Time is working against the State of Israel

The title of my post is from an article written by Ari Shavit and published in Israeli daily Ha’aretz on May 27, 2010. In his Zionist ‘self-denial’ Ari Shavit called four Israeli military humiliations as “the unilateral withdrawals”. He listed his “lamentable events” as Southern Lebanon in 2000, Gaza Strip in 2005, Olmert’s 34-day Lebanon War of 2006 and Olmert’s 23-day war on Gaza in December-January 2009. According to Ari Shavit these events have “strengthened Hizbullah to an unprecidented extent” and have “lead to a dangerous erosion of Israel’s legitimacy”.

The other threats to the survival of the Zionist entity listed by Ari Shavit are – the militarization of Jew settlers; Palestinians’ lack of interest in the two-state solution and the demographic situation created by Israeli Occupation.

After listing those realities which are threatening the very existence of the Zionist entity – Ari Shavit discusses the ‘self-denial’ nature of the radical Jewish establishment, which believes that by “putting breaks on Barack Obama’s” Middle East initiatives will give Israel plenty of time to pull out of its current mess. For example, “if we don’t give in, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas, the pesident of the ‘State of West Bank’) will give up” or “Israel was established as a fact on the ground, and will succeed as a fact on the ground”. Ari Shavit concluded that the “illusion that military might and economic prosperity are enough to assure our future” is misplaced and dangerous.

Somehow, Ari Shavit’s narration of the Israeli situation reminds me of Israel’s second national anthem (first being the Hativkah or ‘The Hope’) since the so-called Six-Day War of 1967, ‘Jerusalem of Gold’, which its writer, Noami Shemer (d. 2004), had plagiarized from a Basque lullaby, Pello Joxepe (listen it in video below), written almost 50 years before the European Jews established their colony in Palestine in 1948.

I will try to response to some of the ‘myths’ mentioned by Ari Shavit by quoting ONLY the western sources.

1. How Israel was established?: “When you read the history of Israel from an objective source, you discover that it is an outlaw state, created by the poweres that be by stealing the land from its original inhabitants, and systematically exterminating them ever since,” – John Kaminski, an American writer who was first to challenge the official 9/11 story and blamed Israel and its American poodles being behind it. He was thrown out by RBN radio host, John Standimiller, who shouted: “We don’t want to be on ADL’s hit list”.

2. What happened in Southern Lebanon in 2000? In fact, Shias ran the IDF out of Southern Lebanon in 2000. “The Israelis fight like sissies from fighter jets, dropping bunker-buster bombs on defenseless women and children. That’s real manly! They roll across the border in heavily-armored tanks, confident that they’ll be impervious to Hezbollah’s weaker arsenal. Only lately, those tanks have had the surprising habit of turning into human crematoria for the Israeli soldiers inside them. So why don’t they get out of their tanks and fighter jets and go toe-to-toe with Hezbollah like real men? The fourth most powerful military in the world has been given a shiny black eye that no amount of make-up will ever be able to hide. The aura of invincibility they so haughtily projected is now tarnished beyond repair. Bragging rights go to Hezbollah, as Israel eats its long-overdue humble pie. Why do I feel so strongly about this, you might ask? Because Israel has made me, an American taxpayer, complicit in their war crimes, and I, for one, am glad to see them finally getting their comeuppance,” – Joanna Francis, a US Catholic writer and women right activist in Hizbullah 2: Israel 0.

3. Did Israel win in 34-day war in 2006 against Hizbullah? “The funniest bit is the way desperate suckers are trying to spin total defeat of the IDF into some kind of victory. What’s impressed me is that no Israelis are saying that. All the Israeli commentators I’ve read have faced up to the fact that they got hosed. It’s the Americans, totally out of touch with reality and desperate to stay that way, who are finding lame excuses for the IDF, like “Hezbollah didn’t really WIN, since they didn’t wipe out Israel,” – Gary Bretcher in Gophers by TKO: Lessons from Lebanon, The Exile, August 25, 2006.

4. What Israel achieved out of Olmert’s war on Gaza? “Hamas clearly still has plenty of fighting spirit, shown by the defiant words of Meshaal and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya. If it cannot score a military victory, as Hizbullah did in Lebanon in 2006, it aims at scoring a political one, by sitting with all parties involved, to re-open the Rafah Crossing, which was closed when Hamas took over Gaza in 2007,” – Sami Moubayed in Israeli leadership out of touch on Gaza, January 12, 2009.

Dr. Elias Akhleh, a Palestinian-American Christian writer in his May 30 article, The biggest threat to peace in Middle East, wrote:

A build up of heightened tension in the Middle East is escalating in the last few weeks. American and Israeli postures towards Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have become more threatening…… Indeed Iran is, as it has been for last few years, the target of most of the threats and accusation of supporting terrorism. Escalating incitement against Iran the American Defense Department sent Last month (April) to Congress a report on Iran’s military claiming Iran could develop intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the US by 2015.

