequently brilliant prose”.

During his decades-long career, Fisk covered key international events including the Lebanese civil war, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian revolution, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, conflicts in the Balkans and the Arab Spring.

Fisk was particularly renowned for his war reporting.

The Forgotten Massacre

Robert Fisk, Sunday 15 September 2013

The memories remain, of course. The man who lost his family in an earlier massacre, only to watch the young men of Chatila lined up after the new killings and marched off to death. But – like the muck piled on the garbage tip amid the concrete hovels – the stench of injustice still pervades the camps where 1,700 Palestinians were butchered 30 years ago next week. No-one was tried and sentenced for a slaughter, which even an “Israeli” writer at the time compared to the killing of Yugoslavs by Nazi sympathizers in the Second World War. Sabra and Chatila are a memorial to criminals who evaded responsibility, who got away with it.

Khaled Abu Noor was in his teens, a would-be militiaman who had left the camp for the mountains before “Israel’s” Phalangist allies entered Sabra and Chatila. Did this give him a guilty conscience, that he was not there to fight the rapists and murderers? “What we all feel today is depression,” he said. “We demanded justice, international trials – but there was nothing. Not a single person was held responsible. No-one was put before justice. And so we had to suffer in the 1986 camps war [at the hands of Shia Lebanese] and so the “Israelis” could slaughter so many Palestinians in the 2008-9 Gaza war. If there had been trials for what happened here 30 years ago, the Gaza killings would not have happened.”

He has a point, of course. While presidents and prime ministers have lined up in Manhattan to mourn the dead of the 2001 international crimes against humanity at the World Trade Centre, not a single Western leader has dared to visit the dank and grubby Sabra and Chatila mass graves, shaded by a few scruffy trees and faded photographs of the dead. Nor, let it be said – in 30 years – has a single Arab leader bothered to visit the last resting place of at least 600 of the 1,700 victims. Arab potentates bleed in their hearts for the Palestinians but an airfare to Beirut might be a bit much these days – and which of them would want to offend the “Israelis” or the Americans?

It is an irony – but an important one, nonetheless – that the only nation to hold a serious official enquiry into the massacre, albeit flawed, was “Israel”. The “Israeli” army sent the killers into the camps and then watched – and did nothing – while the atrocity took place. A certain “Israeli” Lieutenant Avi Grabowsky gave the most telling evidence of this. The Kahan Commission held the then “defense” minister Ariel Sharon personally responsible, since he sent the ruthless anti-Palestinian Phalangists into the camps to “flush out terrorists” – “terrorists” who turned out to be as non-existent as Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction 21 years later.

Sharon lost his job but later became prime minister, until broken by a stroke which he survived – but which took from him even the power of speech. Elie Hobeika, the Lebanese Christian militia leader who led his murderers into the camp – after Sharon had told the Phalange that Palestinians had just assassinated their leader, Bashir Gemayel – was murdered years later in east Beirut. His enemies claimed the Syrians killed him, his friends blamed the “Israelis”; Hobeika, who had “gone across” to the Syrians, had just announced he would “tell all” about the Sabra and Chatila atrocity at a Belgian court, which wished to try Sharon.

Of course, those of us who entered the camps on the third and final day of the massacre – 18 September, 1982 – have our own memories. I recall the old man in pajamas lying on his back on the main street with his innocent walking stick beside him, the two women and a baby shot next to a dead horse, the private house in which I sheltered from the killers with my colleague Loren Jenkins of The Washington Post – only to find a dead young woman lying in the courtyard beside us. Some of the women had been raped before their killing. The armies of flies, the smell of decomposition. These things one remembers.

Abu Maher is 65 – like Khaled Abu Noor, his family originally fled their homes in Safad in present-day “Israel” – and stayed in the camp throughout the massacre, at first disbelieving the women and children who urged him to run from his home. “A woman neighbor started screaming and I looked out and saw her shot dead and her daughter tried to run away and the killers chased her, saying “Kill her, kill her, don’t let her go!” She shouted to me and I could do nothing. But she escaped.”

Repeated trips back to the camp, year after year, have built up a narrative of astonishing detail. Investigations by Karsten Tveit of Norwegian radio and myself proved that many men, seen by Abu Maher being marched away alive after the initial massacre, were later handed by the “Israelis” back to the Phalangist killers – who held them prisoner for days in eastern Beirut and then, when they could not swap them for Christian hostages, executed them at mass graves.

And the arguments in favor of forgetfulness have been cruelly deployed. Why remember a few hundred Palestinians slaughtered when 25,000 have been killed in Syria in 19 months?

Supporters of “Israel” and critics of the Muslim world have written to me in the last couple of years, abusing me for referring repeatedly to the Sabra and Chatila massacre, as if my own eye-witness account of this atrocity has – like a war criminal – a statute of limitations. Given these reports of mine [compared to my accounts of Turkish oppression] one reader has written to me that “I would conclude that, in this case [Sabra and Chatila], you have an anti-“Israeli” bias. This is based solely on the disproportionate number of references you make to this atrocity…”

But can one make too many? Dr. Bayan al-Hout, widow of the PLO’s former ambassador to Beirut, has written the most authoritative and detailed account of the Sabra and Chatila war crimes – for that is what they were – and concludes that in the years that followed, people feared to recall the event. “Then international groups started talking and enquiring. We must remember that all of us are responsible for what happened. And the victims are still scarred by these events – even those who are unborn will be scarred – and they need love.” In the conclusion to her book, Dr. al-Hout asks some difficult – indeed, dangerous – questions: “Were the perpetrators the only ones responsible? Were the people who committed the crimes the only criminals? Were even those who issued the orders solely responsible? Who in truth is responsible?”

In other words, doesn’t Lebanon bear responsibility with the Phalangist Lebanese, “Israel” with the “Israeli” army, the West with its “Israeli” ally, the Arabs with their American ally? Dr al-Hout ends her investigation with a quotation from Rabbi Abraham Heschel who raged against the Vietnam war. “In a free society,” the Rabbi said, “some are guilty, but all are responsible”.

Related

أكتوبر 17 يوم الرأس بالرأس ويوم طار رأس زئيفي في القدس – نضال حمد

  الصفصاف

في السابع عشر من تشرين الأول – أكتوبر 2001 كانت فلسطين على موعد مع تنفيذ شعار ” الرأس بالرأس” الذي أطلقه القائد الفذ أحمد سعدات وكذلك رفاق الشهيد القائد الكبير أبو علي مصطفى الأمين العام للجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين، الذي اغتاله الاحتلال الصهيوني نهاية شهر آب – أغسطس  في مكتبه برام الله المحتلة.يوم 17-10-2001 على باب الغرفة رقم 816 في فندق بالقدس المحتلة تلقى الوزير الصهيوني الارهابي رحبعام زئيفي خمس رصاصات في الصدر والرأس أدت الى وفاته على الفور.

في تعليقه على عملية الاغتيال قال الارهابي شارون رئيس وزراء الكيان الصهيوني آنذاك: “كل شيء تغيّر”، مع إطلاقه وابلاً من التهديدات ضد الفلسطينيين” تكللت باجتياح رام الله وحصار مكتب رئيس السلطة ياسر عرفات حيث كان يعتقل سعدات ورفاقه بعد أن غدر بهم وتم اعتقالهم بقرار شخصي من ياسر عرفات نفذه توفيق الطيراوي.

زئيفي لم يكن كأي شخص صهيوني، فقد كان من الآباء والقادة المؤسسين للكيان الصهيوني. كما كان واحداً من أكثرهم ارهابا واجراما وعنصرية.. بالاضافة لعدائه الشديد لكل الفلسطينيين والعرب. كان من أشد دعاة الترانسفير وترحيل كل الفلسطينيين من أرضهم المحتلة.

بعد اغتيال زئيفي قامت أجزهة أمن السلطة الفلسطينية المنسقة مع الاحتلال الصهيوني بالاحتيال على “سعدات” الذين كان متخفيا ومتورايا عن الأنظار، وهو الخبير في ذلك لتجربته الطويلة في هذا المجال. طلب توفيق الطيراوي عقد لقاء مع سعدات لبحث شؤون وطنية ملحة، حصل اللقاء في احد فنادق رام الله، حيث تم اعتقال سعدات ورفاقه اعضاء الخلية الجبهوية التي نفذت عملية اغتيال زئيفي.

نقطة... وأول السطر - شخصيات: ما لا تعرفه عن بساطة توفيق الطيراوي ..ماذا طلب  منه ياسر عرفات ؟

بهذا العمل الشنيع أضافت سلطة اوسلوستان وصمة عار جديدة على الوصمات الكثيرة التي لطخت وتلطخ سيرة النضال الوطني الفلسطيني.

تعتبر عملية اغتيال وئيفي في قلب القدس المحتلة وفي فنندق للرسميين الصهاينة من أهم وأشجع العمليات الفدائية الفلسطينية على مر تاريخ الصراع مع العدو الصهيوني. فهي كانت عملية نوعية وجرئية ومميزة بكل المقاييس والمعايير.

باغتيال الارهابي زئيفي ثأر الفلسطينيون لكرامتهم الوطنية ولشهدائهم، كما سددوا ضربة موجعة ودقيقة جداً للعدو الصهيوني. وضربة مؤلمة وشخصية للارهابي شارون صديق زئيفي وللصهاينة بشكل عام، ومن خلال قدرتهم على الرد المؤلم والدقيق والسريع والمميز، كما من خلال تنفيذ الوعد والعهد، وعد “الرأس بالرأس والعين بالعين” في وقت قياسي وسريع، وفي دقة عملياتية واختيار الشخص والمكان والزمان، وعودة وانسحاب منفذي العملية بسلام.

خزي اوسلوستان لم يتوقف عند اعتقال سعدات ورفاقه .. ففي الرابع عشر من آذار – مارس 2006 اقتحمت قوات الاحتلال الصهيوني سجن أريحا التابع للسلطة الفلسطينية. حيث اعتقلت القائد المناضل أحمد سعدات صاحب ومطلق شعار ” الرأس بالرأس والعين بالعين” مع رفاقه منفذي عملية اغتيال زئيفي. بالاضافة للواء فؤاد الشوبكي وهو أحد قادة حركة فتح ومساعد لرئيسها ورئيس السلطة والمنظمة الراحل ياسر عرفات.

بينما خرج سعدات رافع الراس ومكبل اليدين والقدمين محاطا بعشرات الجنود الصهاينة،

خرج وقائيو الأوسلة وأجزهتها الأمنية، حراس السجن من عناصر وضباط أجهزة شرطة وأمن سلطة اوسلوستان عراة وفقط بالكلاسين، مستسلمين، رافعين أيديهم فوق رؤوسهم، في مشهد مؤلم ومفجع ومخجل ومعيب ومهين للشعب العربي الفلسطيني كله صغيرا وكبيرا حياً وشهيدا وحرا وأسيرا.

014430

مشهد لا يغيب عن أعيينا ولن يغيب مدى الحياة.

أين نحن اليوم من شعاراتنا؟أين نحن اليوم من حرية أسرانا؟

الوحدة الوطنية الفلسطينية تجسدها الأعمال والأفعال ضد الاحتلال لا الشعارات الفارغة والكاذبة ولا اللقاءات والاجتماعات والتصريحات وتقاسم السلطات والمحسوبيات. تجسدها أعمال النضال والكفاح الشعبية والمسلحة فلا نضال شعبي ولا مقاومة شعبية بدون مقاومة مسلحة، أي العمل الحقيقي في الميادين وعلى أرض المواجهات. فطريق تحرير فلسطين لا يمر من خلال الكذب على شعبنا بل من خلال تقديم الولاء والطاعة والتوبة للبعض، في بيت الشعب العربي الفلسطيني. بيت المقاومة الفلسطينية المتمسكة بثوابت شعب فلسطين. فالفصائل التي تدعي المقاومة ولا تتمسك بالثوابت لا فائدة ترجى منها ولا من مقاومتها.

Ex-IOF Cmdr.: By Responding With Force to 2nd Intifada “Israel” “Won the Battle But Lost the War”

Ex-IOF Cmdr.: By Responding With Force to 2nd Intifada “Israel” “Won the Battle But Lost the War”

By Staff, Sputnik

“Israel” has learned a lot from the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000, says a retired colonel, who back then served as deputy commander of the combat intelligence corps. The primary lesson was to prevent a repeat of such bloody events, something that the “Israeli” entity has managed to master.

It was a decision that sparked mass protests against the entity, triggering a fire.

Twenty years ago, on 28 September, then head of the “Israeli” entity’s opposition Ariel Sharon paid a visit to al-Haram Sharif [Temple Mount] in al-Quds [Jerusalem].

The official reason for the visit was to inspect the construction work that has been done in the area, but Palestinians regarded it as an attack on their holiest of holies and didn’t want it to go unnoticed.

A day after the visit, the Palestinian Authority [PA] announced three days of mourning and the fire of the Second Intifada, or the Palestinian popular uprising, lit by Sharon, started spreading, just 13 years after the first intifada.

Protests in Jerusalem inspired more protests by Palestinians across the West Bank and even Arabs within Israel. In the eight days following the visit, 13 Palestinians were killed amid violent clashes with Israeli security forces. Hundreds on both sides were wounded.

No Surprise

But the events didn’t catch the entity’s military by surprise.

Miri Eisin, now a retired colonel, who back then served as deputy commander of combat intelligence corps, says the army has been preparing for a possible Palestinian uprising from late 1990s, collecting information and following the Palestinian leaderships’ movement.

For her, as well as the security apparatus she represented, the question was not if the riots would start but rather when and what would ignite them.

Apparently, Sharon’s visit provided that spark, but Palestinian leaders have admitted that that was only an excuse and that the violent uprising would have happened regardless, with or without his move.

The entity’s response was quick and harsh, and Eisin says that magnitude probably “ignited an additional cycle [of violence]” that could have been avoided otherwise.

“In the first few months we were harsh against different types of events that started the intifada. They were instigating and we were responding”.

Programed to Respond with Force

During that time, the “Israeli” Occupation Forces [IOF] fired back at young people that threw stones at “Israeli” soldiers and responded violently in clashes with the Palestinian security forces.

It also rounded up and jailed hundreds of those who planned attacks or simply those who obstructed regular life, filling up “Israeli” prisons with Palestinian inmates.

Back then, Eisin admits, the IOF was programed to treat such events as a security challenge, and cared little about the media factor and the public diplomacy that has been used by the Palestinians to tilt international opinion in their favor.

As a result, “‘Israel’ was winning the battle but losing the war,” because while the entity was effective in combating Palestinian operations, it was condemned far and wide in the international arena.

The mass media gave the Palestinian riots a central stage in their coverage, whereas NGOs were scrutinizing the entity’s conduct and published reports on its human rights violations.

During the years of fighting, the “Israeli” entity lost more than 1,100 people. Over 8,000 were injured in Palestinian operations.

فتّش عن المستفيد لتتعرّف على المجرم

د. جمال شهاب المحسن

ما صدر مؤخّراً بشأن اغتيال رئيس الوزراء اللبناني الأسبق رفيق الحريري عن المحكمة الدولية الخاصة بلبنان التي نشأت خارجَ الأصول الوطنية السيادية اللبنانية والقوانين الدولية ولم يفاوضْ بشأنها رئيس الجمهورية اللبنانية ولم يصادقْ عليها مجلس النواب في خرقٍ فاضحٍ للدستور اللبناني، وبعد تنصّلِها من صلاحيتها في ملاحقة الشهود الزور واعتمادها على «أدلة ظرفية» قاصرة وغير ذات قيمة ثبوتية من خلال الاتصالات «الهاتفية المتزامنة» دون معرفة مضامينها وما دار فيها كأحد ركائز التحقيق والمحكمة والحكم والتي لا ترقى الى مستوى القرينة والدليل الفعلي، لا يُنتظر من هذه المحكمة إحقاقُ الحق ولا إقامةُ العدل.. وهنا لا بدَّ من التساؤل عن غياب وتغييب كلّ الفرضيات والحقائق والشواهد في مسار التحقيق الدولي والمحكمة الدولية منذ خمسة عشر عاماً التي تؤدي إلى توجيه أصابع الاتهام للكيان الصهيوني الإرهابي المجرم والولايات المتحدة الأميركية وأدواتهما المستفيدين الحقيقيين من الانقلاب السياسي والإعلامي والأمني الذي حصل في لبنان بعد اغتيال الحريري، وهذا يأخذُنا مباشرةً الى موضوع تضليل التحقيق الدولي والشهود الزور الذين ضلّلوا التحقيق ضمن خطةٍ مصمّمةٍ لذلك لاتهام سورية وحزب الله والضباط الأربعة وإبعاد التهمة عن المستفيدين الحقيقيين من عملية الاغتيال.

قبل سنوات صدر كتاب بعنوان: «النفاق الأميركي» لمؤلّفه عمران أدهم الوثيق الصلة بالأميركيين، سلِّط فيه الضوءَ على كثيرٍ من المخططات الأميركية في «الشرق الأوسط» وفي العالم، وأخطر ما فيه هو أنّ الولايات المتحدة الأميركية و»إسرائيل» كانتا وراء اغتيال رئيس الوزراء اللبناني رفيق الحريري. ويتضمّن الكتاب شهادات يقول المؤلف إنها نُقلت إليه شخصياً من أصحابها الذين كانوا مسؤولين كباراً في المخابرات الأميركية ويوردُ أسماءهم الصريحة، ويؤكد في الوقت نفسه أنه يملك ما يوثِّق هذه الإفادات وهو مستعدٌّ لعرضها إذا لزم الأمر، إذ يقول حرفياً: «إنني أحتفظ بعناية بالمستندات التي رفدتني بالمعلومات والأسرار الكبيرة والصغيرة وأنا على استعداد كامل للكشف عنها إذا لزم الأمر» ص 78.

ويتابع : يقول «جون بيركنز، أحد كبار المسؤولين في المخابرات المركزية الأميركية (قبل تقاعده)، روى لي القصة كاملة وأنقل وقائعها على لسانه حيث قال: «المسؤول عن موكب الحريري كان يعرف جيداً الساعة الصفر، ولأنه كان يعرف، فقد امتنع عن مرافقته عندما كان يستعدّ للانتقال من مجلس النواب إلى دارته في قريطم، بل إنه هو الذي أشار على الموكب بسلوك الطريق البحري في طريق العودة». مضيفاً: «إنّ الأقمار الأميركية والإسرائيلية صوّرت عملية الاغتيال، إضافةً إلى طائرة هليكوبتر إسرائيلية كانت في الجو في محاذاة الشاطئ اللبناني وكانت تراقب سير العملية، وقد رفضت الإدارة الأميركية أن تتولى لجنة تحقيق لبنانية التحقيق في العملية.. وفي تلفيق التهم، تمّ اختيار المحقق الألماني ديتليف ميليس كي يرأس لجنة تحقيق دولية ووافق على تشكيلها الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة كوفي أنان». ص 80 .

ويضيف أيضاً: «وبالمناسبة، أقول (والكلام لبيركنز) إنّ سيارة الحريري كانت مزوّدةً بأجهزة رصد تقنية متقدّمة لا تستطيع أيّ دولة ـ باستثناء الولايات المتحدة الأميركية و»إسرائيل» ـ تعطيلها. كذلك، مهمة التعطيل هذه أوكلت إلى الباخرة الإسرائيلية التي كانت ترابط على حدود المياه الإقليمية اللبنانية تساندها من الجو طائرة أواكس أميركية وهليكوبتر إسرائيلية». ص 81.

ثم يقول في الصفحة 84: «أعود إلى اغتيال الحريري، على لسان بيركنز إيّاه، لأتوقّف عند ما قاله المحقق السويدي في طاقم المحكمة الدولية «بو أستروم»، وهو كبير المحققين ونائب رئيس فريق التحقيق، من أن الإسرائيليين والأميركيين رفضوا تزويد التحقيق بالصور التي التقطتها الأقمار مما يحمل دلالات مهمة على أن واشنطن لا تريد الإسهام في كشف الحقيقة. لقد اكتفت الحكومة الأميركية بالقول إن مشاكل تقنية حصلت خلال فترة إغتيال الحريري. ولهذا السبب، لم نحصل على أي معلومات حيوية ولعلّ الأمر مجرد سياسة.

ثم يتوقّفُ صاحب الكتاب أمام إفادة لمسؤول سابق آخر في المخابرات المركزية الأميركية هو «دافيد وين» الذي يصفه بأنه كان مسؤولاً طوال ثماني سنوات على امتداد الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا حتى آخر أيار 2014، فيروي التالي:

قال لي «وين» إنّ أسباباً عدة تجمّعت وأدّت في النهاية إلى اتخاذ القرار . وأبرز هذه الأسباب اقتناع إسرائيل بأن الحريري شخصية عربية قوية تتمتع بحضور مؤثّر على المستويين الإقليمي والدولي، كما أنّ هذا الرجل نسَج شبكة علاقات بالغة الأهمية، عربياً وأوروبياً وأميركياً، وظّفها في مساندة المقاومة ومساندة سوريا، كما وظّفها في خدمة لبنان وتعزيز دوره المالي والإقتصادي كقطبٍ جاذبٍ للرساميل والاستثمارات الخليجية، وما حصل عقب الإكتشافات النفطية الأخيرة، أنّ لجنة أمنية ـ سياسية نبّهت الحكومة الإسرائيلية إلى أنّ وجود الحريري في الحكم سوف يتسبّب بمتاعب لـ «إسرائيل»، خصوصاً في عملية ترسيم الحدود بين قبرص ولبنان، الأمر الذي يضع الدولة العبرية أمام ما يشبه «الأمر الواقع» في ما يتعلق بحجم ثروتها النفطية والغازية».

وقد ورد في التقرير بالحرف الواحد: لا بدّ من التخلص من هذا الرجل، لأنّ تطلعاته وطموحاته لا تنسجمان مع تطلعاتنا وطموحاتنا ونظرتنا إلى مستقبل المنطقة ودور «إسرائيل» في المدى الإقليمي.

وطوال أسابيع عدة، كان رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي يتشاور مع القيادات الأمنية في الصيغة الفضلى لتصفية الحريري من دون إلحاق الضرر بـ «إسرائيل». وبعد مداولات طالت، استقرَّ الرأي على اغتيال الرجل في بلد أوروبي أو عربي، لكن خبراء «الموساد» رفضوا هذا التوجه لأنه قد يرتّب عواقب وخيمة على «إسرائيل».

هنا اقترح رئيس الوزراء «أرييل شارون» استبدال كلّ الخطط الموضوعة بخطة تقضي بتنفيذ العملية داخل بيروت وبذلك تصيب «إسرائيل» عصفورين بحجر واحد: التخلص من الرجل والتأسيس لصراع داخلي طويل في لبنان بين أنصار الحريري من جهة ومؤيدي سورية وحزب الله من جهة أخرى، ما يؤدي إلى إنسحاب القوات السورية في نهاية المطاف ومَذْهَبَة الصراع السياسي الداخلي . ص87.

أردتُ من استحضار ما ورد في الكتاب المذكور، أن أشير الى أنه يتقاطع مع تقارير استقصائية ومعلومات استخبارية أعلن عنها العديد من المتابعين والإعلاميين والخبراء.

وفي مثل هذه الجرائم، فتش عن المستفيد لتتعرّف على المجرم، وهذا ما لم تفعله، لا لجنة التحقيق الدولية التي استعانت بالشهود الزور والروايات المضللة، ولا المحكمة الدولية التي وُلدت ميتة في قضيتي الحق والعدالة وفي سياق الابتزاز: إمّا الإستجابة للطلبات الأميركية وهذا مستحيلٌ عند الأحرار المقاومين في سورية ولبنان، وإمّا أن تواجه «سيف» المحكمة والمسرحيات الإعلامية الدعائية المسمومة التي تريد تزوير الحقائق وقلبها والتلاعب فيها.. وهنا نتذكّر شهادة السفير الأميركي الأسبق في لبنان جيفري فيلتمان أمام الكونغرس الأميركي في الثامن من حزيران عام 2010، حيث اعترف بأن الإدارة الأميركية قدّمت منذ عام 2006، أكثر من 500 مليون دولار أميركي عبر الوكالة الأميركية للتنمية ومبادرة الشراكة الشرق ـــــ أوسطية لتشويه حزب الله، وشدّد على أنّ العنوان الأساسي لهذه الأموال: «الحدّ من جاذبية حزب الله لدى الشباب اللبناني».. وطبعاً هناك مَن يدفع كالأميركي وغيره ومَن يقبض تحت مسمّيات وجمعيات وأقنعة سياسية وإعلامية و»مدنية» مختلفة.. ولكن كلّ هذا التآمر والتشويش المعادي لن يؤثّر على محور المقاومة المنتصر.

إعلامي وباحث في علم الإجتماع السياسي

War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 28, 2020

Global Research 8 January 2009

Eleven years ago, Israel invaded Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”.

The following article was first published by Global Research in January 2009 at the height of the Israeli bombing and invasion under Operation Cast Lead.

***

.

Author’s Note and Update

The purpose of Operation Cast Led was to confiscate Palestine’s maritime natural gas reserves. In the wake of the invasion, Palestinian gas fields were de facto confiscated by Israel in derogation of international law.

A year following “Operation Cast Lead”,  Tel Aviv announced the discovery of  the Leviathan natural gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean “off the coast of Israel.”

At the time the gas field was: “ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.” (i)

Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration. (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant, Global Research, December 30, 2013

The Gazan gas fields are part of the broader Levant assessment area.

What has been unfolding is the integration of these adjoining gas fields including those belonging to Palestine into the orbit of Israel. (see map below).

It should be noted that the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline extending from Egypt’s Sinai to Syria constitutes an area encompassing large gas as well as oil reserves.

