Jerusalem

DEBATE: Trump’s Jerusalem Al-Quds Decision

It is very revolting to see how they keep brainwashing the people into thinking that the US, now led by Zionist Trump is leading the world to WWIII. People MUST realize that the West was hijacked centuries ago and the plan to destroy it from within has been unfolding right in front of our eyes. What we are seeing today is the fulfillment of a long-desired goal of international Jewry. Every single step they take has been carefully planned. Israel will be destroyed and the Jews who are leading the evil game will move to Russia where Putin is waiting with open arms. The United States will also be destroyed and many cities will disappear. Christians will be persecuted.

VIDEO: “There’s Going To Be War With Israel & Lebanon” – Dr. Steve Pieczenik – 11/10/2017

Dr. Steve Pieczenik claims there is imminent battle brewing between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Regardless, one can be certain Pieczenik is nothing less than a disinformation agent — so, what is his objective with this geopolitical “news”?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfkCrfSJX78&feature=youtu.be

 

 

Naftali Bennett

Israel Must Be Ready To Tackle Iran On Its Own

What would happen if the Israel were to be threatened between its ‘nuclear path’ and its ‘economy’? Why do they always have more rights than the rest of the world? Why does the international community have to answer to all their desires? Why are they always at war with the world? They provoke, they destroy, but no one can react to their attacks. They are EVIL with no limits. There seems to be no democratic solution for leading with the Devil.

Naftali Bennett

“Israel must be ready to tackle Iran on its own,” Source: jpost.com

Israel must ask the international community to stop Iran’s nuclearization but prepare to do the task on its own in case the world fails, Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Bennett, who is a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet, spoke before a meeting of the forum, in which the prime minister reported about his meetings with US President Donald Trump and other world leaders and his progress on the Iranian issue. The meeting was held a day after Iran tested a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel, as security cabinet members backed Netanyahu’s call at the UN last week to either scrap or change the nuclear deal with Iran.

“On the one hand, we need to persuade the US to apply paralyzing sanctions of the highest level as soon as possible,” Bennett said. “Iran must be forced to choose between the nuclear path and a prosperous economy. Since the Iran deal, they haven’t been presented that option. At the same time, Israel must prepare for the possibility that the US and the world won’t be convinced by getting ready to defend ourselves by ourselves.”

Bennett said that Israel must act on both tracks as if the other did not exist. On the sanctions track, he suggested removing Iran from the world-wide Swift banking system, which was done before at the peak of international sanctions on the Islamic Republic. He said companies around the world would then have to choose between doing business with Iran or the US.

But, he added, Israel must act under the assumption that the international community will not provide successful solutions to stop Iran’s nuclearization.

He did not elaborate on what Israel should do to prepare itself militarily, preferring to leave such advice to closed forums like the security cabinet.

Regarding Netanyahu’s decision not to strike Iranian nuclear sites in 2011, when such a step was considered, Bennett said: “I have been in the government since 2013. Whatever has been missed has been missed and we have to look forward and defend ourselves by ourselves.”

“We are all on a conveyor belt that leads to a cliff,” he warned. “The world’s nuclear deal gave Iran the ability to develop everything necessary for rapid breakaway to nuclearization. It allowed Iran to develop faster centrifuges and improve its technology. There is a false sense of security now because the breakaway has been postponed by the deal, but they’re using the deal to race toward a bomb.”

Regarding Iranian moves into Syria, Bennett said Israel would not tolerate Iran building a corridor from Tehran to Israel’s borders and the Mediterranean Sea. He said that development would change the balance of power and endanger Israel.

“We won’t allow that to happen, and we will speak by actions, not by words,” he said. “The only thing that works in the Middle East is action.”

Bennett also issued a warning to Lebanon, based on his experience as a commander in the Second Lebanon War and his years in commando units inside the territory of Israel’s northern neighbor.

“There is no way to differentiate between Hezbollah and Lebanon, and sending soldiers to that impossible task is sending them to fail,” he said. “We need a new strategy. If they are shooting rockets on Israeli cities, we will use full force on the Lebanese government and infrastructure. Shooting rockets from Lebanon to Israel is a declaration of war on Israel. This is a different strategy than what was used in the Second Lebanon War, and it’s what I’m promoting now.”

Transportation and Intelligence Minister Israel Katz, who is also a member of the security cabinet, said there was now a “historic opportunity” to “remove the Iranian threat from Israel.”

Katz’s comments came as a result of a tweet posted by Trump which said: “Iran just test-fired a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel. They are also working with North Korea. Not much of an agreement we have.”

Katz said Israel needed to work with the US to bring about a change in the 2015 nuclear agreement in order to ensure that Iran does not attain nuclear capability.

“Either cancel the agreement or return to sanctions,” he said.

In addition, he said, Israel needs to work with the US to thwart Iran’s missile program, prevent an Iranian military presence in Syria, stop Iranian assistance to Hezbollah and get America to formally recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

No details of the security cabinet meeting – which was also expected to include a briefing by Netanyahu about his meetings last week in New York with Trump and with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi – were made public.

Netanyahu has not yet publicly reacted to the newest Iranian ballistic test. However, at the UN last week he said in regard to Iran that “those who threaten us with annihilation put themselves in mortal peril. ”As long as Iran seeks Israel’s destruction, he added, “Iran will face no fiercer enemy than Israel.”

The full Bennett interview will be published in the Post’s Simhat Torah supplement.

COMMENTARY: War Clouds Gathering Over Israel

And who cares about Israel?! Israel was created as a satellite of Communist Russia, playing the victim card after WWII, and fooling the world for decades pretending to be the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East. They own more nuclear heads than we can imagine and have been stealing and reselling US technology to Russia and China while they continue to suck the blood out of the US. But, once they feel they no longer need the west, they will dump America and destroy ‘Israel’ who has already served its purpose. They will continue to rule from the NEW Soviet Union, disguised also as ‘democratic’ who has already become invincible and stronger than ever! But, before they destroy Israel, they will enthrone the Anti-Christ at the Third Temple in Jerusalem fulfilling the prophecy.

Since everyone works for the tribe these days, don’t be surprised if Hassan Nasrallah is indirectly helping Jews move to motherland Russia, where Putin is waiting for them with open arms.

Israel Quote

“War Clouds Gathering Over Israel,” Source: darkmoon.me

A most significant event took place on October 1st, 2017.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese leader of Hezbollah, gave a speech that, as per usual, dissected current regional hotspots with much passion, insight, and frankness. 

But what was unusual about this particular speech is that Nasrallah addressed Israeli citizens directly, earnestly advising them publicly and for the first time EVER, to start packing their suitcases and to return to their true motherlands in Europe, the US and elsewhere, as soon as possible and before imminent war breaks out.  “You will not have time to pack and leave when war begins; and nowhere will be safe for you in Historic Palestine – nowhere!”, he asserted with gusto.

He also clarified to the Jews of Israel that Hezbollah’s conflict is with Zionism and not Judaism; and that they, as Jews who were brought to Palestine from the four corners of the world, were brought to be cynically used by Zionist leaders, not to be saved.

“Consider your own personal security, now, today, before you believe what your government tells you”, he advised them; “Netanyahu, your leader, is dragging you down a dangerous road that leads only to war; a war that you will lose due to the folly of your leader who has no effective plan to win this war because he has no real information on our military strength, our long and deep reach, the whereabouts or grades of our weapons, or the numerous war skills that we now possess.  His war plans against us will fail and it is you, as Jewish citizens, who will pay the ultimate price for this failure”. 