Ignoring the fact that N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are proven to have nuclear weapons while Iran does not, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose in her speech, to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference at the UN, to focus on Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions putting the whole world at risk as she put it. According to Clinton Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, rather than Israel’s more than 200 nuclear bombs, is destabilizing the Middle East. She called on world’s nations to rally around US efforts to hold Iran, not other nuclear countries, to account.

A Middle Eastern geopolitical alliance between Turkey, Iran, and Syria and Lebanon seems to take shape. This alliance seems to provide a counterbalance for Israel’s military superiority in the region, and a deterrent to any further Israeli terrorist attack against Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria. Israelis are afraid that they may not be able to win a war as convincingly and with impunity as they used to do, especially after their failures in 2006 Lebanese war and 2008 Gaza onslaught. Israel’s whining about Iran’s and Syria’s weapons is meant to portray the Israelis as the poor victims, and to justify any Israeli aggression against its neighbors. It is meant also to draw in the US for its rescue, as usual. Israel wants a joint American/Israel attack against Iran/Syria/Hezbollah axis before their alliance become any stronger. American involvement is the wild card, as it always has been, that will maintain Israel’s superiority in the region.

Obama cited the possibility of nuclear Iran supplying nuclear material to some terrorist groups to be used against the US and its allies. The documented facts proved that the US is the only nuclear country that had secretly supplied nuclear material to terrorist Israel to build its nuclear bombs.
During its short 62 years history Israel had fought 8 wars against its Arab neighbors. It had developed nuclear weapons and did not sign the NPT. It had used chemical and nuclear (DU) weapons against civilians. It violated many UN resolutions. It committed war crimes and many massacres against civilians. It had refused all Arab peaceful gestures and keeps threatening to attack its neighbors. It occupation and destruction of religious sites, especially Islamic, might provoke religious war in the region. Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East.

British to withdraw from Afghanistan

The latest actions of the new “Friends of Israel” Brithish government lead by Jewish David Cameron (his great-great-grandfather Emile Levita, a German Jew banker who migrated to England in 1871) show that it’s thinking of withrawing its armed forces from Occupied Afghanistan. The British Raj got its first taste of Afghan resistance in the 1840s when only one of its 15,000 soldiers, Dr. W. Brydon, a phsysian, was allowed to escape  to deliver a warning to London for taking any such misguided military adventure in the future.

According to British ‘Jewish Chronicle’ (May 12, 2010) – David Cameron’s coalition government is dominated by Jews and the “Friends of Israel”, such as, Nick Cleggy, Deputy Prime Minister; William Hague, Foreign Secretary; George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Liam Fox, Defence Secretary; Michael Gove, Education Secretary; David Laws, Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Iain Duncan-Smith, Department of Works and Pensions. All of them have spoken for their absolute committment to defend the Zionist entity from threats coming from the Islamic Republic, Hizbullah and Hamas and continue fight against the so-called “Islamic terrorism” in Britain and abroad.

Eric Walberg posted an article on his blog, titled ‘Afghanistan: Reading between the lines’, on May 26, 2010:

Over 70 per cent of Britons want the troops home. British Foreign Minister William Hague made his first foreign destination Kabul, where he called for the withdrawal of troops as soon as possible. Accompanying Hague, Tory Defence Secretary Liam Fox seconded the new approach, saying, “We have to reset expectations and timelines. National security is the focus now. We are not a global policeman. We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th century country. We are there so the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened”. Britain’s new coalition government also announced it would reduce the defence budget by at least 25 per cent as part of massive cuts across the board to try to save the bankrupt British economy.

Cleverly taking advantage of the electorate’s revulsion with the war, Hague’s bold call for withdrawal was no doubt sparked by Karzai’s address at the US Institute of Peace last week, where he once again predicted an extended US commitment to Afghanistan that would last “beyond the military activity right now … into the future, long after we have retired, and perhaps into our grandsons’ and great-grandsons’ — and great-granddaughters’ — generations. This is something the Afghan people have been seeking for a long, long time.” Clearly, unlike the unborn great-granddaughters of Afghans, the Brits want no part of any such plans.

 The only way withdrawal will be possible, of course, is if accommodation is reached with the Taliban. So it is no surprise that talk of peace talks  continues to make headlines. What was referred to by Al-Jazeera as the second meeting between Taliban and Afghan government officials hosted by the Maldives (a Muslim statelet that actually issues visas to Afghans on arrival) took place last week. It was organised by Feroz and Jarir Hekmatyar, the son and son-in-law of Gulbadin Hekmatyar, an Afghan warlord and leader of the insignificant Hezb-e-Islami party.

None of the 130,000 foreign troops has any understanding of Afghanistan ’s culture and traditions, or even speaks one of the local languages. Their only communication with locals is through the barrel of a gun. Only six per cent of locals polled support the current Kandahar offensive. Afghans can only take pride in repelling these unwanted invaders.