While the debate regarding  Trump’s “Deal of the Century” has largely concentrated on the de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley and the integration and extension of  Jewish settlements, the issue of the de facto confiscation and ownership of  Palestine’s offshore gas reserves have not been challenged.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 28, 2020


War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields

by Michel Chossudovsky

January 8, 2009

The December 2008 military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves. 

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. 

British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21,  2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.Will Israel’s Gas Hopes Come True? Accused of Stealing Gas from the Gaza Strip


Map 1

Map 2

Who Owns the Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert  “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government.” (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

 “Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror”. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security?  Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).

Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board

The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:

“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas:

“Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.

The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel’s request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials.” (Globes online- Israel’s Business Arena, June 23, 2008)

The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new “post war” political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.

In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

“Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender.” (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics 

The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.

What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?

What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?

A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?

The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?

The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?

If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. “What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)


Map 3The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2020


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

إردوغان يتوعّد “إسرائيل”.. الأوسمة تكشف حقيقة الموقف

حسني محلي

باحث علاقات دولية ومختصص بالشأن التركي

يقول الرئيس التركي إنه “سيدافع عن فلسطين إلى الأبد، كما فعل السلطان عبد الحميد”، ناسياً أو متناسياً أن كلّ ما قيل عن موقف عبد الحميد من فلسطين ليس صحيحاً بالكامل، فقد قدّم الأخير الكثير من التسهيلات والمساعدات لليهود، وسمح لهم بالهجرة إلى فلسطين.

إردوغان مع رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي الأسبق إيهود أولمرت (أرشيف)

منذ الإعلان عما يُسمى “صفقة القرن”، أخذ الرئيس إردوغان يهدّد “إسرائيل” ويتوعَّدها، متهرباً من استهداف صديقه وحليفه الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، الَّذي سبق أن هدَّده بتدميره وتدمير الاقتصاد التركي في حال هجومه على كرد سوريا.

وبعيداً من اتهامات المعارضة له بالمتاجرة بالقضية الفلسطينية من منطلقات عقائديَّة تنافسيَّة مع إيران، وعدم اتخاذ أيِّ موقف عملي في هذا الموضوع، سنكتفي هنا بالتذكير بالمحطات الرئيسية في مسار إردوغان من أجل القدس وفلسطين بعد استلام حزب العدالة والتنمية السلطة في بداية تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2002.

قبل هذا التاريخ وبعده فوراً، زار إردوغان واشنطن، والتقى قيادات اللوبي اليهودي ومسؤولين أميركيين، معظمهم من اليهود، ومن بينهم بول فولفويتز وريتشارد بيرل، نائبا وزير الدفاع، وعاد إلى أنقرة ليدافع بحماسٍ عن ضرورة العمل المشترك مع أميركا خلال احتلال العراق في بداية آذار/مارس 2003، وهو ما رفضه البرلمان التركي آنذاك. 

وجاءت مشاركته في قمة مشروع الشرق الأوسط الكبير في 8 حزيران/يونيو 2004 لتضع أنقرة على طريق التنسيق والتعاون التركي الأميركي من أجل إعادة رسم خريطة المنطقة، مع مساعي واشنطن لتسويق تجربة حزب العدالة والتنمية في بلد مسلمٍ وديمقراطيٍ وعلمانيٍ في دول المنطقة.

وكانت زيارة إردوغان إلى “إسرائيل” في الأول من أيار/مايو 2005 بمثابة التحول الأكثر إثارةً في سياسات الرجل الَّذي استقبله شارون وقال له: “أهلاً بك في القدس عاصمة إسرائيل الأبدية”، فلم يعترض عليه، وهو الذي تعرَّض آنذاك لانتقادات عنيفة جداً من زعيمه السابق نجم الدين أربكان، بعد أن اتَّهمه “بالتواطؤ مع الصهيونية العالمية وأميركا ومنظَّمات اللوبي اليهودي” إثر زيارته متحف ضحايا النازية. ولم تتأخَّر رابطة مكافحة التشهير “ADL” اليهوديَّة الأميركية في منح الرئيس إردوغان وسام الشجاعة السياسية في 10 حزيران/يونيو 2005، وسبقتها في ذلك منظَّمة المؤتمر اليهودي الأميركي “AJC”، التي منحته وساماً مماثلاً في 25 كانون الثاني/يناير 2004. وبدأت بعد ذلك علاقات إردوغان مع منظّمات اللوبي اليهودي وتوطَّدت، والتقى قياداتها في أميركا وتركيا عشرات المرات حتى آخر زيارة له إلى أميركا في أيلول/سبتمبر 2019.

فضيحة اردوغان الاعتراف ب القدس عاصمة ل إسرائيل عام ٢٠٠٥ مع شارون
 اردوغان يضع الزهور على قبر مؤسس الحركة الصهيونية

وجاءت زيارة خالد مشعل إلى أنقرة في 15 شباط/فبراير 2006 لتلفت انتباه الجميع، وخصوصاً بعد أن تهرَّب إردوغان من اللقاء به خوفاً من “إسرائيل” وأميركا، فاستقبله عبد الله جول في مقر الحزب لا في وزارة الخارجية، وأوصاه بالتخلّي عن العمل المسلّح ضد “إسرائيل”، ولا سيما أنَّ الزيارة جاءت بعد فوز حماس في الانتخابات الفلسطينية.

ولم يتأخّر إردوغان في دعوة الرئيس بيريز إلى أنقرة في 13 تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2007، ليكون أوَّل رئيس إسرائيلي يتحدَّث في البرلمان التركي، ثم لحق به محمود عباس في اليوم نفسه، في محاولةٍ من إردوغان لتحقيق التوازن في العلاقة بين الطرفين، ناسياً أو متناسياً أنَّ الطائرات الإسرائيلية التي قصفت مبنى قيل إنه مصنع كيماوي في دير الزور السورية في 8 أيلول/سبتمبر 2007، دخلت الأجواء التركية في طريق عودتها، ثم رمت خزانات الوقود على الأراضي التركية.

وقد شجَّعت العلاقةُ مع تل أبيب من جهة، ودمشق من جهة أخرى، الرئيسَ إردوغان، فدخل على خطِّ الوساطة بين العاصمتين، إلا أنَّ رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي أولمرت غدر به، فشنَّ عدوانه الغاشم على غزة في 27 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2008، على الرغم من موقف الرئيس الأسد الإيجابي من المساعي التركية.

وجاء ردّ إردوغان على موقف أولمرت بهجومه العنيف على بيريز في دافوس في سويسرا في 29 كانون الثاني/يناير 2009، عندما قال له: “إنَّكم مجرمون وقتلة”. وأثار هذا الموقف ضجة كبيرة على الصعيدين السياسي والشعبي، وساهم في زيادة شعبية إردوغان في العالمين العربي والإسلامي، وخصوصاً فلسطين.

لم يتأخَّر الردّ على موقف إردوغان، فقام الجيش الإسرائيلي في 31 أيار/مايو 2010 بالهجوم على سفينة مرمرة التي كانت تنقل المساعدات إلى غزة، وقتلت 10 مواطنين أتراك. كان هذا الحادث بداية التدهور السريع والخطير في العلاقات التركية – الإسرائيلية، إلى أن أقنع الرئيس أوباما نتنياهو خلال زيارته إلى “إسرائيل” في 22 آذار/مارس 2013 بضرورة الاتصال هاتفياً بإردوغان والاعتذار عن الهجوم على سفينة مرمرة، وهو ما فعله نتنياهو أمام أوباما، صديق الطرفين.

وقد جلس الطرفان بعد هذا الاعتذار الشفهي على طاولة المفاوضات في جنيف، واتفقا في 10 نيسان/أبريل 2016 على أن تتبرّع “إسرائيل” (تبرع وليس تعويضات) بمبلغ 20 مليون دولار لعائلات الضحايا، في مقابل أن يصدر إردوغان تعليماته للمحاكم بإسقاط كلّ الدعاوى المرفوعة ضد المسؤولين الإسرائيليين في المحاكم التركية والدولية، وهو ما حصل في كانون الثاني/يناير 2016، بعد أن حمّل إردوغان منظمة الإغاثة الإنسانية “İHH”، صاحبة سفينة مرمرة، مسؤولية الأزمة مع “إسرائيل”.

وجاءت المفاجأة من رئيس هذه المنظَّمة، بولنت يلدرم، المقرّب جداً من إردوغان، عندما علَّق على القصف الأميركي والبريطاني والفرنسي على مواقع سورية في 14 نيسان/أبريل 2018، وقال: “هذا القصف لم يشفِ غليلنا. كنت أتوقَّع المزيد”.

لم يكن هذا الموقف مفاجئاً بالنسبة إلى الرأي العام التركي، وهو يعرف أنَّ سيارات الإسعاف التابعة للمنظمة كانت تنقل الأسلحة والمعدات الحربية للإرهابيين في سوريا، وتعود بالجرحى منها وتنقلهم إلى مستشفياتها في غازي عنتاب. 

وعلى الرغم من كلِّ ذلك، لم يحالف إردوغان الحظّ في زيارة غزة التي قال إنَّه صالح “إسرائيل” من أجل فكِّ الحصار عنها، فسبقه إليها الأمير القطري في 23 تشرين الأول/أكتوبر 2012 في قمة التحالف والعمل المشترك في سوريا.

ولم يتذكّر أحد كيف تخلّى إردوغان عن استخدام الفيتو ضد انضمام “إسرائيل” إلى منظمة التعاون الاقتصادي والتنمية “OECD” في أيار/مايو 2010، قبل أيام من حادث سفينة مرمرة، ولم يعترض في 4 آذار/مارس 2016 على قرار القمة الأطلسية بالسماح لـ”إسرائيل” بفتح ممثلية دائمة في مقرّ الحلف في بروكسل، على الرغم من أنها ليست عضواً فيه. 

بالعودة إلى الماضي أيضاً، فقد قرَّر إردوغان في العام 2009 منح شركة إسرائيليّة حقّ نزع الألغام المزروعة على الحدود التركية مع سوريا، كما منح شركة أميركية كندية يهودية حقّ الاستثمار السياحي في ميناء إسطنبول الرئيسي، وهو ما أثار ضجة كبيرة إعلامياً وسياسياً، ما اضطره إلى التراجع عن القرارين، ولكنَّه استمر في علاقاته التجارية مع “إسرائيل”، ليصل حجم التبادل التجاري بين الدولتين في العام 2018 إلى 6 مليارات دولار تقريباً، فيما وصل عدد السياح الإسرائيليين الذين زاروا تركيا في العام نفسه إلى 320 ألف سائح.

وتحدَّث الإعلام التركي عن قيام السفن التي يملكها براق إردوغان، نجل الرئيس إردوغان، بنقل البضائع التركية والبترول الكردي العراقي إلى “إسرائيل”، وغزت منتجاتها الزراعية الأسواق التركية بعد أن سمح إردوغان باستيراد البذور الإسرائيلية المعدلة جينياً.

وجاء الربيع العربي والتدخّل التركي والعربي في سوريا وضد إيران وحزب الله ليغيّر موازين القوى في المنطقة لصالح “إسرائيل”، المستفيد الوحيد من دمار سوريا والعراق وباقي دول المنطقة، وأثبتت التطورات اللاحقة أنَّ لسياسات إردوغان الفضل الأكبر في هذا الدمار، بعد أن نجح، ومعه الدوحة، في نهاية العام 2011 في إقناع حماس بإغلاق مكاتبها في دمشق، وهي لولا سوريا لما كانت موجودة أصلاً الآن.

هذا التناقض لم يمنع الرئيس إردوغان من شنّ هجماته التقليدية على “إسرائيل”، وفي كلِّ مناسبة يراها مناسبة، كما هو الحال عندما اعترف الرئيس ترامب في 6 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2018 بالقدس عاصمة لـ”إسرائيل”، إذ دعا بصفته آنذاك رئيس منظَّمة مجلس التعاون الإسلامي إلى قمة عاجلة في إسطنبول، لم يحضرها سوى 19 من زعماء الدول الأعضاء، وأرسلت الدول الأخرى ممثلين من مستويات مختلفة.

وتكرَّرت هذه القمة في أيار/مايو عندما تمَّ نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى القدس، من دون أن يخطر على بال إردوغان أو أيٍّ من الزعماء العرب والمسلمين اتخاذ أيّ موقف عملي ضد أميركا أو “إسرائيل”.

وعلى الرغم من قرارات القمَّتين وتهديدات الرئيس إردوغان لكلٍّ من الدولتين، وكما هو الحال الآن في ردِّ فعله على “صفقة القرن”، فقد هدَّد “إسرائيل” وتوعَّدها، “متهماً الدول العربية بالخيانة وبيع القضية الفلسطينية”، وقال إنه “سيدافع عنها إلى الأبد، كما فعل السلطان عبد الحميد”، ناسياً أو متناسياً أن كلّ ما قيل عن موقف عبد الحميد من فلسطين ليس صحيحاً بالكامل، فقد قدّم الأخير الكثير من التسهيلات والمساعدات لليهود، وسمح لهم بالهجرة إلى فلسطين.

وكانت تركيا الدولة الإسلامية الأولى التي اعترفت بالكيان الصهيوني الَّذي قام على أرض فلسطين بعد عامٍ واحد من إعلان “دولة إسرائيل”، كما كانت الدولة الإسلامية الوحيدة التي استقبلت بن غوريون في العام 1957، وبحث الأخير مع نظيره التركي عدنان مندريس (مصدر الإلهام الحقيقيّ لإردوغان) تفاصيل التنسيق والتعاون المشترك، كما فعل مع شاه إيران ضد المدّ القومي العربي الناصري. 

ويبقى الرهان الأكبر والأهم على الموقف المحتمل للرئيس إردوغان، ويقال إنه براغماتي، والَّذي سعى حتى العام 2017 لإقناع تل أبيب بمدِّ أنابيب الغاز من شرق الأبيض المتوسط إلى تركيا، مقابل مد أنابيب للمياه التركية إلى “إسرائيل” عبر شمال قبرص التركية وجنوبها.

فيا ترى أيهما أهمّ بالنسبة إلى إردوغان: التخلّص من الرئيس الأسد، مهما كلَّفه ذلك، أو استمرار التوتر مع تل أبيب، ما دامت هذه الضجة لا تكلّفه شيئاً، وتزيد من شعبيته بين الإسلاميين، ولا تؤدي إلى توتر حقيقي في العلاقة مع الحليف الأكبر واشنطن التي لا يريد أن يزعجها، مهما فعلت في فلسطين، وهو لم يزعجها، بل اتّفق معها في شرق الفرات؛ حدود “إسرائيل” الكبرى المزعومة!؟

فلسطين سند طرمان

فلسطين مقالة وليد شرارة السبت 8 شباط 2020

سند طرمان، لِمَن لا يعرفه، هو الفدائي الفلسطيني الشابّ الذي قام بدهس 12 جندياً فجر الخميس في السادس من شباط/ فبراير الحالي. وقد ترك الفدائي، الذي بات أسيراً لدى الاحتلال، عبارة «وجدتُ أجوبتي»، وهي عنوان كتاب الشهيد باسل الأعرج وختام وصيّته، على صفحته في «فايسبوك» بضعَ ساعات قبل تنفيذ العملية. وسرعان ما تلت هذه الأخيرةً عمليتان في القدس ورام الله ضدّ جنود الاحتلال وعناصر شرطته. أبرز التعليقات، الفلسطينية والصهيونية على السواء، حول هذه العمليات، تقاطعت عند اعتبارها ردّاً على «صفقة القرن».

أبو حمزة، الناطق باسم «سرايا القدس»، الجناح العسكري لحركة «الجهاد الاسلامي»، رأى أنها «تأكيد بالدم والسلاح على رفض شعبنا لصفقة القرن وتهويد المقدّسات»، قبل أن يدعو «كلّ المقاومين الفلسطينيين لحمل السلاح، ومهاجمة الحواجز الإسرائيلية، وأن يباشروا حالة من الاشتباك الشامل والمباشر بما يتوفّر لهم من إمكانات». الطرفان، الصهيوني الرسمي، والفلسطيني المقاوِم، متّفقان على تحديد الوظيفة الفعلية لـ«صفقة القرن»: تسريع عملية استيطان وضمّ وتهويد الأرض الفلسطينية. المشروع الصهيوني، كما أثبتت التجربة التاريخية على مدى قرن كامل، هو مِن نمط مشاريع الاستعمار الاستيطاني الإحلالي، الذي يقوم على اقتلاع السكان الأصليين وإحلال المستوطنين في مكانهم، كما جرى في الولايات المتحدة وأستراليا ونيوزيلندا، مثلاً لا حصراً. وككلّ عمليات الاستعمار الاستيطاني الممتدّة زمنياً، عَرف المشروع الصهيوني فترات تتسارع فيها وتيرة التطهير العرقي للفلسطينيين والاستيلاء على أرضهم، كحربَي 1948 وبدرجة أقلّ 1967، وفترات تتراجع فيها هذه الوتيرة لكن من دون أن تتوقف أبداً، بحيث يستمرّ الاقتلاع والاستيطان والضمّ على «نار هادئة». صفقة ترامب تهدف إلى تسريع مسار الاقتلاع. هذا ما فهمه الشعب الفلسطيني وقواه المقاومة من جهة، وقطعان الصهاينة وقياداتهم من جهة أخرى، والنتيجة المباشرة هي تصاعد المواجهة في فلسطين، وفي سياق إقليمي ملتهب

صفقة ترامب تهدف إلى تسريع مسار اقتلاع الفلسطينيين

في مقابلة شهيرة مع «هآرتس» أجراها بعدما أصبح رئيساً للوزراء في شباط/ فبراير 2001، لخّص آرييل شارون، «آخر ملوك إسرائيل»، حسب أنصاره، بدقّة وصراحة شديدتَين، طبيعة المشروع الصهيوني عندما جزم، على رغم ما سمّي آنذاك بمسار التسوية، أن «حرب الاستقلال لم تنتهِ». وأكّد شارون أن المطلوب هو الاستمرار في الاستيلاء على الأرض الفلسطينية واستيطانها «متراً بعد متر وحجراً بعد حجر». أهمية هذه المقابلة تكمن في قطعها مع الخطاب التضليلي الذي اعتُمد خلال تسعينيات القرن الماضي مِن قِبَل «الحمائم» الصهاينة، كإسحاق رابين وشمعون بيريس، عن التسوية بين الشعبَين والتنازلات المتبادلة وبناء الثقة وغيرها من الترّهات. مرّ 19 عاماً على حديث شارون، ومن الواضح اليوم أن الحكومات الإسرائيلية المتعاقبة مضت بالسياسة نفسها. وقد أصبحنا أمام إدارة أميركية تُزايد بصهيونيتها على حكومة إسرائيلية تضمّ اليمين واليمين المتطرّف. انتهت أكذوبة التسوية وانكشفت حقيقة العرّاب الأميركي وحلفائه من «المعتدلين» العرب. حَشْرُ الفلسطينيين في أرخبيل المعازل الذي رسمت «صفقة القرن» حدوده التقريبية القابلة دائماً للتعديل وفقاً لرغبات إسرائيل، واستكمال الاستيلاء على ما بقي من أرضهم، هو عنوان المرحلة الراهنة مِن مسار الاقتلاع. الأهوال التي ستنجم عن هذه المرحلة لم تدفع السلطة الفلسطينية، إلى الآن، على رغم إعلان معارضتها صفقة ترامب ووقفها التعامل مع الحكومتين الأميركية والإسرائيلية، إلى إجراء مراجعة جدّية للنهج الذي تبنّته، واتّخاذ الخطوات التي تَفرض نفسها دفاعاً عن بقاء الشعب الفلسطيني في أرضه، وأولاها وقف التنسيق الأمني والسماح لجماهيره ولقواه المقاومة بمواجهة الاحتلال. لكن، بما أن الصراع في طريقه إلى الاحتدام نتيجةً لتسارع مسار الاقتلاع، لن تستطيع السلطة الاستمرار في النهج ذاته، وهي ستضطر إمّا للتحول إلى مجرّد قوة رديفة للاحتلال تحرس المعازل وتصطدم بشعبها، أو على الأقل أن تتركه ومقاوميه، أمثال سند طرمان، يتصدّون لهذا الاحتلال. إن انطلاق انتفاضة ثالثة، شعبية ومسلّحة، في ظلّ تحوّلات تدريجية في موازين القوى في الإقليم لمصلحة محور المقاومة، الحليف الوحيد للشعب الفلسطيني، كفيل بأن يفرض متغيّرات ميدانية وسياسية، محلية وإقليمية ودولية، تفتح آفاقاً جديدة أمام نضاله. وتستطيع شعوب الأمة وقواها الحية المشاركة في هذه المعركة، من خلال استهداف الوجود الأميركي، راعي سار الاقتلاع وداعمه، بجميع الوسائل الضرورية. وما يزيد من فرص الانتصار في هذه المعركة الوجودية، هو أن جبهة الأعداء الأميركية – الإسرائيلية أضعف مِن السابق، وهي ستُجبَر على التراجع وتقديم التنازلات عندما توقن أن المنطقة ستتحوّل إلى كتلة من لهب.

مقالات مرتبطة

ISRAEL MUST PERISH! The Book that the Jews Fear By Arthur Topham

by admin on January 17, 2020

The Book that the Jews Fear
By Arthur Topham

May 27, 2011

Author’s Preface:

What is contained herein is but a synopsis and partial review of the verbatim text of an actual book first published in the USA back in early 1941 when America was still a neutral country. That book, Germany Must Perish! was written by a Jewish writer by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman. Its exact proposals are those contained herein.

It is assumed that the reader will already be fully cognizant of the Zionist agenda for global governance that is a given in today’s political reality, especially within the alternative media and on the Internet where Zionist “hate” laws are still not fully in place to restrict the natural flow of ideas and opinions that proceed from historical research and experience.

In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous “Morgenthau Plan” that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of “a goat pasture.” It was, and probably remains to this day, the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.

As the reader will surmise from viewing the image of the back page of Kaufman’s book some of America’s most prestigious newspapers and magazines were in full support of the objectives set down in this classic book of Jewish hate literature. Again, the reader is cautioned to bear in mind that I have changed the word “Nazi” to “Jew” in the quote from the Philadelphia Record as I have changed all the other words “German” and “Nazi” to “Jew” and “Zionist,” etc.

The striking thing about the vileness of the text is how, today, it seems to roll off the mind’s tongue as if it were as truthful and factual as the rising sun. As such I firmly believe that all of what the Zionist Jews write about others is actually but a reflection of their own inner, perverse, dislocated self. By projecting outward on to others their innate paranoid and deep-seated hatred for the rest of the world they’re able to meet the requirements of the Israeli state’s motto which reads, “By Way of Deception Though Shalt Cause War” and feel a sense of superiority and self-righteousness in doing so.

I would humbly ask the reader to be aware of these features as they read both the text and the context in which it was first written. I have, as the saying goes, only changed the names to protect the innocent. As for any further extrapolation I will leave that up to the reader.

________________

ISRAEL MUST PERISH! The Book that the Jews Fear By Roy Arthur Topham

Beginning with the Table of Contents page Topham makes this dramatic initial statement:

“This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the Jewish nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people.”

How do you like those apples so far? Talk about cutting to the chase!

from Chapter One: About This Book

“Today’s wars are not wars against Netanyahu.

Nor are they wars against the Zionists…

Netanyahu is no more to be blamed for these Israeli wars than was Sharon for the last one. Nor Begin before. These men did not originate or wage Israel’s wars against the world. They were merely the mirrors reflecting centuries-old inbred lust of the Jewish nation for conquest and mass murder.

These wars are being waged by the Jewish people. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the wars.

…This time Israel has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.

As a result, she must be prepared to pay a TOTAL PENALTY.

And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty:

Israel must perish forever!

In fact – not in fancy!”

*******************

“For quite patently, to fight once more in democratic defense against Israel with any goal in view save that country’s extinction constitutes, even though it lose the war, a Jewish victory. To fight, to win, and not this time to end Jewish Zionism forever by exterminating completely those people who spread its doctrine is to herald the outbreak of another Jewish war within a generation.”

When this day of reckoning with Israel comes, as come it will, there will be only one obvious answer. No statesman or politician or leader responsible for post-war settlements will have the right to indulge in the personal luxury of false sentiment and specious sanctimony and declare that Israel, misled by her leaders, shall deserve the right of resurrection!

… the beast that is Israel shall never roam the earth again!

It is a definite obligation which the world owes to those who struggled and died against the Jews…to make certain that the vicious fangs of the Jewish serpent shall never strike again. And since the venom of those fangs derives its fatal poison not from within the body, but from the war-soul of the Jews, nothing else would assure humanity safety and security but that that war-soul be forever expunged, and the diseased carcass which harbors it be forever removed from this world. There is no longer any alternative:

Israel Must Perish!

… And so it is with the people of Israel. They may respond for a while to civilizing forces; they may seemingly adopt the superficial mannerisms and exterior behaviorisms of civilized peoples but all the while there remains ever present within them that war-soul which eventually drives them, as it drives the tiger, to kill. And no amount of conditioning, or reasoning, or civilizing – past, present or future – will ever be able to change this basic nature. For if no impress has been made upon this war-soul over the period of some two thousand years is it to be expected that of a sudden, on the morrow, this miracle will occur?

This analogous linking of the people of Israel with a savage beast is no vulgar comparison. I feel no more personal hatred for these people than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. If the Jewish people wish to live by themselves, in darkness, it would be strictly their own affair. But when they make constant attempts to enshroud the souls of other people in those fetid wrappings which cloak their own, it becomes time to remove them from the realm of civilized mankind among which they can have no place or right to existence.