And again, he advised them to immediately leave occupied Palestine for their own safety.

In a sense, Nasrallah practically gave the Israelis the very same options that the Algerians gave the vile French colonialists after 100 years of an Apartheid-style occupation. To pack up and leave or face death. La Valise Ou Le Cercueil—The Suitcase or the Coffin.

It did not strike me that Nasrallah was full of hot air and practicing a massive measure of psychological warfare against the Israelis in his speech just for the heck of it.  He has never before used this kind of language and obviously, he has access to precise intelligence indicating Netanyahu is preparing for an imminent war against the Lebanese, otherwise, Nasrallah would not himself be speaking of an imminent war with such vigor and commitment.  His speech clearly indicated he has intelligence that Israel is preparing for a new war that’s part and parcel of the new Zionist plan to break the Iran Nuke Deal and destroy Iran’s regional friends.

Now that the Zionist-ISIS plan has turned to rust and dust before the eyes of the world, predictably the Zionists are scrambling to start yet another war that continues their relentless expansionist assaults on their neighbors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

What is also worth noting about the seriousness of Nasrallah’s clear warning to Zionist citizens is that according to Islamic rules of war, a Muslim is required to make a public announcement to their enemy of their intention to go to war, as soon as the war decision has been taken – and this is exactly what Nasrallah, a devout Muslim, just did in his latest speech.

This makes a war between Lebanon and Israel now a legitimate endeavor in the eyes of Islam and it makes it most certainly imminent.  And let us here be reminded that a new Lebanon/Israel war will also include a simultaneous war between Israel and Syria, as well as a war between Israel and hundreds of thousands of volunteers from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, AND Palestine, as indeed confirmed by Nasrallah himself.  A true existential war for the very life of Israel is now certainly afoot and visible on the horizon.

We’re talking the ‘Big War’ here, the very war that we’ve been anticipating since 2006 – the ‘Last Levant War’ that I have long predicted: a war that will find Tel Aviv in smoking ruins, a-la Mosul and Aleppo.

. . . AS THE TOWERS OF TEL AVIV COME TOPPING DOWN

“In ten years, there will be no more Israel”
— Henry Kissinger, 2012

This war could happen sooner than we think. Much sooner. You could go to bed after Monday night football and wake up on Tuesday morning to a full-throttle war in Israel proper and the wider region.  Just like that, with the snap of a finger war could start.

And either side could easily start it – Hezbollah has several times now declared that if it suits its interests, it will use a preemptive strike in the next war; just as Israel is no stranger to preemptive-striking.

The clouds of war are now visible: approaching and gathering apace over Israel, and the trigger could be something as simple as Hezbollah discovering yet another spy-camera, wired to explode and concealed inside a rock by a Lebanese roadside.  Though no casualties have been reported when several of these exploding spy-cameras have been discovered in Lebanon recently, Nasrallah warned in his speech that if this dangerous Israeli provocation continues and causes actual human casualties, Hezbollah will take matters “into their own hands”; meaning: they will respond in like to Israel, inside of Israel.  And responding in like inside of Israel will indeed lead to war.

Not known for mincing words or telling falsities, Nasrallah always means what he says – even Israelis rely on his word above their own government in times of strife, as recorded back in 2006 when some settlers refused to leave their 5-star shelters when their government told them to, and instead waited for Nasrallah’s statement telling them that it was safe now to return to their homes. Nasrallah’s consistent truth-telling is a large part of his global appeal.  His statements are always extremely measured and precise.  He tends to excel at psychological warfare against the Israelis by simply telling them the naked and hard-core truth that their government blacks-out in the Israeli nanny-media.

“Netanyahu and his government do not know how the war will end if they start one, and they do not have an accurate picture of what to expect should they embark on the folly of war,” he warned the Israelis, reminding them that ALL their wars against the Lebanese Resistance have failed so far and so will the next one.

Here, we recall the 2006 war and the humiliating failures of the Israeli military on the Hezbollah battlefield.  The Israelis had prepared themselves for war against Lebanon in secret, and with much predicted Israeli machismo, they suddenly charged forth at Lebanon, using the silly pretext of a border incident where two Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah as bartering chips for the release of hundreds of Lebanese citizens kidnapped by the IDF and rotting in Israeli jails since year 2000 – at the time, this to-and-fro bartering was a quiet and common practice between Hezbollah and Israel.

Yes, 35,000 Israeli soldiers, backed by the mighty Israeli air-force and navy, charged forth with uber-confidence at the Lebanese borders in their numerous Markava tanks, only to be completely repelled by only 3,500 Hezbollah fighters

One wonders here why the Israelis failed, considering their bigger numbers and bigger guns.

Well, it turned out that the Israelis made their war plans based completely on faulty intelligence passed to them by no less than Hezbollah agents themselves.  “We will destroy Hezbollah”, barked the IDF spokesperson at the time; “we know where they are: we have info on 500 of their weapon depots and leadership locations”.  Not surprising, therefore, that the IDF lost in 2006 – they were relying on false information – as indeed, they are still relying on false information in their preparations for the next war.  And as we all know, the gathering of accurate intelligence is what wins wars in the end, not size of army or gun.

There is a tangible feeling of confidence and preparedness for war, here in the south of Lebanon where I currently reside.  There is a profound desire to punish the Zionist state for all the crimes against humanity that it has inflicted on its millions of neighbors since its immoral inception some 70 years ago.  There is a steely focus and a steadfast courage to confront the Zionist entity and destroy it completely for its relentless and ongoing wanton destruction of the region.  The natives have had enough of Israel’s ruinous conspiracies against them.  They have now linked arms and vowed never to submit to Israeli hegemony, or to future violent, Zionist expansionism.

“Between humiliation and war, we choose war!”, Nasrallah boomed at the end of his address to the Israelis and to his followers.

The hot cloud of war has indeed arrived over Israel – and it will take but a sudden cold wind blowing to burst it.

It looks, after all,  that we will see the destruction of Israel in our lifetime. And not a moment too soon.

This should liberate not only Historic Palestine but Historic Washington D.C. as well, for the deadly political blow that AIPAC’s treasonous agents will suffer.  Not forgetting here, also, the chaos and confusion that will ensue in the Christian-Zionist communities across America, as they witness the very death of Israel and their own religious delusions with it.

No, Jesus will not return, but Palestine will!

https://youtu.be/Akit5rX4VT4

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman (left) and Education Minister Naftali Bennett at a Second Lebanon War memorial event in 2016

Israeli Politician – “Another War with Israel Means Lebanon Will be Sent Back to Middle Ages”

The drums of war are beating louder by the day, and the Greater Israel Plan is the dream and ultimate objective of these warmongers. Israeli politician Naftali Bennett and the Lebanese president agree that there’s no line between Hezbollah and Lebanese state. However, the Lebanese must realize another war with Israel means Lebanon will be “sent back to Middle Ages,” says Israeli Minister Naftali Bennett.