As if a sign from Allah, Hague and British media idol David Beckham had their flight to Kandahar diverted mid-air to Helmand province, when the Kandahar airport came under attack. Rather than Karzai, it is Bashardost, the angry British troops and their mounting body count that Cameron and Hague are now heeding, and it is about time.

Rabbi: ‘What’s holding Obama from attacking Iran?’

Jewish Lobby propaganda to push Washington into another suicidal military adventure in the Middle East on behalf of Israel has reached in its final stages. The Lobby is carrying more vicious propaganda than its carried out against Taliban (in 2001) and Saddam Husein (in 2002).

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reformed Jewish movement in America – wrote an Op-Ed in Jewish magazine FORWARD on May 19, 2010, under the heading “Geting Serious About Iran” in which the cunning Rabbi blamed Tehran being behind all the Middle East terrorism and a stumbling block in Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the native Palestians. He believes that a nuclear Iran may not be a threat to the US, but it certainly is a grave threat to the Zionist entity: “Even if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons and never use them, the danger to Israel would still be intolerable. Israel cannot live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran. In the minds of its own citizens and of the world community, Israel would cease to be a safe place to live. In addition, any possibility of an Arab-Israeli peace might disappear forever, as moderate Arab states drift out of America’s orbit and into Iran’s,” he wrote. In other words, the Rabbi believes that for the survivalof Israel depends on it being the un-challengeabl bully in the region.

The Rabbi also believes that the Zionist regime with world’s 4th largest army – cannot achieve victory over the Islamic Republic without the the direct military involvement of United States: “There is no conceivable solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran that will not require American leadership. All of the options  – whether economic sanctions or military action — are impossible without American support,” he wrote.

The Turkish-Iran-Brazil declaration is not much  different than the Washington’s draft last October. However, the ZOG in Washington never expected Tehran to reverse the ‘smoking gun’ on it. So it was rejected outright by Obama administration – calling it an Iranian tactic to delay the fourth round of UNSC sanctions against it. The US-sponsored draft included boycott of oil refinery equipment supply and freezing of Iran’s foreign assests which America & Co. believe fund the 125,000-strong Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been classified as a terrorist group by US State Department. Benjamin Netanyahu had assured Obama that such ‘Crippling Sanctions’ would push Iranian people to rise against their Islamist government. Being affraid to be called ‘an anti-Semite’, I wonder how the Zionazi leader reached to that conclusion. It’s true that Islamic Iran imports 40% of refined oil for its local consumption – but Ahmadinejad has already given ‘go-ahead’ orders for the construction of seven new refineries, expected to be in operation by 2013 – which will produce enough refined oil to stop not only Iranian oil import but Tehran would be able to export some of it too. The freeze on Iran’s foreign exchange had been put before and have failed miserably. In 1980, Washington had frozen Iran’s foreign exchange worth US$14 billion (currently worth more than US$28 billion). Early this year, Iran’s $2 bllion from Citibank was put on hold to pay as compensation to the families of US Marines killed or injured in Israeli false-flag operation in Beirut in 1983.

On international level – Brazil’s president Lula received Chinese agreement but an arrogant response from Barack Obama. Turkish Prime Minister said: “The countries criticizing the accord are envious because Turkey and Brazil brokered and pull off a diplomatic success that other countries had been negotiating for many years without results”. 

The  Turkey-Iran-Brazil nuclear deal received conflicting reviews in Iran. Iran’s mass-circulated daily Kayhan called the deal Ahmadinejad gpvernment’s power and popularity and said that some people might consider the deal as “Iran’s backing down from its previous position” it’s actually a victory for the Islamic Republic. The daily Jam-e-Jam which have been critical of some of Ahmadinejad’s policies in the past, called the deal as a “great victory”. Fars News also called it a “great achievement”. Iran Daily called the deal “a diplomatic checkmate” in which the Obama administration was defeated by Iran’s wise diplomatic maneuvering. Even some of the leaders of the pro-American ‘Green Revolution’ wrote a letter on May 18, saying they “would support the nuclear fuel deal out of considerations for national interests” and expressed hope that this deal would put an end to the western “nuclear adventurism”.

However, not everyone’s reaction to the nuclear deal was positive. Daily Jomhuri Eslami, a paper considered to be the voice of the “conservatives and the moderates” – ran an editorial on May 18, harshly criticizing the deal as “backing down” on the part of Iran. Jomhuri Eslami accuses the government of ignoring the specific guidelines of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei regarding any uranium exchange deal. According to Jomhuri Eslami, Ayatollah Khamenei had set out three rules for any uranium swap agreement: 1- The exchange of low enriched uranium for high enriched fuel must take place simultaneously; 2- Any exchange must take place on Iranian soil; and 3- The amount of uranium to be exchanged must be determined according to Iran’s needs. Jomhuri Eslami claims that all three rules were violated by the recent Ahmadinejad deal.