We need not condemn the Jews. They stand self-condemned. For it suffices us to read and hear those words written and spoken only by Jews; to observe deeds performed solely by Jews; to endure sufferings and dislocations caused solely by the Jewish people in pursuit of their megalomaniacal ideals and daemonic aspirations to realize that it is the Jews themselves who decree, almost demand, their ostracism from their fellow man. They have lost the wish to be human beings. They are but beasts; they must be dealt with as such.

This is an objective viewpoint, carefully considered and factually sustained. It is the viewpoint taken of them in this book.

War must be fought … with penalties infinitely more frightful and hazardous than war itself.

This book sincerely believes that it has found such a penalty; and by its imposition upon the people of Israel, this book believes that not only would a great scourge be removed from the world, but a great good born to it.”

from Chapter Two: Background of Jewish Zionism

“Jews are an execrable people! They think and dream of nothing but chicanery. Their great joy consists in fault-finding, shrieking and threats. They brandish arms which are like barbed clubs; from their mouths instead of ordinary human speech, issue the rumbling of artillery and the clash of steel; their life is one of perpetual explosion. The Jew does not live on the heights; he avoids light, and from his hiding place he picks to pieces treaties, exercises his malign influence on newspaper articles, pores over maps, measures angles, and traces with gloating eagerness the lines of frontiers. To love their country is for them to despise, flout and insult every other country. They are capable of little else but cheating and lying, even to themselves. They meddle in everyone else’s affairs, poking their nose into matters that do not concern them, criticizing everything, bossing everything, lowering and distorting everything. What a pity that twenty-three centuries after Socrates and Plato, two thousand years after Christ, the voice of men like these should still be heard in the world, worse still that they should be listened to, and worst of all that any one should believe them! Country for them is an isolated organism and they admit it is possible for them to live and breathe in an atmosphere of haughty contempt for their neighbors. They conceive their country as a permanent element of dissolution like a devouring and insatiable monster, a beast of prey, whose one function is to plunder. All that it does not possess it has been robbed of. The universe belongs to it by right. Whoever attempts to escape from its tyranny is a rebel. This jingo country, this bloodthirsty fetish of which they are the champions, they endow, with the capriciousness of potentates, when it suits their purpose, with every marvelous and charming attribute. Whoever does not at once agree with their extravagances is a barbarian. You must love their country in full armor, with dervish-like celebrations and howls, eyes shut and body trembling with ecstasy; a deaf ear must be turned to the rest of the world on its failings. Everything that is not Jewish must be hated. Hate is sacred. Love and hate are in connection with your country two terms proceeding from one condition of mind. For them Industrial progress is not a happy sign of national prosperity but a means of domination. Geography is not the science of the earth, but a mere revelation of the boundaries between which are elaborated strategical schemes of conquest. Every neighbor is of necessity a jealous one, and the enemy who is vigilant is jealous too. The world is populated by hyenas crouching on the plots of earth from which they ought to be dislodged.

The Jew has decided that his race has been elected by God to order the modern world. Anyone who resists him will be an arrogant usurper, who ought to be crushed. The Jew professes to want peace, but it must be his own sort of peace, after the pattern of the Persian satrap’s who, out of love for peace and concord, throws everyone to the lions who dares dispute him. His voice is raucous and resounding; he does not argue but makes sweeping assertions and lays down the law. At the first sign of resistance he grows crimson in the face, and has recourse to thunder and lightning. He holds forth on the authority of a sacred categorical imperative which stands in the stead of truth and order; he respects nothing and no one. Should he find himself confronted by the law, he says that it needs reforming. Ministers are mere clerks to be used as pawns in his maneuvering. He is exacting and cantankerous; whoever undertakes to shout with him never shouts loud enough. To give in to him means becoming enlisted as his civil agent. He is an agitator and swashbuckler. He dips his pen in gall and he sets in motion with his antics the marionettes which appeal to the nation and may come to conquer it. The fundamental superiority of the Jewish race, the necessity of expanding Jewish prestige in all quarters of the globe, of protecting the Jew wherever he may be found, no matter what he may be, because he bears within him a residuum of the race; that is what the educators of youth coming down the years in disciplined array like battalions crossing the maneuver fields, have never ceased to drum into the popular understanding and the flame of victory rising to the sky will be the signal for it to boil over.

…Time cannot change the infernal breed, whatever its label. Time merely enlarges the field in which the Jew can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, practice those monstrous acts which his fevered, war-intoxicated brain dictates, and his vile instincts and barbaric, savage soul prompts. If today the urge of his war-soul can prompt the Jew to murder innocent hostages imagine, if you can, how that same soul will express itself through the thousandfold-more-fanatic Jew of tomorrow?

…Make no mistake about it; world-dominion is not a mirage to the Jew; it never was, and so long as Israel exists as a nation, it never will be. A belief to the contrary, if too-long sustained, may well result in the world’s enslavement by the Jew.

As fantastic and as cyclonic as Zionist “accomplishments” might seem, it is still more fantastic to note as a fact that in the entire annals of history no doctrine ever existed which has all its major beliefs so clearly defined, its methods so concisely detailed, and its aims so vividly, comprehensively, and boldly stated beforehand. It is in every respect a deliberate, ruthlessly calculated plot to rule the world or, failing that, to annihilate it! And so long as the Jewish nation exists it intends, in one form or another, now or later, to bring about just such a catastrophe.

…The poisonous wine of destruction has long before been distilled; Netanyahu is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle, which is the Jewish war-soul, into the jug that is world humanity. In detailing those ingredients which combine to constitute the toxic formula of Jewish Zionism the author shall quote, wherever confirmation of his statements may be deemed advisable, principally from Jewish sources. For after all no one can explain the Jew so well as he himself. He has made no secret of his character, his ambitions and his intentions. By his acts he has himself bared his heart and soul; by his words, by his own hand he will someday come to dig his own grave.

It is not to be wondered at that the nations of the Western world regard the avowed program of the Zionist Jew for world conquest and dominion with a great deal of amazement and incredulity. For such an idea is entirely alien to those basic principles and instincts of the western civilization which, painfully and gradually, arose out of the chaos of the past thousands of years. Such civilized nations regard individual rights, the sacredness of human life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the virtues of mankind and itself, the individual States, as guarantor of those rights. And though, at one time or another during their existence nations may have sought political and economic adjustments, even territorial aggrandizement through force of arms, it must be noted that no Western nation has ever made such a religion of war, such idolatry of armaments, and such a cult of mass murder and destruction as has Israel and her peoples.

According to her own writers, teachers and statesmen Israel has but one great reason for existing; that of achieving world-dominion! Since that is its highest aim, therefore, Israel constantly claims that it has every right to make free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution and oppression, in order to achieve that goal. Consequently such a perverted nation, such a State of human negation, views its vice as being the only true virtue in life, whereas to the Jews the virtues as they are known and may be practiced by the rest of the world are merely vices due to the latter’s decay and degeneration! As though there exists anywhere in the world a nation which can boast of degeneration in the same degree as Israel!

The primary reason which stirs Jewish lust for world dominion was best summarized by a Jewish professor who declared that since Israel will never be able to understand the world, the latter must be conquered and reformed so that it will be able to conform to Jewish thought!

It is just such mass megalomania, crass egoism and intellectual aberrancy which stirred the demented brain of the Jew of yesterday to foment his wars; which animates the insane Zionist today in continuing those wars and which will, if the schizophrenic Ashkenazim continue to exist, direct the policies and actions of any party in control of Israel in the future. For, to reiterate, the Jewish idea of world-dominion and enslavement of its peoples is no political belief: it is a fierce and burning gospel of hate and intolerance, of murder and destruction and the unloosing of a sadistic blood lust. It is, in every literal sense, a savage and pagan religion which incites its worshippers first to a barbaric frenzy and then prompts them to vent their animal ferocity in the practice of every horrible, ruthless and unmentionable atrocity upon innocent men, women and children. Such are the true Jewish virtues! And the world will feel their sting so long as they continue to tolerate Israel and her peoples on the earth, for those Jewish traits are the same as those which, emanating from the Jewish soul, animated the Jewish tribes of yore. We have but to examine the development of those tribes to perceive just to what extent within the Jewish soul, the Jewish ideal of world conquest and dominion really lies.

… Such is the ” Chosen Master-Race” of the world!

from Chapter 3. Organized Jewish Zionism

…Zionism — the theory of a master race of Jews destined to enslave a weak world by force and brutality — had been an unvoiced doctrine of Jewish belief since tribal days until the latter part of the last century when it reached its maturity by becoming fashioned into a vast and well-organized movement [World Zionist Organization. A.T.]. Its astounding and ambitious program amalgamated all the major doctrines and beliefs of such Jewish teachers, writers, statesmen and philosophers as Rabbi Yehudah Akalai, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, Moses Hess, Eliezer Ben-Yehudah, Moshe Leib Lilienblum, Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, Ahad Ha-am aka Asher Zvi Ginsberg, Hayyim Nahman Bialik, Jacob Klatzkin, Nahman Syrkin, Rabbi Samuel Mohilever, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Martin Buber, Bernard Lazare, Solomon Schecter, Nahum Sokolow, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, Mordecai Menahem Kaplan, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion. And because the doctrine which it preached touched upon the very roots of the Jewish soul, and embraced the fundamental tenets of the Jewish intellect, the movement met with immediate and tremendously popular response. In fact its program was so popular with the Jews that within ten years after its inception its malignant dogma was already spread throughout the entire world.

…The World Zionist Organization combined various doctrines into a program of action and issued, among its statutes, four main principles which lay down broadly its chief objectives. They were:

1. To watch over and support all Jewish national movements in all countries where Jews have to sustain a struggle in support of Zionism with the object of embracing and uniting all Jews on the globe.

2. To promote an active Jewish policy in interests in Europe and across the seas and especially to further all colonial movements for practical purposes.

3. To treat and solve all questions bearing upon the bringing up of children and higher education in the Jewish sense.

4. To quicken patriotic self-consciousness of Jews, and to offer opposition to all movements antagonistic to Israeli national development.

…Branches of the World Zionist Organization (now working covertly under the name B’nai Brith International) sprang up in major cities of the world…. With the spread of its propaganda, B’nai Brith International Israel’s Mossad scattered a large number of secret agents throughout the world for the purpose of supplying it with confidential reports relating to the gospel of Zionism. These agents were the forerunners of the present day fifth-columnists [working within the Zionist media and on the Internet. A.T.]; it was their work which started the compilation of the notorious Jewish “scrap-book” in which the Israeli government listed all its enemies, and enemies to the idea of a Jewish-dominated world. To a nation such as Israel blackmail pales in insignificance to its other crimes. And so, with every passing hour, the members of B’nai Brith International continued with their nefarious work which, teaching and enforcing the great common Zionist Jew ideal of world-enslavement, quickly became an integral part of the average Jew’s life and dreams…. The vicious virus of Zionism had been injected into the life stream of the public, and the Jews awaited the epidemic which they felt must sooner or later infest the world.

As a matter of fact, the work and program as well as the propaganda which they spread had reached such a pitch that as far back as 1897 various Jewish writers were already busy prophesying how and when the ideological goal of Zionist world-dominion would be attained! These prophets were by no means few in number; there exists a large number of serious works by Jewish authors in which the destiny of Israel is elaborately worked out in full detail and the deification of Zionism and the Holocaust Myth as a world religion depicted.

from Chapter 4. Jewish Zionism Abroad

…The task of spreading the heathenish cult of Zionism in foreign lands was delegated to the World Zionist Organization, an organization maintained by the Rothschilds and B’nai Brith International. Beginning its operations in 1897 that association was the first to prepare the ground and develop and test the tactics which are being used today by all Zionist Jew fifth-columnists.

…True Zionism, being as it is a purely primitive paganism with some modern “refinements” finds that it can express itself best by committing truly barbaric and bestial acts of violence against innocent civilized peoples [such as the Palestinians. A.T.] Thus, if Zionism were ever to prevail upon this earth, we can be sure that every step would be taken — though few indeed are these steps which the Jews have not already taken! — to reawaken every dormant animal instinct and vicious trait in man.

Thus it has been a chief aim of the Jew to eradicate each and every one of the three principal religions from the earth. However, the Jew was practical enough to realize that he could not successfully combat all these religions at one time with any hope of emerging supreme. But since their extinction was absolutely necessary to the propagation of the Zionist dogma of hate and destruction, the Jews conceived their now infamous and oft-tried trick of pitting first the believers in one religion against those of another until, at a single coup, they could deliver the final knock-out blow against the single remaining adversary.

…Zionism was born ages ago, its growth has been proceeding for centuries, and it has now reached an advanced stage of flowering. Netanyahu is but a bud indicative of what kind of “flower” when it comes to full bloom, the world may expect to see!

Because she made no effort thousands of years ago, to become civilized as did her neighbors, Israel today is an outsider among all civilized nations. The processes which it has taken other nations thousands of years to absorb, cannot be suddenly absorbed by Israel overnight. Consequently, the continued existence of Israel among them becomes increasingly inimical to the best interests of civilized nations.

The deliberate and perverse distortions of what should have been a sane and normal course of development — as in other nations — now gives to Israel and her people a capacity unexcelled by any other peoples on earth, for fostering and propagating every indecent and inhuman precept of life. And as she seeks to distribute her own poisonous brew she has herself become so intoxicated by its ingredients that she can no longer escape the ever-constant desire, the urgent compulsion and the burning lust which it incites in her to extinguish any and all signs of good which she sees developed or practiced in other lands. Thus in self-justification Israel would excuse her own unnatural and perverse life by polluting others with her malignant infection. Israel is now well beyond all saving. The world had best look to its own preservation and welfare, lest some of those Jewish poisons run through her system also and come to destroy it!

With each succeeding world war which she plans, plots and starts Zionism comes ever closer and closer to her goal of world-dominion. At the present time Netanyahu, who has merely striven to remedy mistakes which previous Jewish leaders made in attempts at world-subjection, may bring the Jewish people very close to realizing their goal. And Netanyahu is not the last of the Jewish leaders!

How much misery, suffering, death and destruction are needed before it becomes apparent to the world that any compromise with Zionism will, of itself, be a certain guarantee that soon thereafter, Israel must again embark upon her unholy crusade to dominate it. How many more chances will be vouchsafed it to beat back Zionism? Suppose there comes a time when Israel can not be halted? Dare we risk waiting? One never knows the exact hour one is scheduled to die; can we, with any more certitude and assurance tell which opportunity shall be our last? It may well be that this is our last chance. Suppose we pass it by; look ahead. Next time, the so-called elder generation of Israel will be the Mossad-trained youth of today, and this elder generation, now mothers and fathers, will already have instilled and encouraged their children with the idea of world-dominion. Thus the next Israeli leader may come to lead a nation of born fanatics! As a consequence of this there may come to be welded a machine so gigantic in proportions, so overwhelming in destructive power, that it may well overcome every possible obstacle in its path. For assuredly the Israeli youth of the next generation — today schooled in Talmudic Zionist schools — will find a leader, as past generations of Jewish youth have always found a leader, to incarnate and personify the body and soul of that nation and dominate its collective Will.

A leader who will feed that Israeli body and soul the only food upon which it can subsist: War!

from Chapter 6. A Middle Road?

…With Zionism shown thus to be the very soul of conquest and world-dominion, may we not then pose this question: Is it possible for the world, in any manner, to find some compromise that will allow both it and Israel to exist side by side in peace and justice? In concrete terms, were peace declared tomorrow to Israel’s apparent satisfaction, could this nation born and bred on blood, be expected to be appeased for more than the immediate future?

We should like to hope so; but the history of that nation cuts the hope out of our heart.

…What then of a democratic Israel?

Democracy for a people who believe only in superiority, not equality?

…Israel already has given us her answer:

“Israel does not want a share of anything. She wants, she demands, all or nothing.

…A final solution: Let Israel be policed forever by an international armed force?

Even if such a huge undertaking were feasible life itself would not have it so. As war begets war, suppression begets rebellion. Undreamed horrors would unfold.

Thus we find that there is no middle course; no act of mediation, no compromise to be compounded, no political or economic sharing to be considered. There is, in fine, no other solution except one: That Israel must perish forever from this earth!

And, fortunately, as we shall now come to see, that is no longer impossible of accomplishment.

from 7. Death to Israel

…When an Individual commits premeditated murder, he must be prepared to forfeit his own life in consequence. When a nation commits premeditated murder upon its fellow nations, it must be prepared to forfeit its own national life.

On that point the laws of man and God are explicit:

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life.”

But what is the law of man or God to Israel? Nothing.

She recognizes only Jewish law; so be it.

It must then be Jewish law, if such a law there be, which decrees her penalty — the penalty of death.

And there is such a Jewish law which decrees that death to her:

As in all human affairs, there must also be in every system of punishment a last limit, a ne plus ultra that no punishment can overstep. Thus even from the point of view of pure theory the necessity of the depth-penalty is postulated; it is, as the ultimate punishment on earth, the indispensable keystone of every ordered system of criminal law. No apparent reasons which are alleged against it can withstand any serious criticism. The State, which has the right to sacrifice for its own protection the flower of its youth, is to feel so nice a regard for the life of a murderer? We much rather allow to the State the right to make away with men who are undoubtedly injurious to the common weal. That the powers that be must bear the sword is an expression which runs deep in the blood of the honest man; if this truth is to be banished out of the world, great wrong is done to the simple moral feeling of the people. The ultimate problems of the moral life are to be solved in the domain of the practical, not of the theoretical, reason. The conscience of every earnest man demands that blood be atoned by blood, and the common man must simply grow doubtful of the existence of justice on earth, of this last and highest punishment is not inflicted. The State makes itself ridiculous and contemptible if it cannot finally dispose of a criminal. There must be a limit for mercy and indulgence, as for the law, a last limit at which the State says: “This is the end, humanity is not longer possible here.” It must be possible to inflict at last a punishment beyond which there is nothing, and that is the punishment of death.

Let Jewish Will be done!

There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the Israeli nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some five million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Zionism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Israel from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.

Sterilization is not to be confused with castration. It is a safe and simple operation, quite harmless and painless, neither mutilating nor unsexing the patient. Its effects are most often less distressing than vaccination and not more serious than a tooth extraction. Too, the operation is extremely rapid requiring no more than ten minutes to complete. The patient may resume his work immediately afterwards. Even in the case of the female the operation, though taking longer to perform, is as safe and simple. Performed thousands of times, no records indicate cases of complication or death. When one realizes that such health measures as vaccination and serum treatments are considered as direct benefits to the community, certainly sterilization of the Jewish people cannot but be considered a great health measure promoted by humanity to immunize itself forever against the virus of Zionism.

…Concerning the males subject to sterilization the army groups, as organized units, would be the easiest and quickest to deal with. Taking 2,000 surgeons as an arbitrary number and on the assumption that each will perform a minimum of 25 operations daily, it would take no more than one month, at the maximum, to complete their sterilization. Naturally the more doctors available, and many more than the 2,000 we mention would be available considering all the nations to be drawn upon, the less time would be required. The balance of the male civilian population of Israel could be treated within three months. Inasmuch as sterilization of women needs somewhat more time, it may be computed that the entire female population of Israel could be sterilized within a period of a year or less. Complete sterilization of both sexes, and not only one, is to be considered necessary in view of the present Jewish doctrine that so much as one drop of true Jewish blood constitutes a Jew.

Of course, after complete sterilization, there will cease to be a birth rate in Israel. At the normal death rate of 2 per cent per annum, Jewish life will diminish considerably. Accordingly in the span of two generations that which cost millions of lives and centuries of useless effort, namely, the elimination of Zionism and its carriers, will have been an accomplished fact. By virtue of its loss of self-perpetuation Israel will have atrophied and Jewish power reduced to negligible importance.

Reviewing the foregoing case of sterilization we find that several factors resulting from it firmly establish its advocacy.

Firstly, no physical pain will be imposed upon the inhabitants of Israel through its application, a decidedly more humane treatment than they will have deserved.

Secondly, execution of the plan would in no way disorganize the present population nor would it cause any sudden mass upheavals and dislocations. The consequent gradual disappearance of the Jews from Arab territory will leave no more negative effect upon that continent than did the gradual disappearance of the Indians upon this.

…A detailed program of the manner in which the outraged victims of the Zionism onslaught might make certain that Israel leave no gap might be put hypothetically:

Israel has lost its war. She sues for peace. The imperative demands of the victor people that Israel must perish forever makes it obligatory for the leaders to select mass sterilization of the Jews as the best means of wiping them out permanently. They proceed to:

1. Immediately and completely disarm the Israeli army and have all armaments removed from Israeli territory.

2. Place all Israeli utility and heavy industrial plants under heavy guard, and replace Jewish workers by those of Allied nationality.

3. Segregate the Israeli army into groups, concentrate them in severely restricted areas, and summarily sterilize them.

4. Organize the civilian population, both male and female, within territorial sectors, and effect their sterilization.

5. Divide the Israeli army (after its sterilization has been completed) into labor battalions, and allocate their services toward the rebuilding of those cities which they ruined.

6. Partition Israel and apportion its lands to the existing Arab population.

7. Restrict all Jewish civilian travel beyond established borders until all sterilization has been completed.

8. Compel the Jewish population of the apportioned territories to learn the language of its area, and within one year to cease the publication of all books, newspapers and notices in the Hebrew language, as well as to restrict Hebrew-language broadcasts and discontinue the maintenance of Hebrew-language schools.

9. Make one exception to an otherwise severely strict enforcement of total sterilization, by exempting from such treatment only those Jews whose relatives, being citizens of various victor nations, assume financial responsibility for their actions. Thus, into an oblivion which she would have visited upon the world, exits Israel.

from 8. ‘Lest We Forget …’

Perhaps in the Future …

United States has entered the war. The struggle is long and bitter but at last the Allies forge ahead. Their armies surround Israel.

Israel realizes that she has lost. She does not want invasions. She fears the vengeance long overdue her. So she sues for peace. Comes the Armistice!

And immediately thereafter, as once before, Israel finds that the words “Humanity” — which she has debased; “Justice” — which she has distorted; and “God” whom she has profaned, have an irresistible sales appeal to Allied Statesmen.

Israel puts her Zionist propaganda machine to work.

Soon men in the victor nations are urging:

“Peace with Honor!” — “Justice without Rancor!” — “God and Mercy!”, and all those other weak, sticky phrases which befuddle the weary minds and exhausted emotions of the long-suffering people of the war-decimated democracies.

Forgotten in the sudden lush of a peace that is no peace, are all the brave sons who were sacrificed to the monster Israhell: forgotten is the plight of the countries whose resources were drained, and whose energies were sapped in stemming the Talmudic onslaught. Forgotten, too, is the duty owed to generations yet to be born.

Yes: all forgotten because the Allies cannot resist such an appeal. And so, even though a hundred years and a hundred instances have shown the hypocrisy of a Jewish promise, the Allies fall once again its victim.

They forget that the struggle they waged was not a sport’s contest: that their adversary was a beast, not a human being! And so, filled to overflowing with the infectious germ of sentiment, they stretch out their hand to their fallen opponent and help him arise. They pat him on the back with a hearty “No hard feelings, old man!” and, happy that the war is now over and done with, return to their homes.

Believing, sincerely, that Jewish war will not come again.

Believing that somehow, in some inexplicable manner, Israel has accepted Christ.

A decade passes. A decade of hard work and many sacrifices.

A decade of much sweat and little pleasure.

But the democratic peoples do not mind. They are building a better world for their children.

So they think.

Meanwhile Israel grows strong and robust.

Her army is larger and more powerful than ever before; she has developed new weapons whose frightfulness surpass all imagination. She had found a new leader. And her war-souled people are bent once again upon conquering the world. Once more the earth trembles beneath the depleted uranium missiles of the Jewish defense forces.

Like a cobra Israel is poised:

She strikes!

The people of the civilized nations are stunned.

They exclaim, “But it cannot be again!”

But it is.

And this time it is Too Late!

For Israel wins. She is master of the world.

…and so a thousand years of peace was sold to the Devil for a moment’s respite! And only because men tried to placate the body, instead of expunging forever the bestial war-soul, of the Jew!

The sun now shivers as it rises upon a Dark world.

For slaves to the Jews are children once free.

Civilization is no more. Perversity is raged rampant.

Even the moon shudders as it wanes in a frightening chill.

This is, finally the, “New World Order!”

Shall it be so?

Our choice lies still before us:

False sentiment or courageous decision —

Which shall it be?

The End

Netanyahu’s Real Crimes

Global Research, November 26, 2019
Arab American Institute 23 November 2019

After years of investigation and months of delay, Israel’s Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit formally indicted Benjamin Netanyahu for crimes ranging from his violation of public trust to bribery and fraud. Israel’s apologists will argue that the fact that a sitting Prime Minister has been charged with crimes against the state and people presents compelling evidence of the country’s democracy and commitment to the rule of law. This is the very point that Mandelblit made in announcing the indictments – “The public interest requires that we live in a country where no one is above the law.” However, this is only partially true since it appears that in Israel the principles of democracy or the rule of law only apply to Israeli Jews or the interests of the state, itself. In fact, Netanyahu’s entire sordid career is evidence of the selectiveness of Israelis’ sense of justice.

In the past the Netanyahu household has been charged with some of the pettiest forms of corruption imaginable. For example, his wife was found guilty of taking the empty bottles from beverages consumed at official state functions and keeping the money she received for turning them for recycling. The Netanyahus were also known to bring three weeks of dirty laundry on two-day official state trips and sending them to the hotel in which they were staying for a night so that the cleaning bill would be charged to the state’s budget. This is the sort of past petty thievery for which the Netanyahus were famous.

Looking at the recent indictments, it is clear that the Prime Minister has graduated to bigger and better forms of fraud and corruption. What’s striking, however, is that all of the crimes with which he is charged were focused on feeding his ego or his appetites. In some instances, they were favors done for a businessman in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts, in others they were the corrupt deals he made with various media tycoons in which he promised them benefits in exchange for their guaranteeing him positive coverage in their news outlets.