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman (left) and Education Minister Naftali Bennett at a Second Lebanon War memorial event in 2016
Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman (left) and Education Minister Naftali Bennett at a Second Lebanon War memorial event in 2016

“With Lebanon No Longer Hiding Hezbollah’s Role, Next War Must Hit Civilians Where It Hurts, Israeli Minister Says,” Source: haaretz.com

Lebanese President Michel Aoun paid an official visit to Cairo a month ago, ahead of which he gave a number of interviews to the Egyptian media. Aoun was only elected president after a long power struggle in which Iran and Hezbollah finally held sway, and he spoke about the fact that the Shi’ite organization continues to be the only Lebanese militia that refuses outright to disarm.

Hezbollah is a significant part of the Lebanese people, Aoun explained. “As long as Israel occupies land and covets the natural resources of Lebanon, and as long as the Lebanese military lacks the power to stand up to Israel, [Hezbollah’s] arms are essential, in that they complement the actions of the army and do not contradict them,” he said, adding, “They are a major part of Lebanon’s defense.”

Brig. Gen. Assaf Orion from the Institute for National Security Studies wrote recently that Aoun’s comments were a “lifting of the official veil and tearing off of the mask of the well-known Lebanese reality – which widely accepted Western diplomacy tends to blur. The Lebanese president abolishes the forced distinction between the ostensibly sovereign state and Hezbollah. Thus, the Lebanese president takes official responsibility for any actions by Hezbollah, including against Israel.”

Aoun’s declaration also tallies with the facts on the ground. At a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee this past week, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that the Lebanese army is now “a subsidiary unit of Hezbollah.”

What does that mean with regard to an Israeli response against Hezbollah in case another war breaks out on the northern front? This column recently discussed the basic difficulty that faces the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon: limited ability to deal with the threat of high-trajectory rockets directed against both the Israeli civilian population and the strategic infrastructure on the rear front. On the southern front, even though the air force lacks a proper offensive response to rockets, the missile intercept systems – chiefly the Iron Dome batteries – are enough to thwart most of the launches.

In the north, with Hezbollah able to launch more than 1,000 rockets into Israel on a single day of fighting, the offensive solution seems partial and the defensive solution limited.

The state comptroller’s report on the 2014 war in Gaza disappeared from the headlines within a few days, but the difficulties facing Israel in future conflicts in Gaza – and even more so in Lebanon – remain.

 

At this point, it’s interesting to listen to security cabinet member Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi), whose opinions the state comptroller accepted with regard to disagreements with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Hamas attack tunnels in the Gaza Strip.

While in the political realm Bennett seems determined to create unilateral facts on the ground (i.e., settlements in the territories) even at the risk of a potential face-off with the Europeans and embarrassing the Trump administration, it seems his positions on military issues are more complex. More than once he has shown healthy skepticism over positions taken by top defense officials, and he refuses to accept their insights as indisputable conclusions.

Hunting rocket launchers during a war is almost impossible, Bennett told Haaretz this week, adding that he says this “as someone who specialized in hunting rocket launchers.”

During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when he served as a reserve officer, Bennett commanded an elite unit sent deep into southern Lebanon to find Hezbollah’s rocket-launching squads.

“When we worked in a particular area, we did reduce the teams of rocket launchers there – but they simply moved a little farther north,” Bennett related. Since then, he said, 11 years have passed and Hezbollah has learned to deploy in a more sophisticated manner. “They moved their launchers from the nature reserves, outposts in open areas, to dense urban areas. You can’t fight rockets with tweezers. If you can’t reach the house where the launcher is, you’re not effective, and the number of houses you have to get through is enormous,” he explained.

 

“After I was released from reserve duty, I read all of the books you wrote about the war,” Bennett told me. “I understood in retrospect that the fundamental event of the war took place on its first day, in a phone call between [former Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert and Condoleezza Rice.” President George W. Bush’s secretary of state had asked the prime minister not to hit Lebanon’s infrastructure, and was given a positive response. As a result, “there was no way that Israel could win the war,” Bennett said.

“Lebanon presented itself as a country that wants quiet, that has no influence over Hezbollah,” he continued. “Today, Hezbollah is embedded in sovereign Lebanon. It is part of the government and, according to the president, also part of its security forces. The organization has lost its ability to disguise itself as a rogue group.”

Bennett believes this should be Israel’s official stance. “The Lebanese institutions, its infrastructure, airport, power stations, traffic junctions, Lebanese Army bases – they should all be legitimate targets if a war breaks out. That’s what we should already be saying to them and the world now. If Hezbollah fires missiles at the Israeli home front, this will mean sending Lebanon back to the Middle Ages,” he said. “Life in Lebanon today is not bad – certainly compared to what’s going on in Syria. Lebanon’s civilians, including the Shi’ite population, will understand that this is what lies in store for them if Hezbollah is entangling them for its own reasons, or even at the behest of Iran.”

At the same time, he notes that this is not necessarily the plan for a future war, but instead an attempt to avoid one: “If we declare and market this message aggressively enough now, we might be able to prevent the next war. After all, we have no intention of attacking Lebanon.”

According to Bennett, if war breaks out anyway, a massive attack on the civilian infrastructure – along with additional air and ground action by the IDF – will speed up international intervention and shorten the campaign. “That will lead them to stop it quickly – and we have an interest in the war being as short as possible,” he said. “I haven’t said these things publicly up until now. But it’s important that we convey the message and prepare to deal with the legal and diplomatic aspects. That is the best way to avoid a war.”

Bennett’s approach is not entirely new. In 2008, the head of the IDF Northern Command (and today IDF chief of staff), Gadi Eisenkot, presented the “Dahiya doctrine.” He spoke of massive damage to buildings in areas identified with Hezbollah – as was done on a smaller scale in Beirut’s Shi’ite Dahiya quarter during the 2006 war – as a means of deterring the organization and shortening the war.

That same year, Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland proposed striking at Lebanon’s state infrastructure. To this day, though, the approach has not been adopted as Israeli policy, open or covert. Bennett’s declaration reflects an attempt by a key member of the security cabinet (albeit Netanyahu’s declared political rival) to turn it into such policy.

The fact that Israel only tied with Hamas in Gaza in 2014 only convinced Bennett that he is right. There, too, Hamas finally agreed to a cease-fire after 50 days of fighting only after the Israel Air Force systematically destroyed the high-rise apartment buildings where senior Hamas officials lived.

Shimon Peres

COMMENTARY: Shimon Peres – Israeli War Criminal Whose Victims The West Ignored Dead At 93

One less terrorist. Shimon Peres, who passed away Wednesday, September 28th, after suffering a stroke, epitomised the disparity between Israel’s image in the West and the reality of its bloody, colonial policies in Palestine and the wider region.

Shimon Peres
Shimon Peres, War Criminal

“Shimon Peres: Israeli war criminal whose victims the West ignored,” Source: middleeastmonitor.com

Shimon Peres (1923-2016)

Best known in the West for role in Oslo Accords

Family moved to Palestine in the 1930s

Fought with the Haganah during the Nakba

Described as the architect of Israel’s clandestine nuclear programme

Saw Palestinian citizens as a ‘demographic threat’

Played key role in early days of West Bank settlements

Responsible for Qana massacre in Lebanon in 1996

Defended Gaza blockade and recent Israeli offensives

Peres was born in modern day Belarus in 1923, and his family moved to Palestine in the 1930s. As a young man, Peres joined the Haganah, the militia primarily responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages in 1947-49, during the Nakba.