There is no doubt, that in all of these cases, Netanyahu’s behavior has been clearly criminal and reprehensible, and, as described by the Attorney General, a breach of the public’s trust. But what I find so striking and disturbing, is that these crimes pale in significance when compared to what Netanyahu has done to the Palestinian people and the prospect for Israeli-Palestinian peace – crimes for which he will not be called to account.

After Oslo, Netanyahu organized a back-door lobby to mobilize US Congressional opposition to the peace accords. This was the first time an Israeli lobby worked in the US to oppose their own government. He should have been charged with treason.

Back in Israel, during the same period, he organized with Ariel Sharon and a few others a smear campaign of incitement against Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The campaign was so virulent and threatening that many Israelis, including Rabin’s wife, held Netanyahu responsible for Rabin’s assassination. Netanyahu should have been charged with incitement.

Image result for yitzhak rabin death

In 1996, he was elected Prime Minister on a platform dedicated to ending the peace process and he did everything he could to slow down, distort, and ultimately sabotage the Oslo Peace Process. Even the agreement he signed with the Palestinians at Wye so encumbered the process that by the end of his first term in office, peace was on life support.  He should have been charged with destroying the prospects for peace and putting at risk the lives of millions.

During his last three terms in office, he incited violence and hatred against Palestinians, both those who are citizens of Israel and those living under occupation. This has fueled extremist settler movements that have engaged in daily acts of violence, destruction of property, and murder. He also encouraged soldiers in the Israeli army to murder defenseless Palestinians and supported them when they were charged with crimes. In addition, as he did with Rabin, he has falsely accused his Israeli opponents of being too close to the Arabs and accused the Palestinian citizens of Israel of being enemies of the state. He should have been charged with hate crimes.

During his time in office he has: expanded settlements on stolen Palestinian land and the demolition of Palestinian property; overseen a number of devastating assaults on Gaza resulting in the indiscriminate massacre of thousands of innocent civilians and the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure; instituted and maintained a cruel blockade of Gaza’s population, as an act of collective punishment, in which, for long periods of time, food, medicine, and other essential items were restricted or severely regulated – resulting in death, disease, and impoverishment of millions of innocents. He should have been charged with war crimes.

The list could go on, but this should suffice.

The bottom line is that, to be sure, Netanyahu is a criminal. But in today’s Israel he can’t be found guilty of his most serious crimes – treason, incitement, destroying peace, hate crimes, and war crimes. Instead, he will be asked only to answer for his narcissistic appetites and corruption.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

The Middle East Agenda: Oil, Dollar Hegemony & Islam in Imperialism

By Professor Francis A Boyle

May 11, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  Assalamu’alaikum. Dr. Mahathir, Mrs. Mahathir, distinguished Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Little has changed in the imperialist tendencies of American foreign policy since the founding of the United States of America in seventeen eighty-nine. The fledgling United States opened the nineteenth century by stealing the continent of North America from the Indians, while in the process ethnically cleansing them and then finally deporting the pitiful few survivors by means of death marches (à la Bataan) to Bantustans, which in America we call reservations, as in instance of America’s “Manifest Destiny” to rule the world.

Then, the imperial government of the United States opened the twentieth century by stealing a colonial empire from Spain — in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, then inflicting a near-genocidal war against the Filipino people. While at the same time, purporting to annex, the kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the native Hawaiian people to near-genocidal conditions from which they still suffer today. All in the name of securing America’s so-called place in the sun.

And today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the world witnesses the effort by the imperial government of the United States of America to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Moslem states and peoples, surrounding central Asia and the Persian Gulf under the pretext of fighting a war against international terrorism or eliminating weapons of mass destruction or promoting democracy, which is total nonsense.

For the past two hundred and sixteen years, the imperialist foreign policy of the United States of America since its foundation, has been predicated upon racism, aggression, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and outright genocide. At the dawn of the third millennium of humankind’s parlous existence, nothing has changed about the operational dynamics of American imperial policy. And we see this today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and what appears to be an illegal attack upon Iran.

Now the assigned topic today is The Middle East Agenda : Oil, Dollar Hegemony and Islam. So, I’m only going to limit my comments to that subject. We have to begin the story with the Arab oil embargo in 1973. As you know in 1967, Israel launched an illegal war of aggression against the surrounding Arab states, stole their land and ethnically cleansed their people. But eventually Egypt offered a Peace Treaty to Israel, which Israel rejected and the Egyptians and the Arab states decided then to use force to recover their lands.

Israel almost collapsed, the United States and Europe came to their support by providing weapons and in reaction the Arab states imposed an oil embargo on the United States and Europe, and brought their economies to their knees. Whereupon, the then U.S Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger threatened them and said: This will never happen again, and if you do, we will prevent it. And it was not just a threat. The United States government then at that time, planned, prepared and conspired, to steal the oil of the Persian Gulf. They did not have the military capability to do this at that time, to carry out the Kissinger threat, which was also then repeated by the Ford administration, and the Carter administration under Harold Brown and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

So they put into planning an interventionary force, designed expressly for the purpose of stealing Arab oil fields, and that was called the Rapid Deployment Force. And it took ten years of training, planning, positioning, and supply to build that interventionary force of that capability and eventually it was called the U.S. Central Command. The purpose of the U.S. Central Command is to steal and control and dominate the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. And that’s exactly what the U.S. Central Command proceeded to do in the Bush Sr. war against Iraq, their first military expedition.

And as we know, that war exterminated probably two hundred thousand Iraqis. Half of them innocent civilians. Simply wiped out in a bombing campaign and a military expedition of unprecedented dimensions. But remember, it took fifteen years for the Pentagon and three different administrations both Republicans and Democrats to get the capability to do this. And then, when that genocide or conflict was over, what happened? The United States carved Iraq up into three pieces with their air force, the so-called no-fly zones, a zone for the Kurds in the North, a zone for the Shi’ah in the South, and the Sunni in the middle. Why? To destroy Iraq as an effectively viable state.

In his book, Clash of Civilizations, Huntington from Harvard who advised the Pentagon and advised the State Department pointed out that the only Arab state with the capability to lead the Arab world and challenge the United States and Israel was Iraq. And so Iraq had to be destroyed, to maintain the domination of the United States and its proxy, Israel. And remember after 1973, whatever it was before then, Israel is nothing more than a catspaw of the United States. They do what America tells them to do! Otherwise Israel is nothing more than a failed state.

In addition then, to destroying Iraq as a state, carving it up into three pieces, was the decision to debilitate and destroy the Iraqi people. And so they continued the genocidal economic sanctions on the people of Iraq, that my colleagues, Denis Halliday, Hans Von Sponeck, so courageously resisted and finally resigned from the United Nations as a matter of principle, calling them by what they really were: genocide. The United States and Britain maliciously and criminally imposed genocidal sanctions on the people of Iraq, that killed approximately 1.5 million Iraqis, all of whom were innocent civilians.

And when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the five hundred thousand dead children, she said that she thought the price was worth it. Now, I could have taken that statement to the International Court of Justice, and filed it against the United States as evidence of genocidal intent against the people of Iraq in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. And indeed I offered to do so to the then President of Iraq, but for whatever reasons he decided not to take these claims to the International Court of Justice.

And now, as you see, he is on trial in a total kangaroo court proceeding in Baghdad that is completely controlled and dominated by the United States government. So, 1.5 million Iraqis died as the result of these genocidal sanctions. And then came September 11. And we know for a fact that the Bush Jr. administration knew that a major terrorist attack was going to be launched on the United States. And they let it happen anyway deliberately and on purpose. Why? They wanted a pretext for war. And not just one war but for a long war which they are talking about today.

Indeed, from my research the war plans drawn up by the Pentagon for the war against Afghanistan were formulated as early as 1997.Enormous military forces fielded by that same U.S. Central Command, were already in and around and surrounding the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean before September 11. This war had been long-planned against Afghanistan. And armed, equipped, supplied, trained and war-gamed and ready to go. They just needed the pretext and that was September 11. Why? The United States wanted access to the oil and natural gas of Central Asia.

That had been a Pentagon objective since at least before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. And the 9/11 attack gave them the pretext to make this major grab for the oil and gas of Central Asia. And they are there today with their bases, with their troops, in the surrounding countries in Central Asia. And of course in the process, obliterated, we don’t even have an estimate of the Muslims in Afghanistan who were killed in the air bombardment, twenty, twenty five thousand, maybe more, and tens of thousands of others starved to death and still suffering today.

But that, as we know from all the records was only the first step in the process. They wanted to finish the job in Iraq. And so immediately after September 11, Bush ordered Rumsfeld to update and operationalize the plans for attacking and invading Iraq. It had nothing at all to do with weapons of mass destruction. We in the peace movement in America had been saying that all along. The United Nations had determined there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These were lies designed to scaremonger the American people and Congress into supporting an illegal war of aggression, a Nuremberg crime against peace, against Iraq. And they told whatever lies and broke what international laws they had to break in order to attack Iraq.

And today the estimate, again we don’t know. Perhaps two hundred thousand people in Iraq had been killed outright by the United States, Britain, their allies, in Iraq. And again, most of them civilians. Clearly if you add up what United States government has done to Iraq from August of 1990, when it imposed the genocidal economic embargo until today. The United States and Britain have inflicted outright genocide on the Muslim and Christian people of Iraq and they are predominately Muslim as we know.

Now comes the third step in the Pentagon’s pre-existing plan, to control and dominate the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. It sounds a bit like the plan that Hitler and the Nazis had in the 1930s. Does it not? First go into Austria, then go into Czechoslovakia, then go into Poland. So first Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran. Iran is going to be the next victim of these outright criminals unless you and I can stop them.

Right now there are three aircraft carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf. And whenever they had put three aircraft carrier task forces over there, it’s always to prepare for an attack. And according to Seymour Hersch, the award winning journalist, it will probably be an aerial bombardment, along the lines of what they did to Yugoslavia in 1999. As you remember there, seventy eight days of aerial bombardment by the United States and NATO with no authorization from the Security Council. Clearly illegal. Killing again, we don’t know the exact number outright, four to five thousand innocent civilians. And targeting civilian infrastructure, all up and down, from which the people still suffer today. The use of depleted uranium ammunitions, with consequent outbreaks of cancer are documented today.

So this is what, is being planned right now as we speak; an attack upon Iran. Using jet fighter aircraft, fighter bombers, on these three aircraft carrier task forces, using cruise missiles on submarines. Of course Israel will be involved and have a role to play, doing exactly what the Americans tell them to do. In addition, it appears that if they attack Iran, they will also attack Syria. Yesterday, if you heard President Bush’s press conference in Vienna, he threatened Syria, right? There’s no other word for it. He threatened Syria.

These Neo-Conservatives want to take out Syria as a favour to Israel. Remember, many of these Neo-Conservatives are affiliated personally and professionally with the Likhud Party in Israel and Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, the man who exterminated twenty thousand Arabs in Lebanon, most of them, not all of them were Muslims. And in addition, slaughtered two thousand completely innocent Palestinian women, children and old men at Sabra and Shatila. Ariel Sharon, the man who went to Haram Al-Sharif, the third holiest site in Islam, where Muhammad, (Peace Be Upon Him) ascended into heaven, and desecrated the Haram on September 28th, 2000, and deliberately provoked the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and has inflicted death and destruction on the Palestinian people since then. Close to thirty seven hundred Palestinians since then alone have been killed….most of them shot down like dogs in the street, and what has the Muslim world done about this?

My Palestinian friends tell me that they are worried that the government of Malaysia might recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations with Israel. I certainly hope this is not true. We must treat the criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the same way the world treated the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa.

If the United States attacks Iran, they will probably attack Syria with the Israeli air force and they will attack Lebanon to take out the Islamic resistance movement in southern Lebanon – Hezbollah that defended the legitimate rights of Lebanon and the Lebanese people and expelled the invading longstanding occupying Israeli army that had the full support of the United States government for over twenty years.

So they could attack Iran, Syria, Southern Lebanon and inflict yet another round of ethnic cleansing on the suffering Palestinian people. Remember Sharon and Likhud believe that Jordan is Palestine. And they want to drive as many Palestinians as possible out of their homes and into Jordan.

So if the United States as reported by Hersh and other reliable sources, goes ahead and attacks Iran, we could see warfare erupt all the way from Egypt to the border with India. This whole area convulsed in warfare. And who will be the primary victims of this war? Muslims. The United States could not care less about Muslim life. Look at the demonisation and victimisation of Muslims that we have seen inflicted by the United States and its surrogate, Israel. Look at Guantanamo, where six hundred Muslim men have been treated like dogs in a kennel. Pretty much the way the Nazis treated the Jews. Look at Abu Ghraib and the sadism and sexual exploitation and perversion of Muslims by their American captors. And the same thing has been done in Baghram in Afghanistan. And when Professor Sharif Bassiouni, the U.N. special rapporteur filed the Report with the Security Council against U.S. practices in Afghanistan, the Americans had Kofi Annan fire him. Just as they had Kofi Annan fire Mary Robinson, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, when she protested what was going on down in Guantanamo.

The United States could not care less about Muslim life. And the same is true for the genocidal apartheid regime in Israel. They would be happy to use nuclear weapons against Iran. They would be happy to break the taboo of Hiroshima and Nagasaki against Muslims in Iran. It would create no problem at all for them. Indeed, I went to school with these Neo-Conservatives at the University of Chicago. Wolfowitz was there, ChalabiKhalilzadShulsky, all the rest of them. I went through the exact same programme. Their mentor, Professor Leo Strauss. And who was his teacher in Germany and his sponsor? Professor Carl Schmitt who went on to become the most notorious Nazi law Professor of his day, justifying every atrocity that the Nazis inflicted on everyone. We must understand that these Neo-Conservatives are in fact Neo-Nazis. They have espoused the Nazi doctrine of Schmitt and Strauss and Machiavelli and Nietzsche, the “superman.” They are the supermen, and the Muslims are the scum of the earth.

Now, I do not believe the United States will initially start bombing Iran with nuclear weapons. But if things get out of control they are fully prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons. And here in our materials, you have the Pentagon’s Joint Publication 3-12, which you can get on the internet…. just do a Google search and read it. And you will see there dated March 15, 2005; nuclear, tactical nuclear weapons have been fully integrated into United States conventional forces.

So if Iran were to defend itself, human wave attacks, whatever, they will be happy to use nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Remember, these Neo-Nazis, Neo-Cons want to break the taboo of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They want to use tactical nuclear weapons, to be able to say to the rest of the world, you do what we tell you to do or else look what we did to the Iranians!

It’s a very serious situation. And this could even get further out of control. Remember that before Bush invaded Iraq, President Putin of Russia said that if he invades Iraq he could set off World War Three. Well, I interpreted that as an implicit threat. Even the famous American news broadcaster Walter Cronkite said that if Bush invaded Iraq he could set off World War Three. Two weeks ago we had the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; China, Russia and Iran. So again, if Bush were to attack Iran, he very well could set off a Third World War, a nuclear war. And that is where you come in:

“This is what I can do. These are my talents. These are my professional qualifications. These are my skills. This is my cheque book. Let me help. Let me prevent, let me help prevent a nuclear war, a possible final, cataclysmic Third World War.”

Thank you, shukran.

ARAB STRATEGY FORUM: Political Systems in the Arab World in 2020:

Moving Towards Reform and Development

 

by Professor Francis A. Boyle

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL

Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The demand by the Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives for democratization in the Arab world is a joke and a fraud that is designed to pressure, undermine, and destabilize Arab governments and states at the behest of the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime, and to pursue America’s continuing campaign for outright military control and domination of the Gulf oil and gas resources that the United States government launched in direct reaction to the Arab oil embargo of the West in 1973. For over the past three decades American foreign policy toward the entire Middle East has been determined by oil and Israel, in that order.

The United States government will seek direct military control and domination of the hydrocarbon resources of the Arab and Muslim world until there is no oil and gas left for them to steal, using Israel as its regional “policeman” towards that end. Oil and Israel were behind both the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. wars against Iraq. And now Bush Jr. is threatening to attack Syria, Lebanon, and Iran in conjunction with the genocidal apartheid regime in Israel. As the oil and gas in the Arab and Muslim world proceed to run out, the United States and Israel will become even more predatory, aggressive, destructive, and genocidal toward Arab and Muslim states and peoples.

The Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives could not care less about democracy in the Arab world. In fact, Bush Jr. and his Neo-Cons are all trying very hard to build a Police State in the United States of America that we lawyers are vigorously opposing. What the Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives really want in the Arab world are quisling dictators who will do their dirty work for them and the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime against the wishes and prayers of the Arab people for democracy, human rights, the rule of law, constitutionalism, as well as for the liberation of Palestine and Al Quds.

Those will be the predominant facts and trends that the Arab world will have to confront between now and 2020. It was not my assignment here today to advise Arab states and the Arab people how to counteract this anti-Arab and anti-Muslim agenda by the United States and Israel. But certainly the sacred Koran and the divinely inspired teachings of the Prophet Mohammed – May Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him! – shall guide you and protect you during this most difficult period in the history of the Arab Nation, the Arab People, Arab States, and Islam.

Shukhran.

Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010).

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Sabra and Shatila: The Secret Papers

14309080123 4b8ec98b30 m 165ef

Sabra and Shatila, September, 1982, stands as one of the worst single atrocities in modern history. Up to 3500 Palestinians were massacred when Israel’s Falangist proxies surged through the two Beirut camps in September, 1982. Israel sought to dump the blame on to the Falangists. “Goyim kill goyim and they come to blame the Jews,” Israel’s Prime Minister, Menahim Begin, complained. In fact, Israel commanded and controlled the entire operation. The punishment meted out by the Kahan commission of inquiry was derisory. Ariel Sharon, the Israeli ‘defence minister’ was demoted but remained in government, after Begin refused to sack him. Despite his own complicity, Begin was not punished and neither were any of the politicians who had agreed that the camps had to be ‘cleaned out.’ World opinion was outraged, but not even this fearful event was sufficient for Israel to be held to account. Unrestrained, Israel remained free to kill at will.

The secret annex to the Kahan commission has recently made its way into the mainstream. (See Rashid Khalidi, ‘The Sabra and Shatila Massacres: New Evidence,’ Palestine Square, Institute of Palestine Studies, September 25, 2018).   The basic facts are well established, so the interest lies in what these documents tell us about the interplay between the Israelis and the Falangists, and why, ultimately, Sabra and Shatila had to be invaded.

Even before 1948 Israel was setting out to turn Lebanon into a satellite state by playing on the fears of the country’s Maronite Christian community.   In 1958 Lebanon endured its second civil war (second to the Druze-Maronite conflict of 1860).   This war was part of a regional drama involving anti-Nasserism, anti-communism, the overthrow of the monarchy in Iraq and a planned coup attempt in Jordan. No event in Lebanon is ever simply internal, but while the collective ‘west’ and Israel had a big stake in what happened in 1958, the war developed largely as cause and effect between internal factions. By the time the US intervened, sending the Sixth Fleet and landing marines on Beirut’s beaches, these factions had for the moment resolved their differences.

In 1968, against a background of Palestinian resistance from southern Lebanon, Israel destroyed 13 commercial aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Beirut international airport. Lebanon was being warned to control the Palestinians, or else. Of course, given its highly factionalized nature, Lebanon could not control the Palestinians.

In April, 1973, the Israelis infiltrated West Beirut from the sea and killed four leading Palestinian political and cultural (Kamal Nasser, a poet) figures and by 1975 the country was right on the edge. A drive-by shooting at a Maronite church in East Beirut on April 13 pushed it off. The dead included members of the Kata’ib, the Lebanese Falange, a party founded on the Spanish model in the 1930s. Falangist gunmen struck back, shooting up a bus full of Palestinians and the war was on.

As Israel was already involved with the Falangists, as it wanted chaos in Lebanon ending in the defeat of the Palestinians and the destruction of their institutions, the church shooting was very likely a deliberate Israeli provocation. The secret annex to the Kahan commission reveals that by 1975 Israel was holding secret meetings with Falangist leaders, aimed at political and military coordination, towards which end Israel gave the Falangists $118.5 million in military aid (the figure given in the Kahan annex, the true figure possibly being much higher) and trained hundreds of Falangist fighters, in preparation for the war which Israel wanted the Falangists to launch.

Israel maintained its relationship with the Falangists through the civil war. By 1982 there was an “alliance in principle,” as described by papers in the Kahan annex. Trained in Israel up to Israeli military standards, however this is understood, Israel was confident that the Falangist tough Bashir Gemayel, the dominant figure in the Christian umbrella group, the Lebanese Forces (LF), had evolved “from the emotional leader of a gang, full of hatred, into a relatively prudent and cautious political leader.” No doubt this was how Bashir presented himself at meetings with the Israelis, but his actions in the past, and in the future, indicate that he was merely concealing the brutality that still lay within.

In January, 1976, the LF attacked the slum Karantina port district of Beirut, killing or massacring at least 1000 Palestinian fighters and civilians. In June, the Falangists, along with other LF factions, including the Lebanese Tigers of the Chamoun family and the Guardians of the Cedars, besieged the Tal al Za’atar Palestinian camp. Their military equipment included US tanks and armored cars. The camp held out for 35 days before being overrun. Up to 3000 Palestinian civilians were slaughtered.

The Kahan papers include an interesting exchange between Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres, Minister of Defence in 1976, who asked Sharon whether an IDF officer had warned him against sending the Falangists into Sabra and Shatila. Sharon responded that “you” (the Rabin government of 1976 of which Peres was part) had established the relationship with the Falangists and maintained it even after the massacre at Tal al Zaatar:

“You [Peres] spoke of the moral image of the government. After Tal al Zaatar, Mr Peres, you have no monopoly on morality. We did not accuse you, you have accused us. The same moral principle which was raised by the Tal al Za’atar incident [sic.] still exists. The Phalangists murdered in Shatila and the Phalangists murdered in Tal Za’atar. The link is a moral one: should we get involved with the Phalangists or not? You supported them and continued to do so after Tal Za’atar. Mr Rabin and Mr Peres, there were no IDF officers in Shatila, the same way they were absent from Tal Za’atar.” What is left unsaid is that Israel had a ‘liaison office’ at Tal al Za’ater even if IDF officers were not inside the camp.

‘High stature’

The refrain constantly repeated by Israeli intelligence and military personnel in 1982 was that no-one expected the Falangists to behave so badly. They were people of high calibre, people of quality, “men of much higher personal stature than is common among Arabs,” according to the statements made to the Kahan commission.

“I interrogated the Lebanese commanders [all Lebanese ‘commanders’ operated under direct Israeli command],” said Sharon. “I asked them, why have you done it? They looked into my eyes, as I am looking at you and their eyes did not twitch. They said ‘we did not do this, it was not us.’ I am not talking about bums, we are talking about people who are engineers and lawyers, the entire young elite, an intelligentsia, and they are looking into my eyes and saying ‘we did not do it.’

In fact, not just during the long civil war but throughout its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Israel had abundant evidence of the Falangist capacity for brutality, not just in the massacre of Muslims caught at checkpoints or the Druze in the mountains but in the statements of Falangist leaders. On September 12, two days before he was assassinated, Bashir Gemayel told Sharon that conditions “should be created” which would result in the Palestinians leaving Lebanon.

At the same meeting it transpired that the Israelis had evidence that “as a consequence of Elie Hobeika’s activities” 1200 people had “disappeared.” Hobeika, a senior and extremely brutal Falangist figure, implicated in the CIA attempt in 1985 to assassinate the Shia spiritual leader, Shaikh Muhammad Hussain Fadlallah, was assassinated in 2002 shortly after he announced he was ready to give evidence in a Belgian court about Sharon’s role in the Sabra-Shatila massacres. His car was blown up, his head landing on the balcony of a nearby apartment.

On July 8 Bashir spoke of wanting to bulldoze the Palestinian camps in southern Lebanon. At a later meeting, asked by Sharon “What would you do about the refugee camps?,” he replied “We are planning a real zoo.”

An IDF colonel gave evidence to the Kahan commission that it was “possible to surmise from contacts with Phalange leaders” what their intentions were. If Sabra would become a zoo, Shatila’s destiny was to be a parking lot.

The IDF colonel spoke of massacres of Druze villagers by Elie Hobeika and his men. A document dated June 23 refers to “some 500 people” detained by Christians in Beirut being “terminated.” Nahum Admoni, the Mossad head, who said he knew Bashir well, having met frequently with him in 1974/5, said that “When he talked in terms of demographic change it was always in terms of killing and elimination. This was his instinctive style.” The “demographic change” refers to Bashir’s concern at the size of Lebanon’s Shia population, and its high natural birth date compared to the Christians. To resolve this problem, Bashar said, “several Deir Yassins will be necessary.”

While referring to Bashir’s brutal talk, Admoni said that “at the same time he was a political human being and as such he had an extremely cautious thinking process and thus he avoided taking part in various warlike activities.” The evidence does not bear out the last part of this statement, as Bashar had a long record even before 1982 of engaging in extremely brutal “warlike activities.”

The violence during the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon ran from the Falangists at one end of the spectrum to the extreme violence of Ariel Sharon, including massacres of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, at the other end. The two extremes met in the middle at Sabra and Shatila and the outcome was predictably catastrophic.

‘Totally subservient’

What must be reaffirmed is that the “cleaning” or “combing” out of Sabra and Shatila was planned, coordinated and commanded by the Israeli military. It was not a Falangist operation with Israel playing some loose supervisory role. It was an Israel operation, involving the intelligence agencies and approved by the Israeli government. The Falangists were trained and armed by Israel and the LF commanders were “totally subservient” to the commander of the Israeli force sent to the camps, the 96th division. The Falangists were told when to enter the camps and when to leave. The Israelis lit up the camps at night with flares so the Falangists could see what they were doing (or who they were killing) and they stood ready to provide medical assistance to wounded men and intervene if they got into trouble.

Any notion that Menahim Begin, the Prime Minister, had no idea what was going on until a later stage has to be discarded. As Sharon remarked at a Cabinet meeting on August 12, “to say that I speak with the PM five times a day would be an understatement.”

Israel had agreed in negotiations with the Americans not to enter West Beirut. The assassination of Bashir Gemayel on September 14 precipitated the invasion of West Beirut the following day, the seizure of key positions and the encirclement of Sabra and Shatila according to a well-prepared plan. The Falangists entered the camps in the early evening of September 16, on Israeli orders, and did not withdraw until September 18, again on Israeli orders.

There were no “terrorists” in the camps, let alone the 2500 Sharon claimed had been left behind after the PLO withdrawal from Beirut in August. There were only civilians and there was no armed resistance from them. The Falangists did their work silently, mostly with knives so that the next victim would not be aware of the fate of the one before him (or her – many of the dead were women and children and even the camp animals were butchered) until it was too late.

The Falangist liaison office was established in the headquarters of the 96th Israeli division, where eavesdropping yielded unspecified “important evidence,” according to the Kahan commission annex. Professional electronic tapping of the Falangist communications network inside the camps was maintained in addition to “improvised” tapping of the conversations inside the HQ of the 96th division. According to the Kahan commission’s annex, the Falangist liaison officer reported “abnormal occurrences” in the camps to several officers only a few hours after the Falangists entered them.

Clearly, statements by intelligence and military personnel that they did not know what was going, or that they did not know until it was too late cannot be taken at face value. There was no gunfire from the camps and no resistance as would have been expected from armed “terrorists.” In this deathly silence, with no bursts of gunfire, and not the slightest sign or sound of armed combat, did the Israelis really think the Falangists were only killing armed men? Furthermore, Sharon had made it clear that he wanted to break up all the Palestinian camps and disperse their inhabitants. A cruel and brutal figure, he was perfectly capable of doing it. What could be better calculated to drive Palestinian civilians everywhere into panicked flight than an even more monstrous Deir Yassin? There may be a lot more evidence about this, textual and graphic, that has not made its way even into the secret annex.

Sharon freely insulted and demeaned the two chief US representatives in Beirut, Ambassador Morris Draper, whom he accused of impudence in demanding that Israel withdraw from West Beirut, and President Reagan’s special envoy, Philip Habib. “Did I make myself clear?,” “Don’t complain all the time” and “I’m sick of this” are samples of his aggression when in their company but as he said of the Americans on another occasion, “I hate them.”

Ghost towns

This remorseless liar claimed that there were no civilians in the camps. “I want you to know that Burj al Barajneh and its vicinity and the area of Shatila and similar places are ghost towns” he insisted, according to the Kahan annex. In August, as the aerial and land bombardment of Beirut approached its peak, he told the Cabinet that “we are not striking at the area where the Sunni Lebanese population resides.” On August 18 he lied again: “Today there is no-one living in the refugee camps. Only terrorists remain in the refugee camps. That is where their positions remain, in the refugee camps. That is where their positions, bunkers and HQs were located, and all the civilians had fled.” In fact, the camps were packed with civilians who had nowhere else to go, while in West Beirut, thousands of Sunni Muslims, Christians, and anyone who was living there, were being killed in air strikes.

At the same time Sharon had the extraordinary gall to present himself as some kind of saviour of the civilian population.   After entering West Beirut he remarked that “in reality we are not looking for anybody’s praise but if praise is due, then it’s ours as we saved Beirut from total anarchy. On September 21, a few days after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, he told the Cabinet that “We prevented a bloodbath.” In fact, the invasion had been a bloodbath from the beginning. By the end of the year about 19,000 people had been killed, almost all of them Palestinian or Lebanese civilians.

Two issues take up numerous pages in the Kahan report annex. One is the speed with which the Israeli army moved into West Beirut after the assassination of Bashir Gemayel. The reason was that the assassination “threatened to bring down the entire political structure and undermine the military plan years in preparation over long months.” Having promised full support, Bashar had ultimately refused to send the Falangists into West Beirut and with this commanding figure dead, the Israelis feared that their invasion was going to fail at the critical moment. With no-one to stop them, Sharon’s imaginary “terrorists” would be free to rebuild their infrastructure.

‘Supreme value’

The other issue is why Israel did not send its own troops into the camps. As expressed in the Kahan papers, “the expected nature of the fighting in the camps did not arouse much enthusiasm for the deployment of the IDF.” There would be difficult fighting “which could result in a lot of bloodshed in a densely populated area, where terrorists who have to be located are disguised as civilians in a hostile environment.” Such an action would involve a large number of casualties and the IDF had no wish to involve itself “in such an unpleasant but necessary military move.”

The deployment of the Falangists instead caused “great relief” to the military: the “supreme value” governing the decision was the desire not to cause IDF casualties. So, Israel’s proxies were sent in to do the dirty work instead.

After being elected president, as he was in a dodgy way in August, Bashir Gemayel had shown he realised he would have to act as one, which meant putting the Lebanese consensus before the alliance with Israel. He would have to work with the Sunnis and Shia and repair the fractured relations with other Maronite factions. He would have to take the interests of Arab states into account.   He could not simultaneously be Lebanon’s president and Israel’s president.   As a senior Falangist figure, Antun Fattal, remarked to Morris Draper on December 13, 1982: “Our economy is dependent on the Arab world and we cannot sacrifice it because of a peace treaty [as demanded by Israel].”

On December 14, Bashar’s successor, and milder brother, Amin, asked Israel to stop all contact with Lebanon, saying that he intended to announce at the UN that Lebanon was occupied by Israel. Like Bashir, he knew he had to respect the Lebanese consensus. By the end of 1982 what Israel had comprehensively demonstrated was that it simply did not understand Lebanon. All it had was brute force. The invasion certainly succeeded in changing the geo-political strategic situation, but not to Israel’s advantage. Yes, the PLO went, but only for Hizbullah to take its place. By 2000 Hizbullah had driven Israel out of the occupied south, in 2006 it frustrated Israel again and by 2018 it had missiles that will cause unprecedented damage if Israel goes to war again. The country Israel regarded as the weakest link in the Arab chain had turned out to be one of the toughest.

By Jeremy Salt
Source

صبرا و شاتيلا: إبادة مُعلنة

1

هكذا خطّط بشير الجميّل مع إسرائيل لإبادة شعب فلسطين1

حقائق جديدة حول جريمة مدبرة

وليد شرارة

    • كان الهدف المعلن للاجتياح الصهيوني للبنان عام 1982، بحسب التصريحات والبيانات الصادرة عن حكومة بيغن-شارون آنذاك، هو «تدمير البنى التحتية لمنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية»، أي جميع منظمات المقاومة الفلسطينية والمؤسسات السياسية والاجتماعية والإعلامية والثقافية المرتبطة بالمنظمة. لكن مجريات الاجتياح، التي تخللتها عمليات استهداف واسعة النطاق للمخيمات الفلسطينية عبر القصف التدميري وارتكاب المجازر، التي وصلت إلى ذروتها مع مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا، كشفت أن الغاية الفعلية لهذا الأخير تتجاوز القضاء على منظمة التحرير إلى القضاء على وجود الشعب الفلسطيني في لبنان. المشروع الصهيوني الذي قام على التطهير العرقي في فلسطين حاول تكرار جريمته في لبنان. لكن إرادة الصمود الأسطورية لدى الفلسطينيين في لبنان، الذين تعرضوا لعمليات قتل وتنكيل وحصار طوال عقد ثمانينات القرن الماضي وليس خلال الاجتياح وحده، منعته من بلوغ غايته. اليوم، بعد مرور أكثر من سبعين عاماً على النكبة في فلسطين، وستة وثلاثين عاماً على مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا، قرّر الكيان الصهيوني، عبر تصويت الكنيست على قانون القومية اليهودية، الإعلان رسمياً عن طبيعته الاستيطانية الإحلالية. بحسب هذا القانون، «إسرائيل» هي الوطن التاريخي «للشعب اليهودي» حصراً، حيث يمارس «حقه في تقرير المصير». وكما في جميع حالات الاستعمار الاستيطاني الإحلالي التي سبقت، كالولايات المتحدة وأستراليا ونيوزلندا، لا مكان للسكان الأصليين إلا في المقابر الجماعية أو معازل القتل البطيء. وقد اعتقد الصهاينة بعد النكبة أنهم نجحوا في التخلص من الفلسطينيين، كما أكد أحد قادتهم، أبا إيبان، عندما جزم أن «الكبار سيموتون والصغار سينسون». كذّب الفلسطينيون أبا إيبان وانطلقت من مخيمات البؤس والتشرد والبطولة والفداء ، خارج فلسطين، الثورة الفلسطينية المعاصرة. ومع مضي أكثر من عقد ونصف على انطلاقتها وتمركز قواتها في لبنان، قرّر الصهاينة تكرار محاولة الإجهاز عليها واستكمال ما بدأوه عام 1948.

اجتياح بحجم نكبة

المقاومة الفلسطينية وحلفاؤها أدركوا بوضوح أهداف الاجتياح، وكذلك أعداء هذه المقاومة، من ميليشيات اليمين الفاشي اللبناني، التي كان وصول مرشحها إلى السلطة أحد هذه الأهداف. وتكفلت التطورات الميدانية والسياسية خلال الاجتياح وبعده بتبيانها لمن كان متعامياً عنها وأولها إلحاق نكبة جديدة بالشعب الفلسطيني واقتلاعه من الجزء الأكبر من لبنان. هذا ما يفسر التدمير المتعمد والمنهجي، الكامل أو شبه الكامل، لمعظم المخيمات الواقعة ضمن نطاق الاجتياح كالرشيدية والبرج الشمالي وعين الحلوة وهو ما يفسر طبعاً مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا. لم يرحل الفلسطينيون. بقوا بين أنقاض منازلهم وأعادوا إعمارها تدريجاً على رغم تعرضهم للقتل والخطف والاعتقال والتنكيل في المخيمات الواقعة تحت الاحتلال في الجنوب آنذاك وثبتوا في أزقة صبرا وشاتيلا التي تحولت ليومين متتاليين إلى مسلخ بشري مكتظ بجثث أهلهم وأحبتهم. من أراد المزيد من الإطلاع على وقائع تلك المرحلة وعلى تجربة الفلسطينيين المريرة في لبنان في ثمانينات القرن الماضي، من منظور المعنيين أي الفلسطينيين، عليه مراجعة الكتاب الهام لروز ماري صايغ «أعداء كثر» (Too Many enemies) الصادر بالإنكليزية والذي لم يترجم للعربية لأسباب «غير مفهومة».

حَرص الطرف الإسرائيلي، بعد مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا والاستنكار العالمي الذي سببته، على الترويج لسردية لخصها مناحم بيغن بقوله أمام الكنيست: «غوييم (أغراب من غير اليهود) قتلوا غوييم، لكن العالم يتهم اليهود». لم تكن إسرائيل تتوقع، بحسب السردية المذكورة، أن يقدم حلفاؤها في القوات اللبنانية، وقوات سعد حداد التي جيء بها من الجنوب، على ارتكاب مجزرة ضد المدنيين. وزير دفاعها آنذاك آرييل شارون اعترف بأنه من أعطى الأمر لهذه القوى الرديفة بدخول المخيمات «لتطهيرها من الإرهابيين» لكنه نفى علمه بنيتها ارتكاب مجازر، وعزا سلوكها إلى رغبتها بالانتقام لاغتيال زعيمها بشير الجميل. بعض قادة القوات اللبنانية برّروا أيضاً ما جرى على أنه رد فعل من عناصرها بدافع الانتقام من عملية الاغتيال. أحد قادتها، فؤاد مالك، وفي مقابلة مع إذاعة كورتوازي (Radio Courtoisie) اليمينية المتطرفة الفرنسية في الثمانينات، زعم بأن ما جرى في صبرا وشاتيلا معركة وليس مجزرة وبأنه شارك شخصياً فيها!

لم تصمد هذه السرديات والمزاعم أمام الشهادات والوثائق والتحقيقات التي تثبّت بشكل حاسم أن المجزرة اندرجت ضمن سياق مخطط مشترك بين إسرائيل والقوات اللبنانية لاقتلاع الوجود الفلسطيني من لبنان. آخر الوثائق الشديدة الأهمية هي تلك التي كشف عنها الباحث الأميركي سيت أنزيسكا في مقال في مجلة نيويورك رفيو أوف بوكس، خصصه لنشر بعض الصفحات المختارة من كتابه المرجعي «تغييب فلسطين، التاريخ السياسي من كامب ديفيد إلى أوسلو»، الصادر أخيراً عن دار نشر جامعة برنستون في الولايات المتحدة. يبرز الكتاب حقيقة تواطؤ جميع الإدارات الأميركية المتعاقبة، من إدارتي فورد ونيكسون، إلى إدارة ترامب، مع السياسة الإسرائيلية التي عملت بجميع السبل لمنع الفلسطينيين من حقهم بتقرير المصير وإقامة دولة مستقلّة على أي جزء من أرض فلسطين التاريخية وكيفية توظيف هذه السياسة لما سمي بعملية السلام منذ اتفاقية كامب ديفيد لإخراج أطراف عربية وازنة كمصر من الصراع مع إسرائيل وعزل الفلسطينيين تمهيداً للإجهاز على حركتهم الوطنية وإتمام عملية الاقتلاع والضم والاستيطان. ويفرد الكتاب حيزاً هاماً للاجتياح الإسرائيلي عام 1982، ومجازر صبرا وشاتيلا، باعتباره محطة مفصلية في مسار الإبادة السياسية و«تغييب فلسطين». خلال عمله على إعداد الكتاب، حصل أنزيسكا من وليم كوانت، عضو مجلس الأمن القومي الأسبق في عهد الرئيس الأميركي جيمي كارتر والخبير البارز في شؤون الشرق الأوسط الناقد للسياستين الأميركية والإسرائيلية، على الملحقات السرية لتقرير لجنة كاهان، اللجنة الإسرائيلية المكلفة بالتحقيق في مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا. تنقسم هذه الوثائق إلى محاضر اجتماعات بين القيادات العسكرية والأمنية الإسرائيلية وقيادتي القوات اللبنانية وحزب الكتائب وإلى محاضر جلسات استماع أمام الكنيست لمسؤولين إسرائيليين ومحاضر مقابلات بينهم وبين لجنة كاهان. اختارت «الأخبار» أن تنشر أبرز محاضر الاجتماعات بين القيادات الإسرائيلية واللبنانية التي تفصح عن تفاهم كامل على غايات الاجتياح وفي مقدمها الخلاص من «الديموغرافيا» الفلسطينية في لبنان. وقد شارك قائد القوات اللبنانية بشير الجميل في أغلب هذه الاجتماعات المصيرية. يتضح في أكثر من محضر أن الطرف الإسرائيلي، للحفاظ على صورته وسمعته أمام العالم، لزّم أمر المخيمات للميليشيات الفاشية اللبنانية المتحمسة لذلك. هذه الأخيرة، على غرار غيرها من فرق الموت الفاشية عبر العالم، تخصصت خلال الحرب الأهلية بعمليات «التطهير الاجتماعي» لأحزمة الفقر عبر القتل الجماعي والتشريد كما فعلت في النبعة والكرنتينا ومخيمي تل الزعتر وجسر الباشا. كانت الطرف الأمثل لإنجاز المهمة.

مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا ليست كغيرها من مجازر الحرب الأهلية اللبنانية. لم يكن رد فعل على مجزرة أخرى أو عملاً انتقامياً تلا معركة كما حصل خلال الحرب. هي أتت تنفيذاً لقرار إسرائيلي مشترك مع رديف رُفع إلى مرتبة الحليف لاعتبارات سياسية، كحلقة في مخطط واسع هدف إلى إعادة صياغة التوازنات السياسية والديموغرافية في لبنان وفي المنطقة. ومن يشك في صحة هذه الخلاصات عليه بمراجعة محاضر الاجتماعات بين الشركاء في الجريمة المتعمدة التي تبدأ «الأخبار» بنشرها اليوم.

شارون: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟ بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية

شارون: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟ بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية

عنوان الوثيقة:

محضر الاجتماع بين بشير الجميّل وكمحي وتامير، مكتوب بخطّ اليد

1 – كان بشير راضياً بعدما تلقّى المعدات التي أرسلناها إليه.
2 – كان مهتماً بمعرفة مصير الفلسطينيين في لبنان بعد إجلاء منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، أو ما يسمّيه «المشكلة الديموغرافية». قلنا له إنّ مشكلة السكان المدنيّين هي مشكلتكم (هم الذين دعوهم إلى الدخول، لذلك فإنّ التخلص منهم من مسؤوليتهم).
بالمقارنة، إنّ مشكلة منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية مشكلة مركّبة: إما أن ينسحبوا وفق الاتفاق السياسي، أو أن يُخرَجوا بالقوّة.
طرح بشير النقاش المعهود، وقال إن الوقت ينفد، كذلك فإنّه بات يشكّل عائقاً أمامنا، وإن شيئاً لن يتحقّق جرّاء العملية السياسية. وقال إنه إذا جرى غزو المخيمات أو عزلها، فإنّ المدينة ستسقط كثمرةٍ ناضجة، لأنّ الأحياء السنيّة ستستسلم، كذلك فإن المسيحيين سيزيدون الضغوط.
(ملاحظة مكتوبة بخط اليد من دون عنوان بتاريخ 10 تموز/ يوليو 1982: بشير الجميّل يقترح إضافة قوّة سعودية إلى القوات الدولية المقرَّر أن تدخل بيروت).

***

21 آب/ أغسطس 1982 (قبل يومين من انتخاب بشير الجميل رئيساً للجمهورية)

عنوان الوثيقة: محضر اجتماع بين وزير الدفاع (أرييل شارون) وبيار وبشير الجميّل في مكتب بشير

المشاركون: رجال بشير، ممثلون عن الموساد، أوري دان، الميجور شامير وزير الدفاع: لقد وضعنا الخلفية، نحن هنا في بيروت بحسب اتفاقنا في كانون الثاني/ يناير هذا العام. كيف تتحضّرون لحكومة قوية ومستقرّة؟

بيار: إن الله أرسلكم إلينا. خلال السنوات السبع أو الثماني الماضية، خذَلَنا الجميع. الأميركيون والأوروبيون كانوا يخافون حرق أيديهم هنا. كان ضرورياً أن تفعلوا ما فعلتم. لقد أتيتم وأنقذتمونا. خلال العامين الماضيين، انتظرنا بيأس. من دون مساعدتكم، لكنّا اختفينا.
أشعر بأنكم لستم راضين عن موقفنا. ربما توقعتم تعبيراً أكبر عن الفرح وحماسة أكبر لدى وصولكم. على الرغم من أننا لم نعبّر عن ذلك ظاهرياً، أريدك أن تعرف أن قلوبنا تطير من الفرح. حتى لو أنّكم تعملون وفقاً لما تقتضيه مصلحتكم، فإنّكم قدّمتم لنا خدمة. كما نتفهّمكم، يجب أن تتفهمونا، من أجل مصلحتنا ومصلحتكم. لبنان هو الجسر الأفضل لدخولكم إلى العالم العربي. هذا في مصلحتكم أيضاً. من المستحيل أن نحيا، حاملين السلاح إلى الأبد. يجب أن تبقى إسرائيل إلى الأبد، ويجب إيجاد حلّ للوجود السلميّ. أنتم جُدد في هذه المنطقة. صراعنا من أجل الاستقلال عمره 400 عام. أعتقد أننا نجحنا في ذلك. لذلك – أتمنّى أن تتفهّم – سعادتنا كبيرة، حتى لو لم نستطع إظهار ذلك بشكل واضح. نحن نفهم الوضع بشكل أفضل في العالم العربي، لذا نعتقد أن التعبير الواضح عن فرحنا سيكون مؤذياً. (يهمس بشير في أذنه حينها)، لقد عدتم بعد مئات السنين. نحن بقينا هنا، لكنّنا نتصارع مع المشاكل ذاتها تقريباً. يمكننا النجاة والبقاء هنا بفضل وجودكم في المنطقة.

بشير الجميّل يقترح إضافة قوّة سعودية إلى القوات الدولية المقرَّر أن تدخل بيروت

أودّ أن أشكركم مجدداً وأؤكّد اعترافنا بكل شيء فعلتموه من أجلنا. من دونكم، كان لبنان سيتفكّك. نحن أصدقاؤكم الحقيقيون، ومصالحنا متشابهة. إذا كان لديكم أيّ ملاحظات بشأن سلوكنا، فمن المهم أن تبلغونا بها، خصوصاً أن صداقتكم ضرورية بالنسبة إلينا.

وزير الدفاع: شكراً لقدومك. كفتىً، أذكرك بصراعك من أجل لبنان حرّ. كان يجب أن آتي لأراك، وأنا ممتنّ لحضورك هنا.

بيار: لقد زرت إسرائيل مرّات عدّة. تأثّرت كثيراً. خلال إحدى زياراتي، زرت مدرسة أثارت إعجابي جداً. كانوا يعلّمون الأولاد هناك عن جمال الحياة.

وزير الدفاع: إن الامتحان الأكبر يكمن في كيفية خلق القوة وكيفية نقلها. عددنا 18 مليوناً، ستة ملايين أبيدوا. وبعد 40 عاماً، بتنا أقرب إلى 15 مليوناً. لقد تعلّمنا كيف نستخدم القوة التي لدينا، ولكننا لسنا نحن بعد. استخدام القوة هو ما أوّد أن أناقشه معك. أودّ أن أشير إلى الظروف الخاصة التي في متناولنا. نفهم مشاكلكم، وسنتوصّل إلى تفاهم أفضل. لديّ مشاعر صداقة دافئة تجاهكم، وأؤمن بإقامة العلاقات بين لبنان الحرّ وإسرائيل.

مع ذلك، عليكم أن تفهوا أنه من أجل أن نواصل مساعدتنا لكم، نحتاج إلى تعاونكم – هذا بحاجة إلى إصرار. المناورات والألعاب لم تؤدّ إلى أي مكان. كان هناك فرص عديدة. قبل شهرين، كان هناك فرصة أمامكم لتحرير عاصمتكم. ذلك لم يحصل. كان أسهل بالنسبة إلينا. لم يحصل ذلك، لكننا فهمنا لماذا. برأيي، كان موقفكم أفضل لو أنكم قد تصرّفتم.

بيار: اسمح لي أن أقاطعك. ماذا كنّا سنفعل؟ كان ذلك سيكون مزعجاً أكثر منه مفيداً. لست عسكرياً، لكنّي أعتقد أن موقفنا خدم الهدف المشترك بنحو أفضل مما لو كنّا تورّطنا.

وزير الدفاع: عليك أن تفهم أنّ إسرائيل دولة ديموقراطيّة. هناك أشخاص يعملون هنا منذ 60 يوماً، ووضعهم الاقتصادي مدمّر.

الضغوط في إسرائيل تتراكم. مضمون الضغوط يأتي على النحو الآتي: «لقد حقّقنا ما حققنا، لنعود إلى بلادنا. الجنود هنا مدنيون. لقد تركوا عائلاتهم وأعمالهم. هذا سبّب ضغطاً على الرأي العام الإسرائيلي. خلال أيام سنتعرّض لضغوط دولية على شكل «أنتم أردتم إخراج الإرهابيين من بيروت. ها قد خرجوا. أخلوا المباني الآن». لن يكون لدينا ردّ على ذلك. علينا أن نجيب لماذا نحتفظ بقطاع في جنوب لبنان مساحته بين 40 – 50 كلم. هذا حزام أمان. مع ذلك، لن يكون لدينا إجابة ترضي الرأي العام المحلّي والدولي. ولكن، قد يساعدنا تعهّد لا لبس فيه بأن (اللبنانيين) سيوقّعون اتفاق سلام مع إسرائيل. خلافاً لذلك، لن يكون لدينا حجّة. ما لم يجرِ التصريح بأوضح العبارات بأنه سيُوقَّع اتفاق سلام من قبل إسرائيل، فلن نتمكّن من البقاء في منطقة بيروت. في سيناء، انتظرنا السلام لسنوات، ولكن بقاءنا هنا من دون أن تُعلن القيادة المُحرِّرة أن اتفاق سلام سيُوقّع مع إسرائيل، سيشكّل لنا وضعاً صعباً.

لقد سألتم سابقاً عن مصير مخيّمات الفلسطينيين بعد انسحاب الإرهابيين. إذا لم تنتظموا من أجل دخول هذا المكان، فستواجهون المشكلة ذاتها. من غير المعقول أن تعودوا إلينا وتقولوا لنا إننا ارتكبنا خطأً، يجب أن ندخل إلى المخيمات ونتولّى أمرهم. حال الانتهاء من إجلاء الإرهابيين، لن نتمكّن من فعل شيء، وسيكون من الخطأ أن تطلبوا منّا ذلك. عليكم أن تتصرّفوا.
حتى نتمكّن من الصمود أمام الضغوط العلنيّة في إسرائيل، عليكم أن تعلنوا على الفور إبرام معاهدة سلام مع إسرائيل، وحتى تتخلّصوا من الإرهابيين، عليكم تطهير المخيمات. بحيث يكون من الممكن إقامة علاقات موثوقة تقوم على الاحترام المُتبادل. بعد أن نتكبّد 2500 ضحيّة، عليكم أن تفعلوا شيئاً، اقرعوا الأجراس! صرّحوا عن الالتزامات. (……) ربما قلت أشياء صعبة، ولكنّها تخرج من قلبي، بين الأصدقاء. هذا ما أشعر به وما أؤمن به. قلت هذه الأشياء مع علمي بالموقفين الداخلي في إسرائيل، والدولي.