Despite the violent displacement of the Palestinians being a matter of historical record, Peres has always insisted that Zionist forces “upheld the purity of arms” during the establishment of the State of Israel. Indeed, he even claimed that before Israel existed, “there was nothing here”.

Over seven decades, Peres served as prime minister (twice) and president, though he never actually won a national election outright. He was a member of 12 cabinets and had stints as defence, foreign and finance minister.

He is perhaps best known in the West for his role in the negotiations that led to the 1993 Oslo Accords which won him, along with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yet for Palestinians and their neighbours in the Middle East, Peres’ track record is very different from his reputation in the West as a tireless “dove”. The following is by no means a comprehensive summary of Peres’ record in the service of colonialism and apartheid.

Nuclear weapons

Between 1953 and 1965, Peres served first as director general of Israel’s defence ministry and then as deputy defence minister. On account of his responsibilities at the time, Peres has been described as “an architect of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme” which, to this day, “remains outside the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).”

In 1975, as secret minutes have since revealed, Peres met with South African Defence Minister PW Botha and “offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime.” In 1986, Peres authorised the Mossad operation that saw nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu kidnapped in Rome.

Targeting Palestinian citizens

Peres had a key role in the military regime imposed on Palestinian citizens until 1966, under which authorities carried out mass land theft and displacement.

One such tool was Article 125 which allowed Palestinian land to be declared a closed military zone. Its owners denied access, the land would then be confiscated as “uncultivated”. Peres praised Article 125 as a means to “directly continue the struggle for Jewish settlement and Jewish immigration.”

Another one of Peres’ responsibilities in his capacity as director-general of the defence ministry was to “Judaise” the Galilee; that is to say, to pursue policies aimed at reducing the region’s proportion of Palestinian citizens compared to Jewish ones.

In 2005, as Vice Premier in the cabinet of Ariel Sharon, Peres renewed his attack on Palestinian citizens with plans to encourage Jewish Israelis to move to the Galilee. His “development” plan covered 104 communities – 100 of them Jewish.

In secret conversations with US officials that same year, Peres claimed Israel had “lost one million dunams [1,000 square kilometres] of Negev land to the Bedouin”, adding that the “development” of the Negev and Galilee could “relieve what [he] termed a demographic threat.”

Supporting illegal settlements in the West Bank

While Israel’s settlement project in the West Bank has come to be associated primarily with Likud and other right-wing nationalist parties, it was in fact Labor which kick-started the colonisation of the newly-conquered Palestinian territory – and Peres was an enthusiastic participant.

During Peres’ tenure as defence minister, from 1974 to 1977, the Rabin government established a number of key West Bank settlements, including Ofra, large sections of which were built on confiscated privately-owned Palestinian land.

Having played a key role in the early days of the settlement enterprise, in more recent years, Peres has intervened to undermine any sort of measures, no matter how modest, at sanctioning the illegal colonies – always, of course, in the name of protecting “peace negotiations”.

The Qana massacre

As prime minister in 1996, Peres ordered and oversaw “Operation Grapes of Wrath” when Israeli armed forces killed some 154 civilians in Lebanon and injured another 351. The operation, widely believed to have been a pre-election show of strength, saw Lebanese civilians intentionally targeted.

According to the official Israeli Air Force website (in Hebrew, not English), the operation involved “massive bombing of the Shia villages in South Lebanon in order to cause a flow of civilians north, toward Beirut, thus applying pressure on Syria and Lebanon to restrain Hezbollah.”

The campaign’s most notorious incident was the Qana massacre, when Israel shelled a United Nations compound and killed 106 sheltering civilians. A UN report statedthat, contrary to Israeli denials, it was “unlikely” that the shelling “was the result of technical and/or procedural errors.”

Later, Israeli gunners told Israeli television that they had no regrets over the massacre, as the dead were “just a bunch of Arabs”. As for Peres, his conscience was also clean: “Everything was done according to clear logic and in a responsible way,” he said. “I am at peace.”

Gaza – defending blockade and brutality

Peres came into his own as one of Israel’s most important global ambassadors in the last ten years, as the Gaza Strip was subjected to a devastating blockade and three major offensives. Despite global outrage at such policies, Peres has consistently backed collective punishment and military brutality.

In January 2009, for example, despite calls by “Israeli human rights organisations…for ‘Operation Cast Lead’ to be halted”, Peres described “national solidarity behind the military operation” as “Israel’s finest hour.” According to Peres, the aim of the assault “was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel.”

During “Operation Pillar of Defence” in November 2012, Peres “took on the job of helping the Israeli public relations effort, communicating the Israeli narrative to world leaders,” in the words of Ynetnews. On the eve of Israel’s offensive, “Peres warned Hamas that if it wants normal life for the people of Gaza, then it must stop firing rockets into Israel.”

In 2014, during an unprecedented bombardment of Gaza, Peres stepped up once again to whitewash war crimes. After Israeli forces killed four small children playing on a beach, Peres knew who to blame – the Palestinians: “It was an area that we warned would be bombed,” he said. “And unfortunately they didn’t take out the children.”

The choking blockade, condemned internationally as a form of prohibited collective punishment, has also been defended by Peres – precisely on the grounds that it is a form of collective punishment. As Peres put it in 2014: “If Gaza ceases fire, there will be no need for a blockade.”

Peres’ support for collective punishment also extended to Iran. Commenting in 2012 on reports that six million Iranians suffering from cancer were unable to get treatment due to sanctions, Peres said: “If they want to return to a normal life, let them become normal.”

Unapologetic to the end

Peres was always clear about the goal of a peace deal with the Palestinians. As he said in 2014: “The first priority is preserving Israel as a Jewish state. That is our central goal, that is what we are fighting for.” Last year he reiterated these sentiments in an interview with AP, saying: “Israel should implement the two-state solution for her own sake,” so as not to “lose our [Jewish] majority.”

This, recall, was what shaped Labor’s support for the Oslo Accords. Rabin, speakingto the Knesset not long before his assassination in 1995, was clear that what Israel sought from the Oslo Accords was a Palestinian “entity” that would be “less than a state”. Jerusalem would be Israel’s undivided capital, key settlements would be annexed and Israel would remain in the Jordan Valley.

A few years ago, Peres described the Palestinians as “self-victimising.” He went on: “They victimise themselves. They are a victim of their own mistakes unnecessarily.” Such cruel condescension was characteristic of a man for whom “peace” always meant colonial pacification.

Golan Heights

COMMENTARY: Israel Stakes Claim to Golan After Oil Find

NAZARETH, Israel – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took advantage of a private meeting this week (November 2015)with Barack Obama – their first in 13 months – to raise the possibility of dismembering Syria.

Golan Heights
File photo shows the dividing fence between the Israeli-occupied side of the Golan Heights and Syrian-controlled territory (AFP) –

According to Israeli officials, Netanyahu indicated that Washington should give its belated blessing to Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, captured from Syria during the 1967 war.

Sources close to the talks told the Haaretz daily Netanyahu claimed that Syria was no longer a functioning state, allowing “for different thinking”. Since 2011 the government of Bashar al-Assad has faced off against rebel factions that include al-Qaeda-affiliated groups and the Islamic State (IS).

On Wednesday an unnamed White House official confirmed that Netanyahu had raised the matter. The official said:

“I think the president didn’t think it warranted an answer. It wasn’t clear how serious he [Netanyahu] was about it.”