بيار: أنا أفهم خطابك تماماً، وأشكرك على هذه الكلمات. نحن على علم بردود الفعل داخل إسرائيل. من المهمّ أن يفهم شعب إسرائيل أننا نقف إلى جانبه. سجّلنا موقفكم. أودّ أن تفهموا موقفنا السياسي والدبلوماسي. نحن في خضمّ عمليّة سياسية وانتخابات رئاسيّة، ونؤمن بأن كل شيء سيتغيّر. بشير هو المرشّح. في حال انتخاب بشير، سيُعلَنُ عصرٌ جديد في المنطقة. على العرب أن يفهموا أننا نريد أن نكون لبنانيين. سياستنا ستتغيّر برمّتها. نحن لبنانيون أولاً، وعرب ثانياً. عندما تنبثق جمهورية جديدة، كل شيء سيتغيّر، كل شيء سيكون ممكناً. حين ندخل المرحلة الجديدة، نريد التوصّل إلى اتفاق شامل معكم. نحن في خضمّ الحملة الانتخابية. من المهم جداً المحافظة على الهدوء. مصالحنا متطابقة.

وزير الدفاع: شكراً لك على خطابك. أنا أفهمك. من المهم جداً أن تقدّروا المشاكل المحليّة والدولية التي نواجهها.

بيار: عليكم أن تفهموا موقفنا أيضاً. مصالحنا متطابقة. أطلب مجدداً إن كان لديكم ملاحظات، من المهم بالنسبة إلينا أن نسمعها بصراحة تامة.

بيار يغادر الاجتماع، ويتبع ذلك حوار مع بشير.

بيار الجميّل لشارون: لبنان هو الجسر الأفضل لدخولكم إلى العالم العربي

وزير الدفاع: ماذا عن الأميركيين؟

بشير: هناك تفهّم كامل الآن، لقد رتَّبت لنا ذلك منذ نحو عام.

وزير الدفاع: والسعوديون؟ هل هم منخرطون؟

بشير: كلا، لقد استخدموا نفوذهم في ما يتعلّق بالمسلمين في بيروت. الأميركيون يستغلّون ذلك أكثر. الأميركيون يفعلون ذلك. حبيب أخبر صائب سلام، في أكثر من مناسبة، أنه يلعب بالنار.
السوريون منعوا دخول أعضاء في البرلمان. لذا، كانت هناك خشية من ألّا يكتمل النصاب. أردت طرح هذه المسألة عليك، وسؤالك عمّا ينبغي فعله في حال حصول ذلك؟ هل أطلب من سركيس الاستقالة؟ ماذا عن المدنيين الذين يخضعون للنفوذ السوري؟ كيف ستتواصل العملية السياسية؟ لكن علينا أن نناقش ذلك بعد يوم الاثنين.

وزير الدفاع: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟

بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية.

وزير الدفاع: هل تعتزمون الدخول إلى بيروت الغربية؟

بشير: هناك مشكلة بشأن «المرابطون». لقد عرضوا للتوّ بيع 40 ألف بندقية كلاشنيكوف. تخيّل ما نجده في المدينة. وبخصوص الزيارة لإسرائيل، إذا فشلنا، يجب أن نناقش ذلك. ربما هذا ليس وقتاً مناسباً. ليس هناك أمر طارئ على جدول الأعمال. إذا جرى انتخابي يوم الاثنين، فسندير شؤون الدولة.

ناحيك: نطلب منكم مجدداً ألّا تفعلوا شيئاً من شأنه أن يعقّد إجلاء (الإرهابيين). جدولكم الزمني يسمح لكم بتأجيل الأنشطة إلى ما بعد إجلائهم.

وزير الدفاع: لا تتّخذ أي إجراء من دون التنسيق معنا.

بشير: أعدك بذلك.

In Memory of Philip Roth

May 26, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: I wrote the following  book review a decade ago. 10 years later, Israel and its subservient English Speaking Empire are still mounting pressure on Iran,  the Middle East is bleeding and peace looks like a remote fantasy. Pre TSD is the medium in which we operate and a prospect of a better future seems like a delusional dream. A decade ago I concluded this review wiring that “the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity.” Sadly, nothing really changed.

6_13_025.jpg

The Plot Against America – a book report and a reality check

by Gilad Atzmon

…Roth is no doubt an astonishing writer but somehow he has always failed to convince me. I always had the feeling that Roth is just too aware of his enormous talent; something that made him slightly technical and pretentious at times. Being a prolific writer, Roth can be slightly impersonal to my taste and yet, in his latest book he is free from that. No literary imposed tactics or strategies can be traced. In his latest book, Roth is overwhelmingly personal. Astonishingly enough, the fictional reality he conveys is so convincing that I found myself totally captivated from beginning to end. So enthralled was I, that I even managed to forget how depressing the world is out there. I avoided the anti-Iranian media blitz. I switched it off for three days and let the international community attack the Iranian president in a single Judeified voice.

‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale that unwinds like a historical document enriched with personal detail. Its theme is: what would have happened if ace pilot Charles Lindbergh, the man who made the first solo transatlantic flight in 1927, the man who later called Hitler ‘a great man’, and was decorated by the Führer for his services to the Reich, had run for the American presidency against Roosevelt in 1940 and managed to win? Lindbergh’s message to the American nation is a classic Republican isolationist one. ‘No more war! Never again will young Americans die on foreign soil’. The year is obviously 1940 and Lindbergh is referring to Europe and the Pacific rather than Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. In Roth’s book, instead of Roosevelt being elected for an unprecedented third term, Lindbergh wins in a landslide victory. He then signs non-aggression treaties with Germany and Japan. Soon enough the charismatic Lindbergh is cheered by American society as a whole. Every American loves him except of course the Jews who are far from being happy with a ‘peace loving’ president who happens to make business with the enemies of the Jewish people. But in fact this isn’t entirely true, a single prominent liberal Rabbi named Bengelsdorf positions himself right behind the new president.

The narrator is Philip Roth himself, a seven-year-old Jewish Ghetto boy from Newark, New Jersey. He tells a story of a Jewish family encountering a major disastrous political shift. Young Phil is telling the story of father Herman, mother Bess and brother Sandy. It is a story of collective fear, a story of a Jewish family’s reaction to the rise of anti-Semitism. However, throughout the book it is very hard to determine whether anti-Semitism constitutes a real objective threat or rather something the Jews bring on themselves. This very confusion is in my opinion the greatest literary asset of the book.

Roth is sketching a very deep and complex narrative in which each family member responds differently to the ‘devastating’ historical circumstances. Once again, Roth managed to convey an interesting image of the difficult amalgam of the Jewish identity both psychologically and sociologically. Like most American Jews, Herman the father is overtly pessimistic from the very beginning. He wouldn’t give Lindbergh even a single day of mercy. However, he is a proud patriotic American. He demands his civil rights. Were he in our midst, he would criticise the emerging catastrophic reality applying to the American liberal ideology. The mother Bess is far more practical, she tries to maintain the family’s sanity, behaving as if life must go on. More than anything else, she must calm down her righteous husband. Phil’s brother Sandy is a gifted painter and assumes a very interesting role. In the summer he disappears for an “apprenticeship” with a tobacco farmer in Kentucky. In a way he makes it into the heart of America. Later he is joining a new assimilation scheme by encouraging Jewish city boys to follow his example. This program is put together by Rabbi Bengelsdorf, the devoted supporter of Lindbergh. Sandy is doing very well, eventually he is invited to a reception at the White House. This is obviously far more than Herman can take. For Herman, the democratically elected American president is nothing but an enemy of the Jews and he refuses to give his son permission to go to Washington. The tension between family members threatens the stability of the family itself, which is on the brink of falling apart. However, all that time,  America has been kept out of the war. American boys aren’t dying in a far away country. American people are very happy but somehow the Jewish Americans aren’t.

All the way through the book father Herman is portrayed as a paranoid Ghetto Jew. He is totally single minded in interpreting reality, he is overly tragic. But he isn’t alone in his obsession. Alongside his Newark Jewish Ghetto neighbours he draws a lot of support from the famous Jewish journalist and broadcaster Walter Winchell who is spreading his anti-Lindbergh poison to the nation. It doesn’t take long before Winchell is stripped of his positions as a journalist, first in the printed press and later in his prime time radio slot. But Winchell won’t surrender; once he loses his job, he decides to run for the presidency. Winchell, the Jew, decides to reshape the American future. In other words, he is determined to take America into war in Europe. Within a short time into his campaign, Winchell is assassinated. Again, the reader may wonder whether the assassination is an anti-Semitic act or rather a punishment Winchell and the Jews insist upon bringing on themselves.

All the way through most of the book I couldn’t make up my mind whether the plot against America is a Jewish or rather a Nazi one. Clearly most of America into war that may serve their cause or if it was Hitler who employs an agent in the very centre of the American administration as the mastermind behind the plot. When time is ripe, young Phil provides us with a shadow of an answer.

Towards the very end of the book Lindbergh disappears with his private fighter plane without leaving a trace. Mysteriously, the wreckage of his plane has never been found. No forensic evidence can suggest what happened to him. Foreign governments volunteer their versions: the Brits blame the Nazis for kidnapping the president, the Nazis suggest that it was ‘Roosevelt and his Jews’ who abducted the American hero. These suggestions are all highly charged, unfounded gossip that are there to serve an international political cause. However, Roth deliberately decides to leave us with a very personal account. We hear Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account told by his wife Evelyn who happens to be Philip’s aunt. Brilliantly, Roth’s historical narrative takes the shape of modern ‘Jewish history’. History is then reduced to a mere personal account in the shape of gossip devoid of any factual or forensic reference.

Following Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account, we are entitled to assume that Lindbergh was indeed a Nazi agent. Anyhow, this is the time to remind us that Roth’s President Lindbergh is a fictional character. In fact Lindbergh, the real man, was an American hero, a man who ended the Second World War as a P38 combat pilot at the age of 42. ‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale, Lindbergh wasn’t a traitor, he was an American patriot who happened, like many others, to have admired Hitler for a while. Lindbergh was an American nationalist who loved his people and truly believed that his country should stay out of the ‘Jewish War’. Roth’s Lindbergh is indeed imaginary, but the Jewish collective paranoia isn’t. It is very real. Moreover, the Jewish intent upon shaping American reality is more than real.  Most importantly, while the Nazi plot to run America is totally fictional, the Jewish Plot to run America is now more vivid than ever. Nowadays, when the American army is acting as an Israeli mission force in the Middle East, when Syria and Iran are just about to be flattened by Anglo-American might, it is rather clear what the real meaning of the ‘Plot Against America’ may be.

I read Philip Roth’s book while the entire international community was standing shoulder to shoulder behind the war criminal Sharon. While in Roth’s book the Herman Roths and the Walter Wichells were expecting  America to sacrifice its best sons on the Jewish altar, we are now watching the entire world joining the Jewish war against Islam. It is rather depressing to see our Western politicians enthusiastically adopting the most corrupt version of Jewish morality: a totally blind worldview based on supremacist endorsement of the justice of the stronger. Clearly, there is no isolationist Lindbergh to save us all. Unfortunately, there is not even a single Rabbi Bengelsdorf to suggest an alternative friendly human Jewish morality.

By the time I put Roth’s book down, the storm around the Iranian president subsided somehow. The Jewish world and the Jewish state had another great victory to be cheerful about. The UN’s General Assembly has passed a resolution designating 27 January as the annual ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’ throughout the world.

Why the 27th of January? Because this is the day Auschwitz was liberated. The resolution also rejects any denial that the Holocaust was a historical event in which the mass murder of six million Jews and other victims by Nazi Germany during World War II took place. Seemingly, the UN has a new role, while for years it has been engaged in securing world peace, now it is mainly concerned with securing Jewish history.  No doubt, a very nice present for the Jewish state, a state that holds the highest record for failing to comply with UN resolutions.

By the time I put Roth’s book down I am more or less ready to learn my lesson. Once again I failed to acknowledge that suffering is an exclusive, internal Jewish affair. No one is allowed entry, neither the Palestinians of Gaza’s concentration camp, nor the massacred inhabitants of Fallujah and Tikrit. One million victims of Rwanda are obviously out, three million in Vietnam are out as well, so are the innocent civilians of Hamburg, Hiroshima, Dresden and Nagasaki and millions of others who were killed in the name of democracy. By the time Roth’s ‘Plot Against America’ finds its way onto my bookshelf, I agree with myself at least: A young Rabbi Begelsdorf is long overdue. If we are being Judeified, we may as well take the best of Judaism rather than its supremacist brutality, namely Zionism. By the time Roth’s tome is resting I realise as well that the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity

من المذبحة نبت مجد المقاومة

صابرين دياب

سبتمبر 18, 2017

هكذا دورات التاريخ، من حدث الموت يكون نبت الحياة، ربما تصحّ لنا قراءة مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا بهذه الأداة التي ابتكرها الإنسان الفلسطيني لفهم الحياة وإنجاز الاستمرار وتخليد فلسطينيته بالعمل والإنتاج.

لكن القناع الآخر المختلف للبشرية، أيّ القتل، قد واكب الجوهر الحقيقي للبشرية – وجه الإنسان – وبينهما كان وسيبقى التناقض، ولعلّ الفاشية اللبنانية، الكتائب ولفيفها، والصهيونية والسلطة الأميركية، خاصة المحافظين الجدد، هم التعبير الحقيقي عن القناع، في مواجهة وجه التاريخ.

شعبنا الفلسطيني وأحرار لبنان ومختلف الأمم، التي تعرّضت للمذبحة الممتدّة على مرّ تاريخ البشرية، وكانت مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا المذبحة الشاهد الأشدّ وحشية على امتداد المذبحة ضدّ فلسطين، من دير ياسين والدوايمة والطنطورة وكفر قاسم والحرم الإبراهيمي، إلى العديد العديد، وهي التأسيس للفوضى الخلاقة في ثوب القاعدة وداعش والوهابية بالطبع، حيث فتح الوحش الغربي فكّيْه لتبيّن أنيابه الداعشية وتنغرس في بدن الأمة.

في صبرا وشاتيلا وقف الطفل الفلسطيني الأعزل والمرأة والشيخ، بين فيض دموع ترحيل الفدائيين، غيلة وغدراً ومساومة، وبين سكين شارون وعملائه، الممتدّة بطول المكان من البنتاغون وحتى الكنيست!

ورُوي للأجيال اللاحقة عن كثير من الكذب، حول التعاطف والعواطف! لم يبكِ على الفلسطيني أحد! الا أهلُه في الدم والإنسانية الصافية، فأيّ مشهد عجيب هذا؟ قبل المذبحة ويوم المذبحة وحتى اللحظة، مطلوب رأسك أيها الفلسطيني، لأنّ المطلوب أرضك! حتى اليوم بل اليوم، وهذا الأهمّ، يرتجف الصهيوني أمام هول المقاومة، فيأتيه الوهابي راكعاً طائعاً متطوّعاً، ليغدر بالقديس الذي نبت على أرض المذبحة!

غادرت المقاومة، وحبلت الأرض بالمقاومة، وجاء الجديد أعلى وأشدّ عزيمة من القديم، ولم يتغيّر شيء، لا يزال جعجع يبكي شارون، ويستورد أدواته للقتل، وقد اندمج كلاهما في شخص واحد، وحين لا تقوى يده النجسة على فعل القتل المباشر، يلجأ للغدر!

وفي النهاية، إنه لبنان الذي يضمّ بين جنباته أشدّ التناقضات تناحرية وحِدَّةً: سيد المقاومة وأداة المذبحة جعجع وأضرابه! لبنان أصغر بقعة جغرافية تتكثف فيها أشدّ التناقضات تناحراً، بقعة تتعايش فيها نقائض لا يُحيط بفهمها أعتى الفلاسفة، وجه وجوهر التاريخ الحياة مقاومة، وقناع التاريخ…

الفاشي لا يتعايش، بل يركع للقوة والحذر والوعي، يطعن في الإعلام المريض لأنه لا يقوى، وحين يقوى سيقتل، وبين كونه لا يقوى وحتى يقوى يلدغ، ولا بدّ أن يغدُر.

المجد لدماء صبرا وشاتيلا…

المجد للدم الفلسطيني الذي لن تشربه الأرض!

كاتبة وناشطة فلسطينية

Related

Ave Maria

The music is by Franz Schubert, sung by Dolores O’Riordan, while the images are from the film The Passion of the Christ.

Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave Ave Dominus
Dominus tecum,
Benedicta tu in mulieribus,
et benedictus
et benedictus fructus ventris
ventris tui, Iesus.
Ave Maria.
Ave Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Ave Ave God
Your God
Be blessed among the women
And blessed
And blessed be the product of your womb
Your womb, Jesus.
Ave Maria.

The Passion of the Christ came out in 2004 and was immediately labeled as “anti-Semitic” by its detractors. Though it never won an Academy Award, it holds the all time box office record for an R-rated film, having grossed $370,782,930 in the US and a whopping $611,899,420 worldwide. To the surprise of many, it became a major hit among audiences in the Arab world:

Mel Gibson’s controversial movie “The Passion of the Christ,” is breaking box office records across the Middle East. With the approach of Easter, Arab Christians identify primarily with the religious message. But it’s the film’s popularity among Muslims – even though it flouts Islamic taboos – that’s turning it into a phenomenon.

Islam forbids the depiction of a prophet, and Koranic verses deny the crucifixion ever occurred. For those reasons, the film is banned in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. It’s also banned in Israel – but for other reasons.

“Banned in Israel–but for other reasons.” The above is from an article about The Passion that was published in the Christian Science Monitor on April 9, 2004. You’ll notice that the countries which banned the film–Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain–are today all allied with each other in the support of terrorists in Syria…where the film was not banned.

But to get back to the Christian Science Monitor piece. The article includes a quote from an Israeli Jew, who damns the film as anti-Semitic “both in intent and effect.”

“I have no doubt that the film is anti-Semitic both in intent and effect, but I’m very wary of some Jewish organizations’ reactions to it,” said Yossi Klein Halevi, who is identified as being affiliated with the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

“It needs to be more nuanced,” Halevi complained. “When an evangelical in Colorado Springs sees it, he doesn’t see anti-Semitism. But when Yasser Arafat sees it and calls it an important historic event, he’s responding to that anti-Semitism. And the fact that it’s becoming a major hit in the Arab world, that has consequences… ‘The Passion’ is where Mel Gibson and Yasser Arafat meet, and it isn’t bound by a love of Jesus.”

As alluded to in Halevi’s quote, The Passion was commented upon by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who is said to have attended a screening of the film along with Christian leaders. After the screening, an aide to Arafat remarked, “The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.”

Here again, the passage of history is deeply significant. In October of 2004, Arafat came down with a severe illness, and on November 11 he died at a hospital in Paris. There was suspicion the death was not due to natural causes, but it wasn’t until 2013 that a team of Swiss scientists released the results of a months-long investigation showing Arafat most likely had died of polonium poisoning. Many today speculate that Israel was behind the assassination.

Ariel Sharon, who himself came to a bad end, was the leader of Israel at the time Arafat was poisoned. The former Israeli prime minister suffered from obesity and weighed 254 pounds, and on January 4, 2006, he was overcome by a hemorrhagic stroke. The last eight years of his life were spent in a coma.

“The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.” When we recall what the people of Gaza in particularly have endured over the years, the analogy has validity. While I am not comparing Yasser Arafat to Jesus, the latter’s words from the Gospel of John, chapter 15, are worth recalling:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.  You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Jesus was sent by God to teach humanity how to live in peace. He was born among the Jews not because Jews are “chosen” by God, but because Jews especially were in need of hearing this message. Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish messiah, but because he preached a message of peace rather than war and conquest, the Jews rejected him. Here are the words of Mary in the first chapter of Luke–a passage that is often referred to as the “song of Mary.”

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.

Ave Maria, gratia. And if you think about it, you’ll notice another deeply significant sequence of events. Mary’s words that God “helped his servant Israel,” is of course an allusion to the Old Testament narrative. But then came the birth of Jesus; his rejection and the calls for his crucifixion in 30 A.D.; followed by a stupendously stunning Jewish downfall just 40 years later–in 70 A.D.–when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. One wonders if a somewhat similar type downfall may await the modern Jewish state.

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Here is another rendition of Ave Maria sung by Dolores O’Riordan, this time accompanied by Luciano Pavarotti:

Ave Maria, gratia. Gratia.

The Speech That Killed Sharon الكلمة التي قتلت شارون

Sharon Letter to Saudi King Revealed as Crown Prince Slams «Israel» at UN

 
In the most recent revelations of Saudi-“Israel” normalization and alliance, a letter written by Ariel Sharon ten years ago has been revealed as the Saudi Crown Prince in an attempt to wash his hands of barbarity, slammed the entity’s brutal measures in the Occupied Palestine.

Ariel Sharon

Though the stain of shame haunts the Saudi regime, its Crown Prince Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef addressed the UN General Assembly on Wednesday.

In a bid to wash away that taint, the crown prince first excoriated the “Israeli” entity before discussing the situation in Syria, Yemen or Iran.

Even more, he disregarded the Syrian crisis and the dire situation in Yemen, which had cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians by the US-backed Saudi-led aggression on Yemen.

The Saudi Prince bin Nayef pointed out that progress in the Palestinian-“Israeli” conflict “seems impossible in the light of the continuation of the ‘Israeli’ settlement policy, the tampering with the holy city of al-Quds [Jerusalem], ruining the Arab, Islamic and Christian identity of the city, and the heartless policy of repression practiced against the Palestinians people.”

Little did he know that by slamming the “Israeli” entity, he would be dooming Riyadh and its ties to the entity!

Early in the month, at a ceremony in a museum in the Tel Aviv district of “Or Yehuda”, the “Israeli” entity’s former consul in Boston and ambassador to Egypt, Yitzhak Levan, mentioned Ariel Sharon’s letter to then Saudi King Abdullah.

A framed copy of the letter was presented to the Babylonian Jewry Heritage Museum.

Levan hailed the letter as an “important historical document,” and proof that the “Israeli” entity worked behind the scenes to move the so-called “peace process” forward. He also said the letter confirms that there were ties with the Saudis.

The spirit of those ties, and of reports of a growing but still discreet relationship between Tel Aviv and Riyadh was in no way evident, but the letter shed light on the relation of the two regimes that goes back a long way.

“In light of Saudi Arabia’s central status in this region, and your Majesty’s political wisdom and foresight, we believe that your country can make an immense contribution to the success of this [‘peace’] process,” Sharon wrote to the Saudi king in reference to the diplomatic process with the Palestinians.

Sahron further wrote to the Saudi King,

” It is our hope that Saudi Arabia, under your Majesty’s strong leadership, will exert its power and influence to encourage the moderate forces in this region and advance the prospects of peace, stability and prosperity.”

“I offer my hand in friendship and hope to have the opportunity to cooperate and work with you personally to advance our mutual goal of peace. I look forward to receiving your response,” Sharon concluded the letter of friendship.

Ariel Sharon wrote these words on November 27, 2005, and had a Jew born in Iraq who lived abroad named Moshe Peretz to deliver the letter to the Saudi King Abdullah, thanks to a good relationship he developed with the king’s brother-in-law.

Peretz turned to the “Israeli” Prime Minister’s Office and offered his services in relaying a message to the king. On December 3, 2005, the king’s brother-in law-called Peretz and said the letter was personally delivered.

Source: JPost, Edited by website team 

24-09-2016 | 14:07

 

Related Articles

 

A New Bipolar World: Zionism/Anti-Zionism?

Source

[Ed. Note: In this article Alain Soral’s editorial team at Egalité et Reconciliation argue that we are entering a new bipolar world that replaces the old capitalism against communism. It is not West versus East, it is not the much peddled “clash of civilizations.”

It is zionism versus anti-zionism. And if “zionism” is the political expression of Jewish power, then it is essentially Jews against the world. The analysis is comprehensive and the thesis convincing except that it may justifiably be argued that we are not about to enter this bipolar world, we have been living in it for quite some time.]

By The Editors, Egalité et Reconciliation

Before, it was the Soviets against the Americans, communism against capitalism, a conflict that divided the world for 70 years. Today the bipolarity has not disappeared, instead it seems to have mutated into a confrontation between the pro- and the anti-zionism. Can contemporary geopolitics be reformulated on this basis?

A friendship pact forged by blood ties

In other words, what is the real power of zionism, and of the resistance to it, known as anti-zionism ?

Judging by the American foreign policy, acting globally and openly in favor of Israel’s interests for 40 years (in 1973, in the Yom Kippur war, the US literally saved Israel), and by the weak European foreign policy that never counters Israel, despite giving financial support to the Palestinian Authority (245,000,000 Euros from the EU, plus 250,000,000 more in individual contributions from Union members — a support with strings attached, i.e., recognition of the state of Israel by Hamas and a pledge to ‘renounce violence’), and also without forgetting the British zionist fervor, one can conclude that the West has embraced zionism.

Is this because of interest, historic determinism (including demographic determinism), or fear ?

The European and zionist roots of the campaign of (re)populating what was to be Israel from the 1930s, the financial and human reservoir of the European diasporas from the East and the West, the support from pro-zionist Western leaders, as well as the contributions of powerful Jews (Rothschild, Bronfman) are the obvious ties of the Israeli Jews to their European roots. Nevertheless, this does not explain the decisions taken by certain Western politicians in favor of Israel, often against their own national interests. Personal determinism trumps national determinism.

Sarko the American

Is it interest? This posture conflicts with the need for good diplomatic relaitons with the mostly Arab oil-producing countries (buyers of Western weaponry), which are not pro-zionist, but not all anti-zionist. This explains the American double game whereby the economy has an absolute need of Arab oil, and also of the Arab market to dispose of its surplus weapons, often obsolete, while at the same time protecting Israel from international sanctions for its countless and endless territorial violations, acts of military aggression (based on its concept of “preventive strikes”) and civil and human rights violations (colonization).

Is it fear? How can this litle country, a Western outpost hunkering down in hostile territory, have the Americana and European superpowers wrapped around its little finger? Targeted killings or psychological pressure by the Mossad alone cannot exert such influence. Does the international financial power, from the “City,” and Wall Street to the financial paradises, have a homeland? What is the weight of the Rothschilds and their descendants? Where does the zionist force reside? Why have the French officials in power been kneeling before them for 30 years? Why are 95% of the media pro-zionist? Why has Hollande submitted to Netanyahu after the war on Gaza (July 2014)? Why and how did Valls, once very pro-Palestinian, convert into a fierce defender of Israel? Why can we not discuss this realpolitik with impunity?

Hollande the Israeli

The first breakthrough, which appeared right after the open American-Soviet dichotomy  of 1945 (the one in 1917 was not more than political), was the creation of the state of  Israel in 1948, with the ensuing Arab wars. Not a decade has passed in the last 70 years without a war between Israel and its neighbors. Secret or open wars.

While the Israelis have been able to pacify several fronts, with Jordan after the 60s (King Hussein was close to the future leader of Mossad, Ephraim Halevy, who gave him advance warning of every attempted attack after the 1970 Black September) and Egypt in 1976, it was nevertheless primarily the Iran-Iraq conflict of 1979-1989, the double destruction of Iraq (1991 and 2003), and thus the weakening of the great nationalist spirit of its neighbors that strengthened Israel’s power.

Meanwhile Iran, after the beginning of the 90s, despite the bloodshed  of the war against Iraq, a real international aggression, as expected when a country exits the American sphere, manages to finance Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia, to become the first resistance army facing Israel. In the meantime  Syria becomes embroiled in a civil war that hides an international aggression dictated by Israeli-American interests. Did the Americans know that the crushing of Iraq would help Iran become a new regional power despite the fact that Israel possesses nuclear arms? What purpose does the Israeli’s nuclear arsenal serve?

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said to David Pujadas in an interview in Tehran partially shown in France television on March 22 2007:

« Did their bombs save them [the Americans] from the Iraq quagmire ? […] The state of Israel, which has nukes, has it won in Lebanon? »

The battle of Israel was won by … the Americans

On Octobre 6 1973, unprepared for an unexpected invasion by the Egyptian and Syrian armies that attacked simultaneously in the Sinai and the Golan on Yom Kippur day, Israel was a whisker away from defeat. At the beginning of the conflict Kissinger refused to intervene because he believed that the Arabs could be contained and then beaten. An open anti-Arab military stance would have been counterproductive for American diplomacy. But the turn of events was decisive: the Israeli defense line, Bar-Lev, was broken, its aviation was inefficient against the Russian-made Egyptian ground-to-air missiles, and the Minister of Defense, Moshe Dayan, spoke of “the third destruction of the temple,” in other words no less than the end of Israel. On October 7, 1973, at 2:50 PM, Moshe Dayan in a meeting of the highest Israeli authorities expressed this sentiment:

« The Arabs are fighting better than before… They want to destroy  Eretz Israel, to annihilate the Jews. »

Meanwhile, where the Israelis see a possible annihilation of the state, Sadat only sees a war to recover the territories lost in 1967. This is the version presented by Skies of Glory:

« On October 13, Israel informed the Washington authorities that it had only four days’ worth of ammunition left – a statement that was in fact false, but which pushed the Americans to deliver to their ME ally significant quantities of weaponry, among which Skyhawk and Phantoms, through an enormous air bridge assured by Hercules, StarLifters and Galaxy. »

Let us drop the  legendary history and the Israeli tall tale that the miraculous tipping of the balance in Israel’s favor was due to the bravery of General Sharon, and examine the more prosaic history of  intelligence exchange: an emissary of Golda Meir calls Henri Kissinger himself and tells him that a nuclear strike is the only solution left to the Israeli authorities to save the state from disaster. Warned, Nixon reacts by sending all the military aid possible in record time. The miraculous return of the Israeli tactical genius was in fact the entry of the US in the war in less than 48 hours on October 14, 1973.

Prudent, King Hussein of Jordan always allied himself with the regional power, whether that was Iraq, as he did in 1987, or Israel. This did not prevent him from firing on Israeli aircraft flying over northern  Jordan in 1973, en route to Golan, then part of Syria.

As for prudent diplomacy, we know today that right before the conflict, Hussein, as always, informed Kissinger of the imminence of an attack. At this point in time Nixon’s Secretary of State is mostly concerned with avoiding fueling the cold war with the Soviet Union, while seeking to attract Egypt away from the communist sphere of influence. He knows, because he is aware of the Israeli strategy, that this information may unleash a “deterring” attack by the Israeli aviation on the Egyptian strategic sites: ports, electric stations, bridges, air fields and refineries. He keeps quiet, thinking that like in 1967, the Arabs will lose. But in the intervening six years the Egyptians generals have learned a lot: intelligence knows how to hide its data, engineers know how to protect bridges, the infantery knows how to use anti-tank missiles. Victory is engendered by defeat.

In effect, by killing 3,000 and wounding 12,000 IDF soldiers, bringing down 114 planes and 6 helicopters, destroying 840 tanks, 400 armored vehicles and 2 patrol boats, the Arab coalition shook the Jewish state to its foundations.  The American entry in the war sounded the end of the 1967 war. The publication of declassified documents (the Agranat Commission) revealed in 2005 to a terrified Israeli public that the state had been on the edge of the precipice in 1967.

Nixon/Kissinger’s support of Israel came at a high cost to the Americans

On the economic front, the response of the  Arab oil-producing countries (the majority of OPEC) was prompt : from October 16, 1967 (the cease fire came on the 24), they declared an embargo on deliveries to the countries that supported the Jewish state. The price of the barrel surged by 70%, and quadrupled in five months. The economists speak of the repercussions of the end of the Vietnam war that provoked the crushing inflation starting in 1971, the crash of the stock market and the weakening of the dollar, but it is this date that actually marks the beginning of a major economic crisis in the US and Western Europe.

The Israelis managed to bypass the oil embargo by deliveries of Iranian oil (well, yes, the Iranians did trade oil with Israel by secret routes and through shell companies, notably in exchange of weapons, thanks to Arnon Milchan, Mossad’s top weapon dealer later turned … succesfull Hollywood producer!), and the 70s and 80s mark a blossoming of terrorism (aka counter-terrorism) and of the Palestinian guerilla.  The public opinion witnesses a globalization of the Israelo-Palestinian conflict: hostage taking, machine gun attacks, explosions, the emergence of PFLP and other paramilitary groups  issued from the Arafat nebula, which counts 60,000 men in its security forces.

The Palestinian funds, beyond the aid from rich Arab countries, cames mostly from the racket of big corporations (among which airline companies), that prefer paying protection to be sheltered from attacks. There again, it is the Western countries that pay the price of their support of the state of Israel, more exactly the support of their leaders.

The billionaire (annual income of his company in 1980 : $15 billion) Marc Rich helped Israel to profit from the Iranian oil which he  traded on international markets. His Mossad handler said: « Israel owes a great debt of gratitude to Marc. He secured the delivery of energy to Israel in the most difficult times. » (Source : The Secret Wars of Mossad, Yvonnick Denoël, Nouveau Monde editions, 2012)

On September 9, 2001, in the midst of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (the second Intifada was triggered by Sharon on September 28, 2000), the Durban conference declares its opposition to all forms of racism. South Africa proudly announces its progress from 1978, with regard to its former apartheid regime. A week of stormy debates indicts the similarities between the Jewish state and the former South African apartheid. Worse yet: zionism is equated with racism! The simple mention of the fate of the Palestinian people provokes the fury of the Israeli delegation, which packs its bags and leaves fuming, together with the American participants. A host of African countries will not receive the apologies (and the reparations generally associated with such recognition) from the Western countries that had been involved in slavery. It is the beginning of the « double standard » in terms of the political and media treatment of the genocide of the Jews,  a contrast pointed out by Dieudonné since December 2003. The demand to declare slavery a crime against  humanity makes the Western delegates recoil and declare their solidarity with the Israeli position, as if the Holocaust would be diminished by the recognition of the deportation and forced labor imposed on millions of Africans. The Canadian delegate accused the conference of «delegitimizing the state of Israel and dishonoring its history and the suffering of the Jewish people».

Why does the US support Israel?

Are we living in a “clash of civilizations” as claimed in a book published in 1996 that analyzes the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the sense of a New World Order so dear to the Bush dynasty?

The Bushes’ collaboration with the apartheid regime has not bolstered Israel’s popularity.

New crusades are decided upon…  in the evening of September 11, 2001. The American war against nationalist Arab movements is now in the open, as is the war against Islam in general, Pakistan is  taken out of the equation (pressure must be put on India, close to the Soviet Union, and not sufficiently “aligned”). The destruction of  Irak very much resembled an Israeli “preventive” war against a regional power, but without Israelis.

If the numerous conflicts unleashed on the world since the 90s, after the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, are not all related to zionism, nevertheless a disproportionate number of them are directly or indirectly linked to Israel and its interests.

If we observe the influence of this small country of 8 million inhabitants on the foreign policy of the US, especially the handiwork of the Jewish Lobby, why not investigate why France follows the same path as the US, after the 2004 political breakthrough, the date  when the Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy grabbed the real reins of power in France, before even being elected President of the Republic three years later.

“Do you know the one about little David who slays two Goliaths?”

Of course, Sarkozy’s first appointment as Minister of the Interior in 2002 did not change the decision of the Chirac/Villepin tandem to dissociate themselves from the American war against Iraq in 2003, the swan song of the independent national politics of Gaullist inspiration. Chirac’s weakening, a president described by the media as elected by accident (by 82 % of the voters!), then the skillful eviction of Villepin by counter-manipulation, catapult Sarkozy ahead of Chirac, nevertheless elected by the people, similar to Valls pushed ahead of Hollande in 2014.

A soft change of the political hierarchy, but one with spectacular results : after having swallowed Chirac’s embrace of young Bachar al-Assad in November 1999 and the indirect support by the same Chirac of Hezbollah in August 2006, Sarkozy calls Hezbollah «a terrorist mouvement» on September 2, 2006, while stressing his permanent and indissoluble support of Israel (see Blanrue’s book on this topic), and bombs Libya in 2011. As for Hollande – although not quite taken with ultrazionism, but spurred on by Valls and CRIF – he launched air attacks against “islamists” in Mali (January 2013) and against the so-called Islamic State in Syria (September 2014).

The puppeteer is in the center

Thus we do not find any ideological rupture in the chain Sarkozy/Guéant/Kouchner-Hollande/Valls/Fabius: for the past 10 years, irrespective of its color, the foreign policy of France has been aligned with the Israelo-American positions on the ME,  to the great displeasure of those who love national independence, which is obviously not a synonym of either anti-zionism nor, much less, anti-semitism.

Israel’s defense  has been declared our priority by all our Prime Ministers or Presidents after their dinners with CRIF.

So, What Makes Our Leaders Cave in ?

A press campaign accusing them of anti-semitism in case of noncompliance? Revelations of a political trajectory less than straight? The threat of terrorist strikes on our land, in our skies, or against our interests abroad? Measures of grand scale financial retaliation? Do Israel and its supporters have the means?

« Without the global financial domination by the City [London’s financial center] until WWII and the creaqtion of its private currency on December 23 1913, the dollar, through the agency of its branches in the New World, zionism would have remained the heretical nationalist excrescence (localized in East Europe)  of a mostly Pharisaic Judaism steeped in Talmudism. » (Interview with d’Aline de Diéguez on algeriepatriotique.com on December 6, 2012)

 

Genealogical tree of the royal French dynasty that replaced the Bourbons

What is it that changes the balance of power inside a regime, making the French elections a useless charade?

Do the media, partly subsidized by the state, held under the aegis of monsters like Publicis et Havas [Ed. Note: multinational advertising companies], and belonging to big concerns directly or indirectly linked to the war industry magnates (Dassault, Lagardère), and to banking moguls (Rothschild, Pigasse) have this power? If so, does zionism weigh so much in these areas to dictate the targets, impose priorities and shape policies?

Are the socialists in France the counterpart of the « Christian zionists » or fundamentalist Protestants on the other side of the Atlantic who, on theological or venal grounds, echo the pro-zionist position of the American government?

If nobody can seriously believe that a simple media bluff or a threat of excommunication for anti-semitism can suffice to make some of the governments of the most powerful nations on the planet cave in, then we must accept that a superior force bends the majority of the Western governments. For this, we must return to the immemorial time when Mayer Amschel entered into History …

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!

Israel and the Third Intifada?

Crisis in East Jerusalem

Global Research, November 22, 2014

The Israeli government knows how to provoke a response from the Palestinians. They are repressing the Palestinians by controlling their right to enter the sacred Al-Aqsa mosque located in the Old City of Jerusalem. This action, I believe is intentional. It is to provoke a response from the Palestinians so that Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would respond militarily. Why would the Israeli government allow right-wing Israeli extremists to continue their violent actions against Palestinian worshippers? The Israeli government knows that it would only inflame a religious hatred among Palestinians against the Jewish population.

Perhaps, that is what Israel wants, a decisive war with the Palestinians to finally get their wish to have absolute control over all of East Jerusalem including Al-Aqsa and the Ibrahimi mosques.

The U.S. main stream media usually blames the Palestinians for attacking Jewish worshippers as they conveniently ignore the facts that there is a collaboration of the Israeli government (IDF soldiers and police) and extremist Jewish settlers who has committed numerous attacks on Palestinian worshippers in East Jerusalem for the last 50 years. Palestinian scholar, journalist and author Ramzy Baroud points out Israel’s coordinated efforts with various political parties, the military and Jewish settlers in an article he wrote in early 2014 titled ‘Al-Aqsa vs. Israel: The lurking danger beneath’ and declared the following:

Most alarming about these attacks is their political context, which indicates that a great degree of coordination is underway between politicians, security forces and Jewish settlers. In anticipation of a Palestinian backlash, on March 2004, an Israeli court sentenced Islamic leader Sheikh Rade Saleh to eight months in prison for ‘incitement.’ The Sheikh is the most outspoken Palestinian leader regarding the danger facing Al-Aqsa. Why silence Sheik Saleh now when the attacks against al-Aqsa are at an all times high?

It was on Feb. 25, 1994, that U.S.-born Jewish extremist Baruch Goldstein stormed into the Ibrahimi Mosque in the Palestinian city of al-Khalil (Hebron) and opened fire. The aim was to kill as many Arabs as he could. At that moment, nearly 800 Muslim worshipers were kneeling down during the dawn prayer in the holiest month of the Muslim Calendar; Ramadan. He killed up to 30 people and wounded over 120. Exactly 20 years later, the Israeli army stormed al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest Muslim site, and opened fire. The timing was no accident.

Baroud’s assessment regarding incidents involving both the Ibrahimi and Al-Aqsa mosques are no accidents, it was intentional. A report by Saed Bannoura of IMEMC News confirmed what happened on February 25th of this year:

The sources said that the soldiers fired concussion grenades and firebombs at dozens of Palestinians who tried to stop Israelis from invading the mosque area. The attack came a few hours before a special Knesset session to discuss “Israel’s full control of the al-Aqsa Mosque”, instead of the Jordanian supervision. Likud Member of Knesset, Moshe Feiglin, presented the bill. Dozens of soldiers and undercover units of the army invaded the yards of the mosque, preventing hundreds of Palestinians from entering it.

The Ibrahimi mosque massacre was led by American-born Israeli Baruch Goldstein, a member of the Israel’s far-right Kach movement opened fire on unarmed Palestinian Muslims inside the Ibrahimi mosque on February 25, 1994 which left 29 dead and 125 wounded.

I would go further to say that it was an orchestrated plan for an internal “religious” conflict for the Israeli government to use a pretext to control all of the West Bank including its holiest sites for both Israelis and Palestinians. It is also a public relations campaign to discredit Islam and portray Judaism as the victim of Islamic extremism. Western media outlets had reported that Jews are the victims of religious hatred.

After the recent murders of the five Israelis including three with U.S. passports by two Palestinian cousins named Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal during morning prayers who both were killed by police officers with titles such as ‘Fear of deadly ‘religious war’ between Jews and Muslims raised after synagogue attack’ by the Washington Post, ‘Israel Shaken by 5 Deaths in Synagogue Assault’ by the New York Times and CNN with ‘In synagogue attack, five lives dedicated to faith and service are lost’.

A tragic incident it was, but the Israeli government and right-wing settler’s actions provoked a response from the Palestinians. Their actions for the last 50 years has only created resentment among the Palestinians who want their sovereignty and religious rights to be respected, just as the Jews. According to Ramzy Baroud’s article, Israel has carried out numerous attacks not only against Al-Aqsa but other holy sites as well:

In a statement released on March 7, the Palestinian Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs said Israeli forces carried out 30 attacks against al-Aqsa Mosque and other holy sites during the month of February alone. Most of the attacks targeted al-Aqsa itself. While the recurring violations at al-Aqsa were led by Jewish settlers, according to the statement, they have done so under the watchful eye, protection and support of the Israeli police and army.

When Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon entered Al-Aqsa mosque in 2000 only proved to be provocative when it angered the Palestinians causing the Second Intifada. Palestinian demonstrators began throwing stones at the police. Then IDF forces used tear gas and rubber bullets igniting the Second Intifada. Once the Second Intifada ended in 2004, it was estimated to cause the lives of more than 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis. That was not the end of Israel’s aggression against Palestinian worshippers. Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA) released a statement on the recent actions taken by the IDF:

Hundreds of armed Israelis have once again violently trespassed onto the sacred al-Aqsa sanctuary. Worshippers within the Palestinian holy site have faced years of brutal assaults, which have intensified since 2013. Yesterday, the attacks involved firing stun grenades, tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets at civilians who were completely unarmed and surrounded.

“The raid follows tensions over the last couple of weeks in which Israeli forces barred Palestinians from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and facilitated the entry of right-wing Israeli extremists. Such actions undermine Palestinian sovereignty over their cherished holy sites, creating a great deal of anger and frustration on the ground,” said Shamiul Joarder, Head of Public Affairs at FOA.

Israel’s claims it made its decision to close Al-Aqsa for security reasons last month right after right-wing Jewish activist Yehuda Glick was shot in an alleged assassination attempt. Glick remains in stable condition. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had called the closure an “act of war.” Israel wants a new war with the Palestinians to take control over all of Jerusalem. The death of the five Israeli worshipers is tragic. It should not have happened. But the Palestinians have been victims of Israel’s brutality for decades. The world recently witnessed more than 2000 Palestinians including women and children murdered by the IDF. Israel purposely targets religious sanctuaries to provoke a reaction from the Palestinians. Israel’s government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu knows that their actions have consequences. They know it could lead to a new war, perhaps a third Intifada. This is what Israel would want since the U.S. and its allies including ISIS are planning to attack Syria to remove President Bashar al-Assad. Israel will use all of their military capabilities in an attempt to defeat the Palestinian resistance.

War will continue unabated, that is a fact that the world will have to live with, at least for now.

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!

How Israel Out-Foxed US Presidents

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/02/how-israel-out-foxed-us-presidents-3/

After six years, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has nearly weathered his chilly relationship with President Obama and can expect to coast through the next two years ignoring Obama’s appeals. But Obama is not the first U.S. president to be played by Israel, as Morgan Strong wrote in 2010.

By Morgan Strong (Originally published May 31, 2010)

At the end of a news conference on April 13, 2010, President Barack Obama made the seemingly obvious point that the continuing Middle East conflict – pitting Israel against its Arab neighbors – will end up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

Obama’s remark followed a similar statement in congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus on March 16, linking the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the challenges that U.S. troops face in the region.

President Barack Obama holds a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in the Oval Office, Oct 1, 2014. The meeting was described as chilly, reflecting the strained relationship between the two leaders. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

“The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” Petraeus said in prepared testimony. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”

[Petraeus later tried to back away from this implicit criticism of Israel, fearing that it would hurt his political standing with his neoconservative allies. He began insisting that the analysis was only part of his written testimony, not his oral remarks.]

Yet, the truth behind the assessments from Obama and Petraeus is self-evident to anyone who has spent time observing the Middle East for the past six decades. Even the staunchly pro-Israeli Bush administration made similar observations.

In 2007 in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice termed the Israeli/Palestinian peace process of “strategic interest” to the United States and expressed empathy for the beleaguered Palestinian people. “The prolonged experience of deprivation and humiliation can radicalize even normal people,” Rice said, referring to acts of Palestinian violence.

But the recent statement by Obama and Petraeus aroused alarm among some Israeli supporters who reject any suggestion that Israel’s harsh treatment of Palestinians might be a factor in the anti-Americanism surging through the Islamic world.

After Petraeus’s comment, the pro-Israeli Anti-Defamation League said linking the Palestinian plight and Muslim anger was “dangerous and counterproductive.”

“Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel,” ADL national director Abraham Foxman said.

However, the U.S. government’s widespread (though often unstated) recognition of the truth behind the assessment in Petraeus’s testimony has colored how the Obama administration has reacted to the intransigence of Israel’s Likud government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S. government realizes how much it has done on Israel’s behalf, even to the extent of making Americans the targets of Islamic terrorism such as the 9/11 attacks (as the 9/11 Commission discovered but played down) and sacrificing the lives of thousands of U.S. troops fighting in Middle East conflicts.

That was the backdrop in March 2009 for President Obama’s outrage over the decision of the Netanyahu government to continue building Jewish housing in Arab East Jerusalem despite the fact that the move complicated U.S. peace initiatives and was announced as Vice President Joe Biden arrived to reaffirm American support for Israel.

However, another little-acknowledged truth about the U.S.-Israeli relationship is that Israeli leaders have frequently manipulated and misled American presidents out of a confidence that U.S. politicians deeply fear the political fallout from any public battle with Israel.

Given that history, few analysts who have followed the arc of U.S.-Israeli relations since Israel’s founding in 1948 believe that the Israeli government is likely to retreat very much in its confrontation with President Obama. [Now, nearly six years into Obama’s presidency – after Netanyahu’s persistent obstruction of Palestinian peace talks and his steady expansion of Jewish settlements – that assessment has proved out.]

Manipulating Eisenhower

In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower was a strong supporter of the fledgling Jewish state and had supplied Israel with advanced U.S. weaponry. Yet, despite Eisenhower’s generosity and good intentions, Israel sided with the British and French in 1956 in a conspiracy against him. Israeli leaders joined a secret arrangement that involved Israel invading Egypt’s Sinai, which then allowed France and Great Britain to introduce their own forces and reclaim control of the Suez Canal.

In reaction to the invasion, the Soviet Union threatened to intervene on the side of Egypt by sending ground troops. With Cold War tensions already stretched thin by the crises in Hungary and elsewhere, Eisenhower faced the possibility of a showdown between nuclear-armed adversaries. Eisenhower demanded that the Israeli-spearheaded invasion of the Sinai be stopped, and he brought financial and political pressures to bear on Great Britain and France.

A ceasefire soon was declared, and the British and French departed, but the Israelis dragged their heels. Eisenhower finally presented Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion with an ultimatum, a threat to cut off all U.S. aid. Finally, in March 1957, the Israelis withdrew. [For details, see Eisenhower and Israel by Isaac Alteras.]

Even as it backed down in the Sinai, Israel was involved in another monumental deception, a plan for building its own nuclear arsenal. In 1956, Israel had concluded an agreement with France to build a nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. Israel also signed a secret agreement with France to build an adjacent plutonium reprocessing plant.

Israel began constructing its nuclear plant in 1958. However, French President Charles de Gaulle was worried about nuclear weapons destabilizing the Middle East and insisted that Israel not develop a nuclear bomb from the plutonium processing plant. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion assured de Gaulle that the processing plant was for peaceful purposes only.

After John F. Kennedy became President, he also wrote to Ben-Gurion explicitly calling on Israel not to join the nuclear-weapons club, drawing another pledge from Ben-Gurion that Israel had no such intention. Nevertheless, Kennedy continued to press, forcing the Israelis to let U.S. scientists inspect the nuclear reactor at Dimona. But the Israelis first built a fake control room while bricking up and otherwise disguising parts of the building that housed the plutonium processing plant.

In return for allowing inspectors into Dimona, Ben-Gurion also demanded that the United States sell Hawk surface-to-air missiles to the Israeli military. Kennedy agreed to the sale as a show of good faith. Subsequently, however, the CIA got wind of the Dimona deception and leaked to the press that Israel was secretly building a nuclear bomb.

After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson also grew concerned over Israel’s acquiring nuclear weapons. He asked then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Eshkol assured Johnson that Israel was studying the matter and would sign the treaty in due course. However, Israel has never signed the treaty and never has admitted that it developed nuclear weapons. [For details, see Israel and The Bomb by Avner Cohen.]

Trapping Johnson

As Israel grew more sophisticated – and more confident – in its dealings with U.S. presidents, it also sought to secure U.S. military assistance by exaggerating its vulnerability to Arab attacks. One such case occurred after the Egyptians closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel in May 1967, denying the country its only access to the Red Sea. Israel threatened military action against Egypt if it did not re-open the Gulf.

Israel then asked President Johnson for military assistance in the event war broke out against the Egyptians. Johnson directed Richard Helms, the newly appointed head of the CIA to evaluate Israel’s military capability in the event of war against the surrounding Arab states.

On May 26, 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban met with Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and Helms. Eban presented a Mossad estimate of the capability of the Arab armies, claiming that Israel was seriously outgunned by the Arab armies which had been supplied with advanced Soviet weaponry. Israel believed that, owing to its special relationship with the United States, the Mossad intelligence assessment would be taken at face value.