However, it appears Netanyahu’s comments to Obama are part of a coordinated effort by Israeli officials over several months to shift thinking in Washington.

The day before Netanyahu’s meeting at the White House, Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the US, published a commentary on CNN’s website urging Obama to consider Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

Had Israel handed back the area to Syria in earlier peace talks, he wrote, it

“would today have placed [the Lebanese militia] Hezbollah directly above Israeli cities and villages in northern Galilee” and IS  “would be dug in on the Sea of Galilee’s eastern shore”.

Neither Oren nor presumably Netanyahu highlighted another reason why Israel might be anxious to gain US approval of its annexation of the Golan, which it imposed in violation of international law in 1981.

‘Billions of barrels’

Last month Afek, an Israeli subsidiary of Genie Energy, a US oil company, announced that it had found considerable reserves of oil under the Golan. Genie’s chief geologist in Israel, Yuval Bartov, said the company believed the reservoir had the “potential of billions of barrels”.

International law experts say any proceeds from such a find in the Golan should revert to Syria, but Israel has so far indicated it will ignore its legal obligations.

The Israeli energy and water ministry has licensed Afek to drill 10 experimental wells over three years in a 400-square kilometre area, about a third of the Golan’s total territory.

Afek claims that the discoveries it has identified in its first year could make Israel energy independent, satisfying Israel’s consumption of 100 million barrels a year for the foreseeable future.

That would be on top of Israel’s recent finds of huge quantities of natural gas off its Mediterranean coast, offering it the chance to become a gas exporter.

Were the US to recognise Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan, it would likely clear the way for Israel to plunder any economically viable reserves located there.

Netanyahu appears to have long harboured an interest in tapping the Golan’s potential for oil.

In 1996, in his first term as prime minister, he granted approval for drilling in the Golan by the Israeli National Oil Company. International pressure meant the permit had to be withdrawn soon afterwards.

Resources plundered

Today, 22,000 Syrian Druze live in five villages, alongside a similar number of Jews in 30 illegal settlements.

A 2010 investigation by the Haaretz newspaper revealed that Israel had carried out systematic expulsions of some 130,000 Syrians in 1967 and destroyed 200 villages. The Druze alone were allowed to stay so as not to upset Israel’s own Druze citizens.

Nizar Ayoub, director of Marsad, a Druze human rights centre based in the Golan, said Israel had long taken resources from the Golan.

“Israel has always treated the Golan as a territory to be exploited and plundered, from its water to farming and tourism,” he told Middle East Eye. “Israel has simply ignored its obligations under international law.”

Rainwater from the Golan feeds into the Jordan River, supplying a third of Israel’s needs. The fertile volcanic soil allows Israel to cultivate vineyards and orchards, and graze cattle. And the mountain terrain has also made it a magnet for holidaying, including skiing on Mount Hermon.

In recent years Israel has approved the construction of a series of large wind farms.

Ayoub said Israel had taken advantage of the conflict in Syria to advance oil exploration in the Golan, but such a move was rejected by the local Druze population.

“Even if Netanyahu could persuade the Americans to agree [about recognition], it is not their decision to make. The only people who can decide to change the sovereignty of the Golan are the Syrian people,” he said.

Quadrupling Jewish settlers

Officials close to Netanyahu have been promoting a change of status in the Golan’s since the early summer.

In June Naftali Bennett, leader of the pro-settler party Jewish Home and the education minister in Netanyahu’s current coalition, raised the question of the Golan’s future at the Herzliya conference, an annual meeting of Israel’s political, academic and security elites. The conference is also attended by senior US officials.

Bennett urged the international community “to demonstrate their ethics” by recognising Israeli sovereignty in the Golan.

He added: “To this day, no state in the world has recognised the Golan as part of Israel, including our friend, the United States of America. It is time the world stand by the right side – Israel’s side.”

Israel would try to quadruple the Golan’s settler population to 100,000 using financial incentives, he said.

A month later Zvi Hauser, Netanyahu’s former cabinet secretary, wrote a commentary in Haaretz arguing that Israel should seize its first chance since 1967 “to conduct a constructive dialogue with the international community over a change in Middle Eastern borders”.

Recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Heights could, he said, be presented as serving a “global interest in stabilising the region”.

Hauser added that Israel should demand the Golan as “compensation” for Obama’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Such a claim could be based, he said, on a 1975 “pledge” from US President Gerald Ford recognising Israel’s “need to remain on the Golan Heights, even in peacetime”.

In his CNN piece last Sunday, Oren, a widely respected figure in Washington, asserted that, without Israeli sovereignty over Golan, Iran and Hezbollah would become a base from which to launch armed attacks on Israel.

“For the first time in more than 40 years, the Golan could again become a catalyst for war,” he wrote.

He added that Israel had “transformed this once-barren war zone into a hub of high-tech agriculture, world-class wineries and pristine nature reserves”. He did not mention the recent oil find.

Israel’s ‘solidified grip’

Before fighting took hold in Syria, polls showed between 60 and 70 percent of Israelis rejected returning the Golan to Syria, even if doing so would secure peace with Damascus. The percentages are likely to be higher now.

The White House official told Haaretz that recognition of Israel’s annexation would disrupt US policy by suggesting that Syrian opposition forces supported by the US were “allies with people who want to give up the Golan”.

However, a recent commentary by Frederic Hof, a Syria expert in the State Department under Hillary Clinton, hinted that US officials might yet change their view.

He said US efforts before 2011 and the outbreak of fighting to pressure Israel to give up the Golan, as part of talks over a peace treaty with Assad, had been proven “so wrong”. Instead, the war in Syria had “solidified Israel’s grip” on the Golan.

On its website, Genie’s subsidiary Afek claims that its drilling in the occupied Golan Heights will extract “Israeli oil”.

The two companies include figures who have close personal ties to Netanyahu and high-level influence in Washington.

Genie’s founder, Howard Jonas, an American Jewish millionaire, made political contributions to Netanyahu’s recent campaign for the Likud party’s primaries.

Its “strategic advisory board” includes Dick Cheney, the US vice-president under George Bush and widely regarded as the architect of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch is also an adviser. He controls large sections of the rightwing English-language media, including his most influential outlet, the US TV news station Fox News.

In September, Genie added Larry Summers, a senior official under Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Obama, and James Woolsey, a former CIA director who became a neoconservative cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.

The chairman of Afek, Genie’s Israeli subsidiary, is Effi Eitam, a far-right former general and cabinet minister who lives in an illegal settlement in the Golan.

His far-right views include demands to expel both Palestinians from the occupied territories and the large minority of Palestinian citizens from Israel.

After Eitam exited the Israeli parliament in 2009, Netanyahu sent him as a “special emissary” to US campuses as part of a “caravan for democracy”.

International law violated

Hala Khoury Bisharat, an international law professor at Carmel Academic College, near Haifa, said it would be hard to persuade the US to recognise Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan.

“International law is clear that it is never admissible to acquire territory through war,” she told MEE. “It would be very problematic for the US to do this.”

She added that Israel, as an occupier, was obliged by the 1907 Hague regulations to “safeguard the capital” of the occupied party’s natural resources and was not entitled to exploit any oil in the Golan for its own benefit.

The prime minister’s office was unavailable to comment about Netanyahu’s discussions with Obama, or respond to accusations that the operations in the Golan were violating international law.

Since its establishment, Israel has drilled some 530 exploratory wells, but none has produced commercially viable quantities of oil.

Israel briefly had access to significant quantities of oil after the 1967 war, when fields it occupied in the Sinai supplied two-thirds of domestic needs. Israel was eventually forced to hand the wells back to Egypt.

Meanwhile, Israel has discovered large natural gas deposits in the Mediterranean, stoking tensions with neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon, which has claimed that Israel is drilling in areas where maritime borders are disputed.

The Israeli courts are unlikely to place any obstacles in the way of drilling operations in the Golan.

In a ruling in late 2011, Israel’s supreme court created a new principle of “prolonged occupation” to justify the theft of Palestinian resources, such as quarried stone, in the West Bank. The precedent could be extended to the Golan.

The only opposition so far has come from Israeli environmental groups. They have expressed concern that extraction of the oil, especially if fracking is used, could pollute aquifers or trigger earthquakes in a seismically unstable region.

Yuval Arbel, a ground water expert with Friends of the Earth Israel, said the Golan’s deposits were likely to be in the form of “tight oil,” making it difficult to extract. Israel would probably have to set up a grid of drills every half kilometre.

He told MEE that would increase the chances of oil spillages that could leak into the nearby Sea of Galilee, threatening Israel’s main source of drinking water.

 

Source: middleeasteye.net

Beirut 2006

COMMENTARY: Clean Break to Dirty Wars – Shattering the Middle East for Israel’s Northern Front

To understand today’s crises in Iraq, Syria, and Iran one must grasp their shared Lebanese connection. This assertion may seem odd. After all, what’s the big deal about Lebanon? That little country hasn’t had top headlines since Israel designed to bomb and invade it in 2006. Yet, to a large extent, the roots of the bloody tangle now enmeshing the Middle East lie in Lebanon: or to be more precise, in the Lebanon policy of Israel.

Beirut 2006
Beirut 2006

Rewind to the era before the War on Terror. In 1995, Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s “dovish” Prime Minister, was assassinated by a right-wing zealot. This precipitated an early election in which Rabin’s Labor Party was defeated by the ultra-hawkish Likud, lifting hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu to his first Premiership in 1996.

That year, an elite study group produced a foreign policy document for the incipient administration titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The membership of the Clean Break study group is highly significant, as it included American neoconservatives who would later hold high offices in the Bush Administration and play driving roles in its Middle East policy.

“A Clean Break” advised that the new Likud administration adopt a “shake it off” attitude toward the policy of the old Labor administration which, as the authors claimed, assumed national “exhaustion” and allowed national “retreat.” This was the “clean break” from the past that “A Clean Break” envisioned. Regarding Israel’s international policy, this meant:

“…a clean break from the slogan, ‘comprehensive peace’ to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.”

Pursuit of comprehensive peace with all of Israel’s neighbors was to be abandoned for selective peace with some neighbors (namely Jordan and Turkey) and implacable antagonism toward others (namely Iraq, Syria, and Iran). The weight of its strategic allies would tip the balance of power in favor of Israel, which could then use that leverage to topple the regimes of its strategic adversaries by using covertly managed “proxy forces” and “the principle of preemption.” Through such a “redrawing of the map of the Middle East,” Israel would “shape the regional environment,” and thus, “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.”

“A Clean Break” was to Israel (and ultimately to the US) what Otto von Bismarck’s 1862 “Blood and Iron” speech was to Germany. As he set the German Empire on a warpath that would ultimately set Europe ablaze, Bismarck proclaimed:

“Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided — that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 — but by iron and blood.”

Before setting Israel and the US on a warpath that would ultimately set the Middle East ablaze, the Clean Break authors were basically saying: Not through peace accords will the great questions of the day be decided — that was the great mistake of 1978 (at Camp David) and 1993 (at Oslo) — but by “divide and conquer” and regime change. By wars both aggressive (“preemptive”) and “dirty” (covert and proxy).

“A Clean Break” slated Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as first up for regime change. This is highly significant, especially since several members of the Clean Break study group played decisive roles in steering and deceiving the United States into invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam seven years later.

Richard Perle
Richard Perle

The Clean Break study group’s leader, Richard Perle, led the call for Iraqi regime change beginning in the 90s from his perch at the Project for a New American Century and other neocon think tanks. And while serving as chairman of a high-level Pentagon advisory committee, Perle helped coordinate the neoconservative takeover of foreign policy in the Bush administration and the final push for war in Iraq.

Douglas Feith
Douglas Feith

Another Clean Breaker, Douglas Feith, was a Perle protege and a key player in that neocon coup. After 9/11, as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Feith created two secret Pentagon offices tasked with cherry-picking, distorting, and repackaging CIA and Pentagon intelligence to help make the case for the Iraq War.

Feith’s “Office of Special Plans” manipulated intelligence to promote the falsehood that Saddam had a secret weapons of mass destruction program that posed an imminent chemical, biological, and even nuclear threat. This lie was the main justification used by the Bush administration for the Iraq War.

Feith’s “Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group” trawled through the CIA’s intelligence trash to stitch together far-fetched conspiracy theories linking Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, among other bizarre pairings. Perle put the Group into contact with Ahmed Chalabi, a dodgy anti-Saddam Iraqi exile who would spin even more yarn of this sort.

David Wurmser
David Wurmser

Much of the Group’s grunt work was performed by David Wurmser, another Perle protege and the primary author of “A Clean Break.” Wurmser would go on to serve as an advisor to two key Iraq War proponents in the Bush administration: John Bolton at the State Department and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The foregone conclusions generated by these Clean Breaker-led projects faced angry but ineffectual resistance from the Intelligence Community, and are now widely considered scandalously discredited. But they succeeded in helping, perhaps decisively, to overcome both bureaucratic and public resistance to the march to war.

The US Bombing Baghdad in 2003
The US Bombing Baghdad in 2003

The Iraq War that followed put the Clean Break into action by grafting it onto America. The War accomplished the Clean Break objective of regime change in Iraq, thus beginning the “redrawing of the map of the Middle East.” And the attendant “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war accomplished the Clean Break objective of “reestablishing the principle of preemption”

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

But why did the Netanyahu/Bush Clean Breakers want to regime change Iraq in the first place? While reference is often made to “A Clean Break” as a prolog to the Iraq War, it is often forgotten that the document proposed regime change in Iraq primarily as a “means” of “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.” Overthrowing Saddam in Iraq was merely a stepping stone to “foiling” and ultimately overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in neighboring Syria. As Pat Buchanan put it:

“In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad.”

Exactly how this was supposed to work is baffling. As the document admitted, although both were Baathist regimes, Assad and Saddam were far more enemies than allies. “A Clean Break” floated a convoluted pipe dream involving a restored Hashemite monarchy in Iraq (the same US-backed, pro-Israel dynasty that rules Jordan) using its sway over an Iraqi cleric to turn his co-religionists in Syria against Assad.

Instead, the neocons ended up settling for a different pipe(line) dream, sold to them by that con-man Chalabi, involving a pro-Israel, Chalabi-dominated Iraq building a pipeline from Mosul to Haifa. One only wonders why he didn’t sweeten the deal by including the Brooklyn Bridge in the sale.

As incoherent as it may have been, getting at Syria through Iraq is what the neocons wanted. And this is also highly significant for us today, because the US has now fully embraced the objective of regime change in Syria, even with Barack Obama inhabiting the White House instead of George W. Bush.

Washington is pursuing that objective by partnering with Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf States in supporting the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria’s bloody civil war, and thereby majorly abetting the bin Ladenites (Syrian Al Qaeda and ISIS) leading that insurgency.

Obama has virtually become an honorary Clean Breaker by pursuing a Clean Break objective (“rolling back Syria”) using Clean Break strategy (“balance of power” alliances with select Muslim states) and Clean Break tactics (a covert and proxy “dirty war”). Of course the neocons are the loudest voices calling for the continuance and escalation of this policy.

And Israel is even involving itself directly by providing medical assistance to Syrian insurgents, including Al Qaeda fighters.

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

Another target identified by “A Clean Break” was Iran. This is highly significant, since while the neocons were still riding high in the Bush administration’s saddle, they came within an inch of launching a US war on Iran over yet another manufactured and phony WMD crisis.

While the Obama administration seems on the verge of finalizing a nuclear/peace deal with the Iranian government in Tehran, the neocons and Netanyahu himself (now Prime Minister once again) have pulled out all the stops to scupper it and put the US and Iran back on a collision course.

The neocons are also championing ongoing American support for Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen to restore that country’s US-backed former dictator. Simply because the “Houthi” rebels that overthrew him and took the capital city of Sanaa are Shiites, they are assumed to be a proxy of the Shiite Iranians, and so this is seen by neocons and Saudi theocons alike as a war against Iranian expansion.

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

Baghdad is a pit stop on the road to Damascus, and Sanaa is a pit stop on the road to Tehran. But, according to the Clean Breakers, Damascus and Tehran are themselves merely pit stops on the road to Beirut.

According to “A Clean Break,” Israel’s main beef with Assad is that:

“Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil.”

And its great grief with the Ayatollah is that Iran, like Syria, is one of the:

“…principal agents of aggression in Lebanon…”

All regime change roads lead to Lebanon, it would seem. So this brings us back to our original question. What is the big deal about Lebanon?

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

The answer to this question goes back to Israel’s very beginnings. Its Zionist founding fathers established the bulk of Israel’s territory by dispossessing and ethnically cleansing three-quarters of a million Palestinian Arabs in 1948. Hundreds of thousands of these were driven (sometimes literally in trucks, sometimes force marched with gunshots fired over their heads) into Lebanon, where they were gathered in miserable refugee camps.

In Lebanon the Palestinians who had fled suffered an apartheid state almost as rigid as the one Israel imposed on those who stayed behind, because the dominant Maronite Christians there were so protective of their political and economic privileges in Lebanon’s confessional system.

In a 1967 war of aggression, Israel conquered the rest of formerly-British Palestine, annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and placing the Palestinians there (many of whom fled there seeking refuge after their homes were taken by the Israelis in 1948) under a brutal, permanent military occupation characterized by continuing dispossession and punctuated by paroxysms of mass murder.

This compounding of their tragedy drove the Palestinians to despair and radicalization, and they subsequently lifted Yasser Arafat and his fedayeen (guerrilla) movement to the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), then headquartered in Jordan.

When the king of Jordan massacred and drove out the PLO, Arafat and the remaining members relocated to Lebanon. There they waged cross-border guerrilla warfare to try to drive Israel out of the occupied territories. The PLO drew heavily from the refugee camps in Lebanon for recruits.

This drew Israel deeply into Lebanese affairs. In 1976, Israel started militarily supporting the Maronite Christians, helping to fuel a sectarian civil war that had recently begun and would rage until 1990. That same year, Syrian forces entered Lebanon, partook in the war, and began a military occupation of the country.

In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon to drive the PLO back and to recruit a proxy army called the “South Lebanon Army” (SLA).

Time Magazine
Time Magazine

In 1982 Israel launched a full-scale war in Lebanon, fighting both Syria and the PLO. Osama bin Laden later claimed that it was seeing the wreckage of tall buildings in Beirut toppled by Israel’s “total war” tactics that inspired him to destroy American buildings like the Twin Towers.

Time Magazine Lebanon
Time Magazine

In this war, Israel tried to install a group of Christian Fascists called the Phalange in power over Lebanon. This failed when the new Phalangist ruler was assassinated. As a reprisal, the Phalange perpetrated, with Israeli connivance, the massacre of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese Shiites. (See Murray Rothbard’s moving contemporary coverage of the atrocity.)

Israel’s 1982 war succeeded in driving the PLO out of Lebanon, although not in destroying it. And of course hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees still linger in Lebanon’s camps, yearning for their right of return: a fact that cannot have escaped Israel’s notice.

The Lebanese Shiites were either ambivalent or welcoming toward being rid of the PLO. But Israel rapidly squandered whatever patience the Shiites had for it by brutally occupying southern Lebanon for years. This led to the creation of Hezbollah, a Shiite militia not particularly concerned with the plight of the Sunni Palestinian refugees, but staunchly dedicated to driving Israel and its proxies (the SLA) completely out of Lebanon.

Aided by Syria and Iran, though not nearly to the extent Israel would have us believe, Hezbollah became the chief defensive force directly frustrating Israel’s efforts to dominate and exploit its northern neighbor. In 1993 and again in 1996 (the year of “A Clean Break”), Israel launched still more major military operations in Lebanon, chiefly against Hezbollah, but also bombing Lebanon’s general population and infrastructure, trying to use terrorism to motivate the people and the central government to crack down on Hezbollah.

This is the context of “A Clean Break”: Israel’s obsession with crushing Hezbollah and dominating Lebanon, even if it means turning most of the Middle East upside down (regime changing Syria, Iran, and Iraq) to do it.

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

9/11 paved the way for realizing the Clean Break, using the United States as a gigantic proxy, thanks to the Israel Lobby’s massive influence in Congress and the neocons’ newly won dominance in the Bush Administration.

Much to their chagrin, however, its first phase (the Iraq War) did not turn out so well for the Clean Breakers. The blundering American grunts ended up installing the most vehemently pro-Iran Shiite faction in power in Baghdad, and now Iranian troops are even stationed and fighting inside Iraq. Oops. And as it turns out, Chalabi may have been an Iranian agent all along. (But don’t worry, Mr. Perle, I’m sure he’ll eventually come through with that pipeline.)

This disastrous outcome has given both Israel and Saudi Arabia nightmares about an emerging “Shia Crescent” arcing from Iran through Iraq into Syria. And now the new Shiite “star” in Yemen completes this menacing “Star and Crescent” picture. The fears of the Sunni Saudis are partially based on sectarianism. But what Israel sees in this picture is a huge potential regional support network for its nemesis Hezbollah.

Time Magazine Hezbollah
A Beirut suburb following Israeli airstrikes in 2006.

Israel would have none of it. In 2006, it launched its second full-scale war in Lebanon, only to be driven back once again by that damned Hezbollah.

It was time to start thinking big and regional again. As mentioned above, the Bush war on Iran didn’t pan out. (This was largely because the CIA got its revenge on the neocons by releasing a report stating plainly that Iran was not anything close to a nuclear threat.) So instead the neocons and the Saudis drew the US into what Seymour Hersh called “the Redirection” in 2007, which involved clandestine “dirty war” support for Sunni jihadists to counter Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

Already in 2007, years before the Syrian Civil War, Clean Break scribe David Wurmser was back banging the same old drum. As The Daily Telegraph quoted him:

“’We need to do everything possible to destabilise the Syrian regime and exploit every single moment they strategically overstep,’ said David Wurmser, who recently resigned after four years as Vice President Dick Cheney’s Middle East adviser.

‘That would include the willingness to escalate as far as we need to go to topple the regime if necessary.” He said that an end to Baathist rule in Damascus could trigger a domino effect that would then bring down the Teheran regime.’ (…)

A situation such as last year’s attack on Israel by Hezbollah, which was backed by Iran and Syria, could provide an opportunity for US intervention.

Although Mr Wurmser’s recommendations have not yet become US policy, his hard-line stances on regime change in Iran and Syria are understood to have formed the basis of policy documents approved by Mr Cheney, an uncompromising hawk who is deeply sceptical about the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure on Teheran.”

When the 2011 Arab Spring wave of popular uprisings spread to Syria, the Redirection was put into overdrive. The subsequent US-led dirty war discussed above had the added bonus of drawing Hezbollah into the bloody quagmire to try to save Assad, whose regime now finally seems on the verge of collapse.

Syrian Al-Qaeda Rebels
Syrian Al-Qaeda Rebels

The Clean Break is back, baby! Assad is going, Saddam is gone, and who knows: the Ayatollah may never get his nuclear deal anyway. But most importantly for “securing the realm,” Hezbollah is on the ropes.

And so what if the Clean Break was rather messy and broke so many bodies and buildings along the way? Maybe it’s like what Lenin said about omelets and eggs: you just can’t make a Clean Break without breaking a few million Arabs and a few thousand Americans. And what about all those fanatics now running rampant throughout large swaths of the world thanks to the Clean Break wars, mass-executing Muslim “apostates” and Christian “infidels” and carrying out terrorist attacks on westerners? Again, the Clean Breakers must remind themselves, keep your eye on the omelet and forget the eggs.

Well, dear reader, you and I are the eggs. And if we don’t want to see our world broken any further by the imperial clique of murderers in Washington for the sake of the petty regional ambitions of a tiny clique of murderers in Tel Aviv, we must insist on American politics making a clean break from the neocons, and US foreign policy making a clean break from Israel.

Source: medium.com 

VIDEO: Syria’s Partition – Part of The Greater Israel Plan

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches:

“From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking and is part of the Oded Yinon Plan, published in 1982 also called The Greater Israel Plan. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq:

“The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982).

What is happening today in Syria today, is clearly part of the Zionist plan to create a Greater Israel by expanding its territory as per the Oden Yinon Plan. The fighting between the West and Russia is mainly for the oil and natural resources of the region.

Oden Yinon Plan also known as The Greater Israel Plan. The plan is highlighted in the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDX2AnQRRD8&feature=youtu.be

On the following video, Jewish Zionist General Wesley Clark (RET), talks to an ignorant audience about US/Israeli plans to take out seven Middle East countries.

The plan to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime by force was prepared and placed on Washington’s agenda long before the genesis of the “war against terrorism,” which emerged in the wake of September 11. The first indication of this plan emerged in 1997. A group of pro-Israeli hawkish strategists in Washington D.C. began to put forward the scenario of the invasion of Iraq by manipulating the “neo-con” think-tank, called PNAC (Project for The New American Century). The most notable names in the PNAC were those of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who as defense secretary and vice-president would be the most influential figures in the George W. Bush administration.

 

Op-ed: An Israeli intervention in favor of Syria’s Druze will only push the enemy to attack us

Op-ed: An Israeli intervention in favor of Syria’s Druze will only push the enemy to attack us; therefore, it cannot take place under any circumstances.

“We must prepare our forces for the crucial day, both on the Lebanon front and on the eastern front,” Northern Command chief Aviv Kochavi said this week, and it’s good that he did.

The IDF must prepare for a possibility that the Sunni organizations – the Islamic State and similar groups – will attack our border from the no man’s land which was once called Syria. It’s the IDF’s duty to prepare for any scenario, but definitely not to provide an incentive for an attack on us.

In recent days, we have been witnessing a sort of political-media campaign requiring Israel to intervene in favor of some 700,000 Druze living in southern Syria, not far from the Jordanian border. Such an intervention, if it takes place, will not be a preparation for the crucial day, when the enemy attacks us, but will push the enemy to attack us – and therefore it must not take place under any circumstances.

Syria’s Druze have never had anything to do with us. On the contrary, they were among the central pillars of Bashar Assad’s evil regime, and they are today Hezbollah’s allies. The notorious Samir Kuntar was recently sent by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to get them organized under the protection of the Shiite organization.

 

Residents caught in Syria fighting. 'It is Israel's duty to protect its most valuable asset so far in the face of the regional collapse: Its non-involvement (Photo: AFP)
Residents caught in Syria fighting. ‘It is Israel’s duty to protect its most valuable asset so far in the face of the regional collapse: Its non-involvement (Photo: AFP)

 

It’s unthinkable that Israel of all countries would provide weapons or intervene in favor of Hezbollah’s allies. At that very moment we will be turning ourselves, and rightfully so, into the enemies of Syria’s Sunnis for generations to come.

 

A similar campaign took place immediately after the Six-Day War, when a pro-Druze lobby which gathered around Haifa Mayor Abba Hushi, with defense official Giora Zeid and Israeli Druze, pressed Defense Minister Moshe Dayan to bring back the Druze of the Golan Heights, who had fled to Syria. And indeed, he let them return to their villages. These are the Druze of the Golan, whose leadership was – and still is – hostile towards the State of Israel which saved them.

 

In Syria-Iraq-Lebanon of today, entire sects are annihilated, and more will be annihilated, and so they will hold on to anything, until they abandon it and move on to the next temporary alliance – all for the sake of survival. So only a fool would enter such a treacherous system. We have already learned our lesson, in Lebanon: You hold on to Israel only if there is no other choice, but you abandon it as soon as a new opportunity comes along, and we are left to lick our wounds.

Former Prime Minister Menachem Begin saw Lebanon’s Christians as a massacred minority, and began to help them – first by secretly supplying weapons all the way to a complete invasion by Israel, also in order to remove the Palestinian terrorists. It ended in a lost generation with 18 years of war, and 1,000 dead IDF soldiers. And all that for what? For the Christians who quickly betrayed us and moved on to their next ally? We learned our lesson – this is the communal swamp of the Arab world, we are definitely not part of it, and won’t be either.

Several Druze villages in northern Syria have fallen into the hands of ISIS recently, and the residents rushed to convert to Islam in order to save themselves. These are internal Middle Eastern scores, which will settle themselves amongst themselves, otherwise we will find ourselves in the Sabra and Shatila situation – with Arabs killing Arabs, while Israel is being blamed by the world. If Israel intervenes, a huge global spotlight will immediately be directed at us, and against us, and the Syrian acts of massacre will immediately stick to us.

Syria is 10 times bigger than Lebanon, and is much more dangerous. It is our duty to protect our most valuable asset so far in the face of the regional collapse: Our non-involvement. We are neither Sunnis nor Shiites, so we have been exempt in advance from this world war. Our non-involvement and deterrence will continue to protect us in an elusive reality. The crucial day? That will only come when our border is threatened, not a day earlier.

Published: 06.13.15 / Ynetnews.com