However, Helms was asked to present the CIA estimate of the Arabs’ military capabilities versus the Israeli army. The CIA’s analysts concluded that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts, or hold on any three fronts while mounting a successful major offensive on the fourth.” [See “C.I.A. Analysis of the 1967 Arab Israeli War,” Center for the Study of Intelligence.]

“We do not believe that the Israeli appreciation was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials,” the CIA report said. “It is probably a gambit intended to influence the U.S. to provide military supplies, make more public commitments to Israel, to approve Israeli military initiatives, and put more pressure on Egyptian President Nasser.” [See A Look Over My Shoulder by Richard Helms.]

The CIA report stated further that the Soviet Union would probably not interfere militarily on behalf of the Arab states and that Israel would defeat the combined Arab armies in a matter of days. As a consequence, Johnson refused to airlift special military supplies to Israel, or to promise public support for Israel if Israel went to war.

The Six-Day Success

Despite Johnson’s resistance, Israel launched an attack on its Arab neighbors on June 5, 1967, claiming that the conflict was provoked when Egyptian forces opened fire. (The CIA later concluded that it was Israel that had first fired upon Egyptian forces.)

On June 8, at the height of the conflict, which would become known as the Six-Day War, Israeli fighter/bombers attacked the USS Liberty, a lightly armed communications vessel sent on a mission to relay information on the course of the war to U.S. naval intelligence.

The attack killed 34 Americans sailors, and wounded 171 others. Israeli leaders have always claimed that they had mistaken the U.S. vessel for an enemy ship, but a number of U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Dean Rusk, believed the attack was deliberate, possibly to prevent the United States from learning about Israel’s war plans. [See As I Saw It by Dean Rusk.]

However, in deference to Israel, the U.S. government did not aggressively pursue the matter of the Liberty attack and even issued misleading accounts in medal citations to crew members, leaving out the identity of the attackers.

Meanwhile, on land and in the air, Israel’s powerful military advanced, shredding the Arab defenses. Soon, the conflict escalated into another potential showdown between nuclear-armed superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States. On June 10, President Johnson received a “Hot Line” message from Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin. The Kremlin warned of grave consequences if Israel continued its military campaign against Syria by entering and/or occupying that country.

Johnson dispatched the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, in a move to convince the Soviets of American resolve. But a ceasefire was declared later the same day, with Israel ending up in control of Syria’s Golan Heights, Egypt’s Sinai, and Palestinian lands including Gaza and East Jerusalem.

But a wider war was averted. Johnson’s suspicions about Israel’s expansionist intent had kept the United States from making an even bigger commitment that might have led to the Soviets countering with an escalation of their own.

Nixon and Yom Kippur

Israeli occupation of those additional Arab lands set the stage for a resumption of hostilities six years later, on Oct. 6, 1973, with the Yom Kippur War, which began with a surprise attack by Egypt against Israeli forces in the Sinai.

The offensive caught Israel off guard and Arab forces were close to overrunning Israel’s outer defenses and entering the country. According to later accounts based primarily on Israeli leaks, Prime Minister Golda Meir and her “kitchen cabinet” ordered the arming of 13 nuclear weapons, which were aimed at Egyptian and Syrian targets.

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Simha Dintz warned President Richard Nixon that very serious repercussions would occur if the United States did not immediately begin an airlift of military equipment and personnel to Israel. Fearing that the Soviet Union might intervene and that nuclear war was possible, the U.S. military raised its alert level to DEFCON-3. U.S. Airborne units in Italy were put on full alert, and military aid was rushed to Israel.

Faced with a well-supplied Israeli counteroffensive and possible nuclear annihilation, the Arab forces fell back. The war ended on Oct. 26, 1973, but the United States had again been pushed to the brink of a possible superpower confrontation due to the unresolved Israeli-Arab conflict.

Nuclear ‘Ambiguity’

On Sept. 22, 1979, after some clouds unexpectedly broke over the South Indian Ocean, a U.S. intelligence satellite detected two bright flashes of light that were quickly interpreted as evidence of a nuclear test. The explosion was apparently one of several nuclear tests that Israel had undertaken in collaboration with the white-supremacist government of South Africa. But President Jimmy Carter – at the start of his reelection bid – didn’t want a showdown with Israel, especially on a point as sensitive as its secret nuclear work with the pariah government in Pretoria.

So, after news of the nuclear test leaked a month later, the Carter administration followed Israel’s longstanding policy of “ambiguity” about the existence of its nuclear arsenal, a charade dating back to Richard Nixon’s presidency with the United States pretending not to know for sure that Israel possessed nuclear bombs.

The Carter administration quickly claimed that there was “no confirmation” of a nuclear test, and a panel was set up to conclude that the flashes were “probably not from a nuclear explosion.” However, as investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and various nuclear experts later concluded, the flashes were most certainly an explosion of a low-yield nuclear weapon. [For details, see Hersh’s Samson Option.]

Getting Carter

Despite Carter’s helpful cover-up of the Israeli-South African nuclear test, he was still viewed with disdain by Israel’s hard-line Likud leadership. Indeed, he arguably was the target of Israel’s most audacious intervention in U.S. politics.

Prime Minister Menachem Begin was furious at Carter over the 1978 Camp David accords in which the U.S. President pushed the Israelis into returning the Sinai to the Egyptians in exchange for a peace agreement. The next year, Carter failed to protect the Shah of Iran, an important Israeli regional ally who was forced from power by Islamic militants. Then, when Carter acceded to demands from the Shah’s supporters to admit him to New York for cancer treatment, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage.

In 1980, as Carter focused on his reelection campaign, Begin saw both dangers and opportunities. High-ranking Israeli diplomat/spy David Kimche described Begin’s thinking in the 1991 book, The Last Option, recounting how Begin feared that Carter might force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and accept a Palestinian state if he won a second term.

“Begin was being set up for diplomatic slaughter by the master butchers in Washington,” Kimche wrote. “They had, moreover, the apparent blessing of the two presidents, Carter and [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat, for this bizarre and clumsy attempt at collusion designed to force Israel to abandon her refusal to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

Begin’s alarm was driven by the prospect of Carter being freed from the pressure of having to face another election, according to Kimche.

“Unbeknownst to the Israeli negotiators, the Egyptians held an ace up their sleeves, and they were waiting to play it,” Kimche wrote. “The card was President Carter’s tacit agreement that after the American presidential elections in November 1980, when Carter expected to be re-elected for a second term, he would be free to compel Israel to accept a settlement of the Palestinian problem on his and Egyptian terms, without having to fear the backlash of the American Jewish lobby.”

So, by spring 1980, Begin had privately sided with Carter’s Republican rival, Ronald Reagan, a reality that Carter soon realized. Questioned by congressional investigators in 1992 regarding allegations about Israel conspiring with Republicans in 1980 to help unseat him, Carter said he knew by April 1980 that “Israel cast their lot with Reagan,” according to notes found among the unpublished documents in the files of a House task force that looked into the so-called October Surprise case.

Carter traced the Israeli opposition to his reelection to a “lingering concern [among] Jewish leaders that I was too friendly with Arabs.” [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Doing What Was Necessary

Begin was an Israeli leader committed to do whatever he felt necessary to advance Israeli security interests and the dream of a Greater Israel with Jews controlling the ancient Biblical lands. Before Israel’s independence in 1948, he had led a Zionist terrorist group, and he founded the right-wing Likud Party in 1973 with the goal of “changing the facts on the ground” by placing Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas.

Begin’s anger over the Sinai deal and his fear of Carter’s reelection set the stage for secret collaboration between Begin and the Republicans, according to another former Israeli intelligence official, Ari Ben-Menashe.

“Begin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David,” Ben-Menashe wrote in his 1992 memoir, Profits of War. “As Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue hanging on Israel’s back.”

Ben-Menashe, an Iranian-born Jew who had immigrated to Israel as a teen-ager, became part of a secret Israeli program to reestablish its Iranian intelligence network that had been decimated by the Islamic revolution. Ben-Menashe wrote that Begin authorized shipments to Iran of small arms and some military spare parts, via South Africa, as early as September 1979 and continued them despite Iran’s seizure of the U.S. hostages in November 1979.

Extensive evidence also exists that Begin’s preference for Reagan led the Israelis to join in a covert operation with Republicans to contact Iranian leaders behind Carter’s back, interfering with the President’s efforts to free the 52 American hostages before the November 1980 elections.

That evidence includes statements from senior Iranian officials, international arms dealers, intelligence operatives (including Ben-Menashe), and Middle East political figures (including a cryptic confirmation from Begin’s successor Yitzhak Shamir). But the truth about the October Surprise case remains in dispute to this day. [For the latest details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

It is clear that after Reagan defeated Carter — and the U.S. hostages were released immediately upon Reagan being sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981 — Israeli-brokered weapons shipments flowed to Iran with the secret blessing of the new Republican administration.

Dealing with Reagan

The Israel Lobby had grown exponentially since its start in the Eisenhower years. Israel’s influential supporters were now positioned to use every political device imaginable to lobby Congress and to get the White House to acquiesce to whatever Israel felt it needed.

President Reagan also credentialed into the Executive Branch a new group of pro-Israeli American officials – the likes of Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen and Jeane Kirkpatrick – who became known as the neocons.

Yet, despite Reagan’s pro-Israel policies, the new U.S. President wasn’t immune from more Israeli deceptions and additional pressures. Indeed, whether because of the alleged collusion with Reagan during the 1980 campaign or because Israel sensed its greater clout within his administration, Begin demonstrated a new level of audacity.

In 1981, Israel recruited Jonathan Pollard, an American Navy intelligence analyst, as a spy to acquire American intelligence satellite photos. Eventually, Pollard purloined massive amounts of intelligence information, some of which was reportedly turned over to Soviet intelligence by Israel to win favors from Moscow.

Prime Minister Begin sensed, too, that the time was ripe to gain the upper hand on other Arab enemies. He turned his attention to Lebanon, where the Palestine Liberation Organization was based. When U.S. intelligence warned Reagan that Israel was massing troops along the border with Lebanon, Reagan sent a cable to Begin urging him not to invade. But Begin ignored Reagan’s plea and invaded Lebanon the following day, on June 6, 1982. [See Time, Aug. 16, 1982.]

As the offensive progressed, Reagan sought a cessation of hostilities between Israel and the PLO, but Israel was intent on killing as many PLO fighters as possible. Periodic U.S.-brokered ceasefires failed as Israel used the slightest provocation to resume fighting, supposedly in self-defense.

“When PLO sniper fire is followed by fourteen hours of Israeli bombardment that is stretching the definition of defensive action too far,” complained Reagan, who kept the picture of a horribly burned Lebanese child on his desk in the Oval Office as a reminder of the tragedy of Lebanon.

The American public nightly witnessed the Israeli bombardment of Beirut on television news broadcasts. The pictures of dead, mutilated children caught in the Israeli artillery barrages, were particularly wrenching. Repulsed by the carnage, the U.S. public decidedly favored forcing Israel to stop.

When Reagan warned Israel of possible sanctions if its forces continued to indiscriminately attack Beirut, Israel launched a major offensive against West Beirut the next day. In the United States, Israeli supporters demanded a meeting with Reagan to press Israel’s case. Though Reagan declined the meeting, one was set up for 40 leaders of various Jewish organizations with Vice President George H.W. Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz.

Reagan wrote once again to Begin, reminding him that Israel was allowed to use American weapons only for defensive purposes. He appealed to Begin’s humanitarianism to stop the bombardment.

The next day, in a meeting with Israeli supporters from the United States, Begin fumed that he would not be instructed by an American president or any other U.S. official. “Nobody is going to bring Israel to her knees. You must have forgotten that Jews do not kneel but to God,” Begin said. “Nobody is going to preach to us humanitarianism.”

More Tragedy

Begin’s government also used the tragedy in Lebanon as an opportunity to provide special favors for its American backers.

In From Beirut to Jerusalem, New York Times correspondent Thomas L. Freidman wrote that the Israeli Army conducted tours of the battlefront for influential U.S. donors. On one occasion, women from Hadassah were taken to the hills surrounding Beirut and were invited to look down on the city as Israeli artillery put on a display for them. The artillery began an enormous barrage, with shells landing throughout the densely populated city. The shells struck and destroyed apartments, shops, homes and shacks in the squalid refugee camps of the Palestinians.

A ceasefire was finally agreed upon by Israel and the PLO, requiring Yasser Arafat and all PLO fighters to leave Lebanon. The Palestinians were assured, as part of the agreement brokered by the United States, that their wives and children living in Lebanese refugee camps would be safe from harm. The PLO then left Lebanon by ship in August 1982, moving the PLO headquarters to Tunisia.

On Sept. 16, Israel’s Christian militia allies, with Israeli military support, entered the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, and conducted a three-day campaign of rape and murder. Most of the dead – with estimates varying from Israel’s count of 400 to a Palestinian estimate of nearly 1,000 – were women and children.

American Marines, who had been dispatched to Lebanon as peacekeepers to oversee the PLO evacuation but then had departed, hastily returned after the Sabra and Shatila massacres. They were housed in a large warehouse complex near Beirut’s airport.

Over the next year, American forces found themselves drawn into the worsening Lebanese civil war. A key moment occurred on Sept. 18, 1983, when Reagan’s national security adviser Robert McFarlane, who was considered a staunch supporter of Israel, ordered U.S. warships to bombard Muslim targets inside Lebanon.

As Gen. Colin Powell, then a top aide to Defense Secretary Weinberger, wrote in his memoir, “When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides.” [See Powell’s My American Journey.]

Muslim attacks on the Marines in Beirut soon escalated. On Oct. 23, 1983, two Shiite Muslims drove explosives-laden trucks into two buildings in Beirut, one housing French forces and the other the Marines. The blasts killed 241 Americans and 58 French.

Over the ensuing weeks, American forces continued to suffer losses in skirmishes with Muslim militiamen near the Beirut airport and American civilians also became targets for execution and hostage-taking. On Feb. 7, 1984, Reagan announced that the Marines would be redeployed from Lebanon. Within a couple of weeks, the last of the Marines had departed Lebanon, having suffered a total of 268 killed.

However, the hostage-taking of Americans continued, ironically creating an opportunity for Israel to intercede again through its contacts in Iran to seek the help of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s regime in getting the Lebanese Shiite militants to release captured Americans.

Israeli arms dealers and neocon Americans, such as Michael Ledeen, were used as middlemen for the secret arms-for-hostages deals, which Reagan approved and McFarlane oversaw. However, the arms deliveries via Israel failed to reduce the overall number of Americans held hostage in Lebanon and were eventually exposed in November 1986, becoming Reagan’s worst scandal, the Iran-Contra Affair.

Noriega and Harari

Though Israel’s government had created some headaches for Reagan, it also provided some help, allowing its arms dealers and intelligence operatives to assist some of Reagan’s favorite covert operations, particularly in Central America where the U.S. Congress had objected to military assistance going to human rights violators, like the Guatemalan military, and to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels.

As Vice President, George H.W. Bush met with Panamanian dictator Manuel Noreiga and considered him a compliant partner. Noriega subsequently funneled financial and other help to Reagan’s beloved Contras and once even volunteered to arrange the assassinations of leaders of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

One of Noriega’s top operatives was Michael Harari, who had led Israeli assassination teams and who had served as the Israeli Mossad station chief in Mexico. In Panama, Harari became a key intermediary for Israeli contributions to the Contras, supplying them with arms and training, while Noriega handed over cash.

But Noriega and Harari were conducting other business in the region, allegedly working as middlemen and money launderers for the lucrative smuggling of cocaine into the United States. When that information surfaced in the U.S. news media – and Noriega became notorious as an unstable thug – George H.W. Bush as President found himself under enormous political pressure in 1989 to remove Noriega from power.

So, Bush prepared to invade Panama in December 1989. However, the Israeli government was concerned about the possible capture of Harari, whom U.S. prosecutors regarded as Noriega’s top co-conspirator but who also was someone possessing sensitive information about Israeli clandestine activities.

Six hours before U.S. troops were to invade Panama, Harari was warned of the impending attack, an alert that enabled him to flee and may have compromised the safety of American paratroopers and Special Forces units preparing to begin the assault, units that took surprisingly heavy casualties.

Tipped off by Israeli intelligence agents, Harari was whisked away by an Israeli embassy car, flying a diplomatic flag, with diplomatic license plates to ensure he would not be stopped and held, according to an interview that I had in January 1990 with Col. Edward Herrera Hassen, commander of Panama Defense Forces.

Harari soon was on his way back to Israel, where the government has since rebuffed U.S. requests that Harari be extradited to the United States to stand trial in connection with the Noriega case. For his part, Noriega was captured and brought to the United States where he was convicted of eight drug and racketeering charges. [Hariri died on Sept. 21, 2014, in Tel Aviv at the age of 87.]

The Lobby

The one constant in Israel’s endless maneuverings both with and against the U.S. government has been the effectiveness of the Israel Lobby and its many allies to fend off sustained criticism of Israel, sometimes by smearing critics as anti-Semitic or by mounting aggressive cover-ups when investigations threatened to expose ugly secrets.

Given this long record of success, U.S. presidents and other politicians have demonstrated a declining capacity to press Israel into making concessions, the way Eisenhower, Kennedy and Carter tried to do. For instance, when President Bill Clinton first met with Netanyahu in 1996, Clinton was surprised to find himself getting a lecture from Israel’s Likud prime minister. “Who the f**k does he think he is? Who’s the superpower here?” a peeved Clinton was quoted as saying. [See The Much Too Promised Land, by Aaron Miller, an aide to Clinton.]

Joe Lockhart, then White House spokesman, told Clayton Swisher, author of The Truth About Camp David, that Netanyahu was “one of the most obnoxious individuals you’re going to come into – just a liar and a cheat. He could open his mouth and you could have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth.”

Faced with these difficulties – and fending off Republican attempts to drive him from office – Clinton put off any serious push for a Middle East peace accord until the last part of his presidency. Clinton negotiated the Wye River memorandum with Netanyahu and Arafat on Sept. 23, 1999, calling for reciprocal undertakings by both sides. The agreement called for the freezing of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, but Netanyahu failed to stop the settlement activity. Demolition of Palestinian homes, restrictions on movement by Palestinians, and settlement building continued.

Ultimately, Clinton failed to achieve any breakthrough as his final efforts collapsed amid finger-pointing and distrust between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Handling Bush

Israel’s hopes were buoyed further when George W. Bush entered the White House in 2001. Unlike his father who looked on the Israelis with suspicion and felt some kinship with the Arab oil states, the younger Bush was unabashedly pro-Israel.

Though Reagan had credentialed many young neocons in the 1980s, he had kept them mostly away from Middle East policy, which usually fell to less ideological operatives such as Philip Habib and James Baker. However, George W. Bush installed the neocons in key jobs for Mideast policy, with the likes of Elliott Abrams at the National Security Council, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon, and Lewis Libby inside Vice President Dick Cheney’s office.

The neocons arrived with a plan to transform the Middle East based on a scheme prepared by a group of American neocons, including Perle and Feith, for Netanyahu in 1996. Called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” the idea was to bring to heel all the antagonistic states confronting Israel.

The “clean break” was to abandon the idea of achieving peace in the region through mutual understanding and compromise. Instead, there would be “peace through strength,” including violent removal of leaders who were viewed as hostile to Israel’s interests.

The plan sought the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, which was called “an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” After Hussein’s ouster, the plan envisioned destabilizing the Assad dynasty in Syria with hopes of replacing it with regime more favorable to Israel. That, in turn, would push Lebanon into Israel’s arms and contribute to the destruction of Hezbollah, Israel’s tenacious foe in South Lebanon.

The removal of Hezbollah in Lebanon would, in turn, weaken Iran’s influence, both in Lebanon and in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank, where Hamas and other Palestinian militants would find themselves cornered.

But what the “clean break” needed was the military might of the United States, since some of the targets like Iraq were too far away and too powerful to be overwhelmed even by Israel’s highly efficient military. The cost in Israeli lives and to Israel’s economy from such overreach would have been staggering.

The only way to implement the strategy was to enlist a U.S. president, his administration and the Congress to join Israel in this audacious undertaking. That opportunity presented itself when Bush ascended to the White House and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, created a receptive political climate in the United States.

Turning to Iraq

After a quick strike against al-Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan, the Bush administration turned its attention to conquering Iraq. However, even after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons and President Bush had to come up with rationales that were sellable to the American people, while playing down any suggestion that the coming conflicts were partially designed to advance Israel’s interests.

So, the Bush administration put together tales about Iraqi stockpiles of WMD, its “reconstituted” nuclear weapons program, and its alleged ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorists determined to strike at the United States. The PR operation worked like a charm. Bush rallied Congress and much of the American public behind an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, which began on March 19, 2003, and drove Saddam Hussein’s government from power three weeks later.

At the time, the joke circulating among neocons was where to go next, Syria or Iran, with the punch line: “Real men go to Tehran!”

Meanwhile, Israel continued collecting as much intelligence as possible from the United States about the next desired target, Iran. On Aug. 27, 2004, CBS News broke a story about an FBI investigation into a possible spy working for Israel as a policy analyst for Under Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz. The official was identified as Lawrence Franklin.

Franklin pled guilty to passing a classified Presidential Directive and other sensitive documents pertaining to U.S. foreign policy regarding Iran to the powerful Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which shared the information with Israel.

According to FBI surveillance tapes, Franklin relayed top secret information to Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s policy director, and Keith Weissman, a senior policy analyst with AIPAC.  On Aug. 30, 2004, Israeli officials admitted that Franklin had met repeatedly with Naor Gilon, head of the political department at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and a specialist on Iran’s nuclear programs.

Franklin was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison for passing classified information to a pro-Israel lobby group and an Israeli diplomat. No charges were brought against the AIPAC executives or the Israeli diplomat.

Bloody Chaos

Meanwhile, back in the Middle East, it turned out that occupying Iraq was more difficult than the Bush administration had anticipated. Ultimately, more than 4,400 American soldiers died in the conflict along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The bloody chaos in Iraq also meant that the neocon “real men” couldn’t go either to Syria or Iran, at least not right away. They were forced into a waiting game, counting on the short memories of the American people before revving up the fear machine again to justify moving to the next phase.

When the U.S. death toll finally began to decline in Iraq, the neocons stepped up their alarms about Iran becoming a danger to the world by developing nuclear weapons (although Iran has disavowed any desire to have nukes and U.S. intelligence expressed confidence in 2007 that Iran had stopped work on a warhead four years earlier).

Still, while trying to keep the focus away from its own nuclear arsenal, Israel has pushed the international community to bring pressure on Iran, in part by threatening to mount its own military attack on Iran if the U.S. government and other leading powers don’t act aggressively.

The neocon anti-Iran plans were complicated by the victory of Barack Obama, who promised to reach out in a more respectful way to the Muslim world. Inside Israel and in U.S. neocon circles, complaints quickly spread about Obama’s coziness with Muslims (even claims that he was a secret Muslim or anti-Semitic). Obama further antagonized the neocons and Israeli hardliners by suggesting a linkage between the festering Palestinian problem and dangers to U.S. national security, including violence against U.S. troops in the Middle East.

Netanyahu, who again had assumed the post of prime minister, and the neocons wanted U.S. policy refocused on Iran, with little attention on Israel as it continued its longstanding policy of building more and more Jewish settlements on what was once Palestinian land.

In reaction to Netanyahu’s unwillingness to curb those settlements – and with the announcement of more housing units during Biden’s visit – Obama retaliated by subjecting Netanyahu to several slights, including refusing to have photographs taken of the two of them meeting at the White House.

Obama walked out of one meeting with Netanyahu after failing to get his written promise for a concession on halting further settlement construction. Obama went to dinner alone, a very pointed insult to Netanyahu. As Obama left the meeting, he said, “Let me know if there is anything new,” according to a member of Congress who was present.

Secret Pacts

For his part, Netanyahu has claimed that secret agreements with the Bush administration allow for the continued building of settlements. However, Obama said on National Public Radio that he does not consider himself bound by secret oral agreements that may have been made by President Bush.

Instead, Obama claims Israel is bound by the 2003 “Road Map” agreement which prohibits building more settlements. “I’ve said clearly to the Israelis both privately and publicly that a freeze on settlements, including natural growth, is part of these obligations,” Obama said.

Still, Obama has shied away from publicly challenging Israel on some of its most sensitive issues, such as its undeclared nuclear-weapons arsenal. Like presidents back to Nixon, Obama has participated in the charade of “ambiguity.” Even as he demanded “transparency” from other countries, Obama continued to dance around questions regarding whether Israel has nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu and Israel surely have vulnerabilities. Without America’s military, diplomatic and economic support, Israel could not exist in its present form. One-quarter of Israeli wage incomes are derived from American aid money, German reparations and various charities. Without that outside assistance, Israel’s standard of living would sink dramatically.

According to the Congressional Research Service, Israel receives $2.4 billion a year in U.S. government grants, military assistance, loan guarantees, and sundry other sources. The United States also pays Egypt another $2 billion to keep the peace with Israel. The combined assistance to both countries comprises nearly one half of all U.S. foreign aid assistance worldwide.

In a sense, Israel can’t be blamed for standing up for itself, especially given the long history of brutality and oppression directed against Jews. However, Israeli leaders have used this tragic history to justify their own harsh treatment of others, especially the Palestinians, many of whom were uprooted from their ancestral homes.

Over the past six decades, Israeli leaders also have refined their strategies for taking advantage of their staunchest ally, the United States. Today, with many powerful friends inside the United States – and with Obama facing intense political pressure over his domestic and national security policies – the Israeli government has plenty of reasons to believe that it can out-fox and outlast the current U.S. president as it did many of his predecessors.

Morgan Strong is a former professor of Middle Eastern history, and was an advisor to CBS News “60 Minutes” on the Middle East. He is author of ebook, The Israeli Lobby and Me, Bush Family History, and Hoodwinking American Presidents.

 

%d bloggers like this: