The Tel Aviv regime has indicted Sheikh Raed Salah, a cleric who supported Palestinian protests over Israel’s controversial security measures imposed last month at a holy site in occupied Jerusalem al-Quds.
The Israeli court formally charged Salah on Thursday with incitement of terror over speeches he delivered encouraging Palestinians to protest for the right of holding prayers inside the Haram al-Sharif compound, which is home to the revered al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam.
Israel had earlier in the week extended Salah’s detention, nearly a week after he was arrested. Prosecutors had demanded the renewed detention, saying they intended to bring charges against the 58-year-old cleric.
Israel’s security measures, which came after the July 14 deadly shooting and killing of two Israeli policemen, sparked some unprecedented protests and sit-in gatherings in occupied East Jerusalem al-Quds as Palestinians refused to accept the restrictions for nearly two weeks.
Israel was later forced to remove metal detectors and cameras installed at the gates and Palestinians ended sit-ins and prayers outside the mosque.
Salah had served for nine months in Israeli jails before he was released in January. He was previously charged with “incitement of violence” and “incitement of racism.” His latest arrest sparked condemnations in the occupied territories as his supporters said it was part of a political witch hunt aimed to silence dissent.
Israelis have also banned Salah’s group, the Islamic Movement in Israel, in 2015 for allegedly stoking violence.
BETHLEHEM – A field researcher for prisoners’ rights group Addameer was detained during an overnight raid on Wednesday from his home in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Kufr Aqab, according to the group.
Salah Hammouri, 32, who holds dual Palestinian-French citizenship, was detained and transferred to Israel’s interrogation center at the Russian compound, where his detention was then extended until Sunday.
An Israeli police spokesperson told Ma’an that he was “not familiar” with the case.
According to Addameer, Hammouri was a former prisoner of Israel for seven years, and was released as part of the Wafa al-Ahrar prisoners exchange deal in 2011.
Addameer added that the East Jerusalem resident was banned from entering the occupied West Bank until Sept. 2016, and that his wife is currently banned by Israeli authorities from entering Palestine or Israel.
The group said it considers the detention “an attack against Palestinian civil society organizations and human rights defenders.”
“It also constitutes one arrest in the context of continuous arrest campaigns against Palestinians,” Addameer said, before demanding Hammouri’s release and the release of all Palestinian political prisoners.
Hassan Safadi, a Palestinian activist and media coordinator for Addameer, has also been held in administrative detention — Israel’s controversial policy of imprisonment without charge or trial — for more than a year.
Safadi has been held by Israel since May 1, 2016 after being detained at the Allenby Bridge between the occupied West Bank and Jordan, when he was interrogated by the Israeli army for 40 days.
Israel’s widely condemned policy of administrative detention allows internment without charge or trial in maximum six-month long renewable intervals based on undisclosed evidence that even a detainee’s lawyer is barred from viewing.
According to prisoners’ rights group Addameer, 6,128 Palestinians were detained by Israel as of July, 450 of whom were held in administrative detention. The group has estimated that some 40 percent of Palestinian men will be detained by Israel at some point in their lives.
For Netanyahu and other Israeli officials the chief concern was never the black clad death cult which filmed itself beheading Americans and burning people alive. “Let the Sunni evil prevail,” they say.
Israel is threatening to escalate military action in Syria against perceived Iranian interests. This week Netanyahu declared, “we will act when necessary according to our red lines” while hinting he prefers ISIS presence in Syria as opposed to Iran aligned fighters at his border. This comes as ISIS is now crumbling, and at a time when most world leaders of nations driving the external proxy war in Syria have toned down their rhetoric regarding the future fate of the Assad government.
After years of a regular drumbeat of bellicose statements emanating from the West and repeat talk of “Assad must go”, “red lines”, and years of constantly failed predictions that “regime demise is imminent,” there now seems a general acceptance that the Syrian government has emerged victorious in the 6-year long conflict. Not only did Trump this summer order the closure of the CIA’s regime change program which targeted Assad, but it appears even Gulf nations – lately embroiled in their own inter-GCC political civil war and airing of dirty laundry – have been forced to temper their rhetoric. Turkey also has reluctantly shifted its priorities in Syria after its well-known and documented regime change machinations – which included facilitating the transfer of tens of thousands of foreign jihadists (the core of which joined ISIS) across its southern border – have largely backfired. International media too, generally reflecting undeniable geopolitical realities, have bluntly headlined stories with “And the winner is: Assad” and “We have to accept that Assad will win in Syria” and “How Assad is Winning”.
But it appears Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t get the memo. On Wednesday the Israeli Prime Minister told Russian President Putin that Israel would not tolerate an Iranian presence in Syria and further signaled willingness to go to war in Syria to curtail Iranian influence. “Iran is already well on its way to controlling Iraq, Yemen and to a large extent is already in practice in control of Lebanon,” Netanyahu told Putin, adding further that, “We cannot forget for a single minute that Iran threatens every day to annihilate Israel. Israel opposes Iran’s continued entrenchment in Syria. We will be sure to defend ourselves with all means against this and any threat.”
Image source: Sputnik International
The two leaders met for three hours in the Black Sea resort of Sochi – their sixth such meeting since September 2015. Putin did not respond publicly to the provocative words on Syria during the portion of the meeting open to reporters. Netanyahu later told Israeli reporters covering the meeting that:
Bringing Shi’ites into the Sunni sphere will surely have many serious implications both in regard to refugees and to new terrorist acts. We want to prevent a war and that’s why it’s better to raise the alarm early in order to stop deterioration.
Netanyahu’s reference to “the Sunni sphere” came after he summarized the closed door part of the discussion as dealing with “Iran’s attempt to establish a foothold in Syria in the places where ISIS was defeated and is leaving.” Netanyahu’s comments are a reflection of an extremely disturbing view which has become so prominent within Israeli defense circles as to be considered establishment: that ISIS is ultimately preferable to Iran and Assad. This is to say that continued ISIS presence in Syria and Iraq is a viable option and possibly better than pro-Iranian or even Russian spheres of influence in the Israeli prime minister’s mind. Of course, this “lesser evil is ISIS” view is nothing new. In Israel, for example, there are even “respected” think tanks tied in with major public universities which openly call for allowing ISIS to thrive in Syria.
The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, for example, which is one of Israel’s most internationally visible and influential think tanks (and located on the campus of Israel’s second largest university), published a policy paper last year which made a direct appeal to Israel’s Western partners with the unambiguous message contained in the essay’s title: “The Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake.” Author and Director of the Begin-Sadat Centre, Efraim Inbar, argued against a Western military campaign to destroy ISIS while envisioning the group as an effective tool in sowing terror and chaos in Iran and Syria, with the added benefit of keeping Russia bogged down in defense of the Assad government. Inbar spelled this out clearly:
The continuing existence of IS [Islamic State] serves a strategic purpose. The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful tool in undermining Tehran’s ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.
While acknowledging the Islamic State’s utter genocidal brutality, the paper concluded:
The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity.
A policy paper published by an influential Israeli think tank which contracts with NATO argues that ISIS is a “useful tool” for Israel’s strategic defense.
Various current and former Israeli defense officials have echoed this point of view over the years, including former Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren, who in 2014 surprised the audience at Colorado’s Aspen Ideas Festival when he said in comments related to ISIS that, “the lesser evil is the Sunnis over the Shias.” Oren, while articulating Israeli defense policy, fully acknowledged he thought ISIS was “the lesser evil”. Likewise, for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials the chief concern was never the black clad death cult which filmed itself beheading Americans and burning people alive, but the possibility of, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “a Shia and pro-Iran territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut” and establishment of “an Iranian radical empire.”
Former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren: “Let the Sunni evil prevail.”
Of course, such a perspective also tends to assume that Syrian and Iraqi sovereignty is non-existent (but instead seen as a mere extension of Iran and Russia), even as both countries now stand in better position in terms of operational sovereignty with Syria having liberated Aleppo and Iraq having regained Mosul. And that’s perhaps why there’s increasingly uninhibited truth-telling in Israel, the Gulf, and D.C. these days: the party is over in terms of the hoped for regime change in Syria. Perhaps now there’s simply more blunt and open talk wherein assumptions are laid bare as introspective strategists realign their talking points while still eyeing the ultimate neocon prize of regime change in Iran.
Though still rarely acknowledged in international reports, Israel has engaged in overt acts of war in Syria since at least 2012 and 2013, when it launched a massive missile attack against a Syrian defense technology facility in Jamraya outside of Damascus. In 2016 Israel went so far as to target Damascus International Airport, killing a well-known Hezbollah commander. In a significant admission last week, the head of Israel’s air force acknowledged nearly one hundred IDF attacks on convoys inside Syria over the course of the past 5 years. Earlier this summer Netanyahu himself was caught on a hot mic bragging that Israel had struck Syrian targets at least “a dozen times”. And this is to say nothing of Israel’s covert support to al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria’s south, which has reportedly involved weapons transfers and treatment of wounded jihadists in Israeli hospitals, the latter which was widely promoted in photo ops involving Netanyahu himself. As even former Acting Director of the CIA Michael Morell once directly told the Israeli public, Israel’s “dangerous game” in Syria consists in getting in bed with al-Qaeda in order to fight Shia Iran.
Perhaps the biggest blow to Israeli plans for rolling back Iranian presence in Syria came mid-summer of this year, when Trump agreed to a southwest Syria ‘de-escalation zone’ with Russia, which would necessarily involve Iranian cooperation. The agreement implicitly acknowledges Iran’s troop presence in Syria as legitimate, and as reported at the time further “ignored Israel’s positions almost completely.” But analysts are in general agreement that the US-Russia brokered deal has been relatively successful and a step in the right direction. Even the Reuters report on this week’s Netanyahu-Putin meeting seemed to acknowledge the deal’s effectiveness:
Russia has so far shown forbearance toward Israel, setting up a military hotline to prevent their warplanes or anti-aircraft units clashing accidentally over Syria.
But given that Israel has already invested itself so heavily in the push to remove Assad while routinely launching attacks on Hezbollah with impunity, it is unlikely to disengage from Syria anytime soon, even as close Western allies publicly change their tune. Netanyahu’s brazen words to Putin that ‘preventative’ escalation in Syria to destroy what Israeli defense officials commonly call the “Iranian land bridge” (or the so-called ‘Shia crescent’) may in reality be empty diplomatic posturing, yet it does reveal increased Israeli desperation as even the West is seeming to ignore Netanyahu’s repeatedly declared “red lines”.
Regardless, Netanyahu remains the Syria regime change lobby’s best hope. Already, within less than 24 hours of Netanyahu’s Russia visit, neocon columnists are calling for him to unilaterally “take action”:
If he really expects others , especially Putin, that he means business this time, he will have to go beyond words and into actions, as clearly Israel could not and should not allow Iran to turn South Syria into another South Lebanon.
With ISIS folding, refugees returning to their homes, stability taking root over large swathes of Syria, and successful de-escalation zones holding over parts of the country, it appears that only Netanyahu (along with terror groups like ISIS) is left unhappy in the region. Yet Syria continues on its current hopeful trajectory and path to recovery.
Iran and Saudi Arabia will soon exchange diplomatic visits, Tehran said, in a possible sign of tensions easing after the arch rivals cut ties last year.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told local media the visits would take place after this year’s hajj pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, which is due to start at the beginning of September.
“Visas have been delivered for the two sides. The final steps need to be completed so our diplomats can go inspect our embassy and consulate in Saudi Arabia and for Saudi diplomats to come inspect their embassy and consulate,” Zarif told news agency ISNA.
Zarif urged Riyadh to reconsider its foreign policy.
“Saudi Arabia’s behavior goes against its own interests. We want security and stability throughout the region and insist on the need to fight against the dangers that threaten us all,” he said.
“Saudi Arabia has not benefited from two years of war and horrific acts against the Yemeni people, on the contrary,” he said. “It’s the same in Syria or in Bahrain. We hope they will choose another path.”
An Israeli delegation will be received at the White House this week. The agenda: Syria.
The three members of the Israeli delegation are:
• Yossi Cohen (photo), Head of Mossad (Foreign Intelligence);
• General Herzl Halevi, Head of Aman (Military Intelligence); and
• Colonel Zohar Palti, Head of Military and Political Affairs at the Ministry of Defense.
This delegation will meet with the following US representatives:
• General H.R. McMaster, National Security Advisor;
• Dina Powell, Vice National Security Advisor; and
• Jason Greenblatt, The President’s representative for international negotiations.
Israël, which has already secured a prohibition on Iranian troops or troops from the Hezbollah being present in Southern Syria, intends to use this visit as an opportunity to present compelling grounds for closing down the Silk Route. Israel’s justification? Teheran could use this route to supply arms to the Hezbollah.
The three members of the Israeli delegation and Trump’s representative (Jason Greenblatt), all four of them are Jewish Orthodox. As for Dina Powell, she was involved in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri and planning the “Arab Springs”.
Unfounded speculations by US politicians about alleged supplies of arms to the Taliban by Russia are aimed at concealing the truth of America’s obvious defeat in Afghanistan, which Washington is still struggling to postpone, Afghan political observer Vahid Mojda told Sputnik.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s claim that Russia is arming the Taliban bears no relation to reality, Vahid Mojda, a political observer and former Afghan Foreign Ministry official under the Taliban government, told Sputnik.
“I talked with Talibs about it and they told me that neither Russia nor any other countries provided any assistance to them,” Mojda said in an interview with Sputnik Afghanistan. “They [said] they could get Kalashnikov assault rifles in Afghanistan at a very cheap price. They can buy [the rifles] directly from the Afghan Army. The Taliban usually draws on corrupt [Afghan] politicians to buy weapons from the Afghan military for bribes.”
On Tuesday, during a press briefing, Tillerson claimed that Russia was providing weapons to the Taliban.
“With respect to the comment about Russia, to the extent, Russia is supplying arms to the Taliban, that is a violation, obviously, of international norms and it’s a violation of UN Security Council norms,” Tillerson said, “We certainly would object to that and call Russia’s attention to that. If anyone is going to supply arms, it needs to be through the Afghan government.”
However, the US secretary of state didn’t refer to any credible evidence to back his claim.
In response to Tillerson’s unfounded allegations Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova highlighted Thursday that Moscow has provided no support to the Taliban movement in Afghanistan.
She pointed out that Moscow has repeatedly rejected similar accusations and has demanded Washington provide evidence that it supports the militant movement.
“There is none. Such statements do not contribute to the establishment of effective cooperation between our countries on Afghanistan,” the spokeswoman stressed.
“If Talibs received weapons from other countries it wouldn’t be Kalashnikov rifles: what the Taliban needs are anti-aircraft guns,” Mojda underscored in his interview with Sputnik. “If the Taliban obtains these [anti-aircraft] weapons, the US will find itself in a heap of trouble in Afghanistan.”
Why does Washington accuse Russia of arming the Taliban?
Mojda assumed that the US is apparently trying to drive a wedge between various groups within the Taliban.
“They are doing this to sow discord among the Taliban by convincing militants that some Talibs are connected to Russia. This is a propaganda campaign against the Taliban,” he noted.
On the other hand, according to the political observer, Washington is making attempts to divert attention away from the obvious fact that the US is losing its war in Afghanistan.
“By pointing the finger of blame to Russia, Pakistan and other countries, they [the US] want to conceal their defeat in Afghanistan,” Mojda stressed. “The goal of Washington’s strategy is not to win in Afghanistan, but to postpone the US’ defeat.”
Commenting on the issue, Russian Senator Frants Klintsevich, the first deputy chairman of the Parliament’s upper chamber’s Defense and Security Committee, denounced Tillerson’s allegations as groundless.
“The United States continues to measure others by its own standards,” Klintsevich told reporters. “The logic of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who accused Russia of arming the Taliban, is absolutely ‘one-dimensional’: [he believes that] if the Americans supported [Afghan] Mujahedin by all means available — including weapon supplies — during the Soviet Union’s Afghan war in the 1980s, Russia cannot but do completely the same. Of course, no proof was presented [to confirm the claim].”
It is not the first time that US policy makers and mainstream media have made unfounded claims about Moscow’s alleged assistance to the Taliban.In March, US Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, who is also NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, claimed that he had seen “Russian influence growing” on Taliban insurgents. He went even further suggesting that possibly Moscow could have been helping “supply” the militants. Scaparrotti didn’t specify what kinds of supplies he meant.
A month later the head of US and international forces in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, stepped up with a similar claim saying that he was “not refuting” reports that Russia was providing support, “including weapons,” to the Taliban.
Neither Scaparrotti nor Nicholson cited any evidence to confirm their assumptions.
Predictably, US mainstream media immediately blew up the story.
Nearly a month ago CNN reported that it obtained a video showing sniper rifles and heavy machine guns “stripped of any means of identifying their origin.”
The media outlet presumed that the rifles appeared to look like Russian-made Kalashnikov guns. Still, the report admitted that “the videos don’t provide incontrovertible proof of the trade.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry’s reply was not long in coming.
“We have said many times that the allegations regarding Russian support for the Taliban, which some Western media make and some Afghan media repeat, are absolutely groundless,” the Foreign Ministry said in an official statement. “So far, neither the Afghan authorities, nor the US and NATO commands in Afghanistan have presented any facts to prove these allegations.”
The ministry called attention to the fact that the “Taliban drove American-made Humvees in a recent attack on the base of the Afghan National Security Forces in Helmand.”
“It is easy to imagine the conclusion that can be made from this news based on CNN’s logic,” the statement said.
Next month, hundreds across the country will participate in “Out of the Darkness” walks to raise awareness about suicide and to support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP).
AFSP and similar groups like the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and Active Minds claim there are “stigmas” and “barriers” to treatment for mental illness and there is not enough “awareness.” Two facts are missing in their messaging.
First, with as much as a fourth of some U.S. populations on antidepressants and ubiquitous quizzes and ads for them, there is neither a lack of “awareness” ––or are the drugs working. Why are suicides at an all time high at the same time psychoactive drug use is at an all time high?
Secondly, the groups are funded by Pharma to increase drug use and are widely considered unethical front groups, also called astroturf.
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, founded in 1987, is steeped in Pharma money. In 2008, AFSP merged with the Suicide Prevention Action Network USA or SPAN which had announced in 2004 that “SPAN USA’s efforts to develop and expand its suicide survivor network received a major boost with a recent grant from Eli Lilly and Company Foundation,” and “The foundation generously provided funding to support training, education and collaborative opportunities for SPAN USA’s existing network and enable further expansion into all 50 states.” No lack of transparency there.
In AFSP’s 2009 report, its leading donors were Pharma companies and it attributes a new screening project to “funding from Eli Lilly and Co., Janssen, Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.” It also credits Eli Lilly for printing its brochures. No lack of transparency there, either.
In 2011, AFSP appointed psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff president of the organization until his troubles began. Nemeroff became the subject of a congressional inquiry and was found to have so much unreported Pharma income, the $9.3 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to study depression that he managed was suspended, which happens rarely. He left Emory University in disgrace.
A 1999 textbook written by Nemeroff and his colleague Alan Schatzberg was found, in 2010, to be written and funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Both Nemeroff and Schatzberg remain at AFSP and are termed “leaders.”
AFSP’s 2012 annual report reveals a $100,000 donation from Forest Laboratories, and donations from Eli Lilly, Pfizer and five other Pharma companies.
“AFSP also boasts the honor of having a former president – David Shaffer – who was responsible for leading the development of the now somewhat infamous TeenScreen,” writes Mad in America. “TeenScreen is a controversial tool that Marcia Angell (Harvard Professor and former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine)…described as, “just a way to put more people on prescription drugs.”
The now defunct TeenScreen which screened young people for early signs of depression had “ties to the pharmaceutical industry,” reported the Scientific American.
Screening and intervention are widely accepted now to be nothing but sales tools—even to the mainstream medical establishment. In “How We Do Harm,” Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical and scientific officer of the American Cancer Society and an oncologist, devotes a chapter to how prostate screening is often done just for money sometimes with disastrous and deadly results.
AFSP’s annual report names Pharma companies Sunovion, Janssen, Forest, Pfizer and Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals as financial donors. AFSP also named Phil Satow, former Forest executive, to its Project 2025 Advisory Committee. Satow has worked for many Pharma companies and is co-founder and board chair of the very pro-drugJED Foundation.
Preventing Suicides or Causing Them?
While SSRIs can be useful in some depressions, they can also cause suicide–a fact written clearly on all their package inserts. In 2005, after meeting with parents whose children killed themselves on the drugs and public health officials, the FDA attached the following “Black Box” warning to SSRI antidepressants.
Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of PAXIL [one SSRI] or any other antidepressant in a child, adolescent, or young adult must balance this risk with the clinical need. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. Families and caregivers should be advised of the need for close observation and communication with the prescriber.
One chilling demonstration of the danger to young adults is seen in the military where SSRI use and suicides have reached astounding proportions. More than a third of the deaths were in soldiers who never deployed so combat stress was not a factor.
Both NAMI and Active Minds swoop down on campuses after suicides to suggest that not enough antidepressants are being prescribed–despite the clear dangers posed for that age group and sometimes without knowing if the victim was already on the pushed drugs. To remove the fabricated stigma to mental problems, Pharma funded groups visit public schools to suggest more young people should be on drugs. They even produce posters with the message that mental illness is “cool.” Their efforts may not help the young people but they sure help Pharma.
Head of the relief department of the Algerian Scholars Association, Yahya Sari, said on Tuesday that negotiations with Egyptian authorities to allow the Algerian humanitarian convoy to enter the Gaza Strip have reached a dead end.
Sari told Quds Press that the convoy is preparing to return to Algeria as soon as possible so that the medicines are not damaged due to heat.
He pointed out that Egyptian authorities have given their reasons for preventing the entry of the convoy into Gaza, but he did not disclose them.
The 14-truck convoy, carrying medical aid worth over $4 million, contained medicines, medical supplies, ambulances and electricity generators urgently needed for Gaza’s hospitals.
The convoy named (Algeria-Gaza 4) arrived on Wednesday at the Egyptian side of Rafah crossing in preparation for entering the Gaza Strip, but it was asked on Friday evening to return to the Egyptian city of Port Said despite having all the documents required to deliver aid to Gaza.
Ammar Talbi, the deputy head of the Algerian Scholars Association, appealed two days ago to Egyptian authorities to expedite the entry of the Algerian convoy into the coastal enclave fearing that some medicines may deteriorate due to the high temperature.
Talbi said in a statement that the convoy was purely humanitarian and that it left Algeria after obtaining the approvals of both Algerian and Egyptian authorities in early February.
The Israeli intelligence service Mossad has been accused of assassinating a Palestinian man living in Sweden, according to Israeli daily Haaretz.
Mohammad Tahsin Al-Bazam, a former Gaza resident, was found shot in the head in the Swedish town of Limmared on Saturday. His family is believed to have ties to Hamas, prompting Palestinian sources to suspect Israeli involvement in his death.
A statement released on Sunday by the Swedish police confirmed that as yet they could not ascertain a motive for the intrusion.
“Reports said several people wearing masks entered the apartment through a balcony and shot the man inside. They disappeared after the shooting as quickly as they arrived.”
After the shooting Al-Bazam was taken to a local hospital, and then flown to a larger facility in Gothenburg, but died of his injuries.
Al-Bazam’s brother served in Hamas’ military wing and as a bodyguard to the group’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. His father is currently the spokesman for Hamas’ Homeland Security Office in Gaza, but stated in an interview that his son had been living in Sweden for over a decade and was not involved in political activity.
Hamas believes Mossad to be responsible for the deaths of numerous of its members over the years, including the assassination of a senior member, Mazen Fuqaha in March. Israel has never confirmed or denied reports but states that it reserves the right to fight alleged terrorists even beyond its borders.
Conservatives in America are leading a campaign to convince US President Donald Trump to fire his National Security Adviser, Israel Today reported on Tuesday. They accuse H R McMaster of being hostile to Israel and pro-Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian nuclear deal.
One of the leading figures of the campaign is Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organisation of America (ZOA), as well as the billionaire Zionist Sheldon Adelson. The ZOA and supporters of Israel in the White House are afraid that McMaster will use his position to disrupt Trump’s pro-Israel policies.
Adelson, the Israeli newspaper pointed out, was a major donor for Trump’s presidential campaign. While it said that he has denied that he was involved in a campaign criticising McMaster, it added that he had acknowledged in an email to Klein that he did not know much about the National Security Adviser but now supports efforts to remove him from the White House.
For the first time ever, the US and South Korea will be conducting war games meant to prepare their militaries for the possibility of a nuclear war, according to a South Korean Defense Ministry official. North Korea has previously called the planned military exercises a provocation that could lead to nuclear war.
No other details were given by the Defense Ministry spokesperson, who was speaking to South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo. However, the war game does come in the wake of North Korea’s first-ever test of a long range intercontinental ballistic missile in July, as well as reports that the country might be capable of fitting a nuclear payload onto it.
Ulchi Freedom Guardian, a 10-day military exercise that this summer involves 17,500 American and 50,000 South Korean soldiers (as well as contingents from seven other US allies), has been an annual event for 41 straight years. The focus of the exercises is to defend South Korea from a mock invasion from the North.
Michelle Thomas, a US military spokeswoman, said of the exercises: “It’s to prepare if something big were to occur and we needed to protect [South Korea].”
North Korea traditionally condemns the drills as provocative, and this year is no different. State news agency KCNA called Ulchi Freedom Guardian an exercise “aimed to ignite a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula at any cost.”
South Korean President Moon Jae-in said that the exercises were not meant “at all to heighten military tension on the Korean Peninsula as these drills are held annually and are of a defensive nature. North Korea should not exaggerate our efforts to keep peace nor should they engage in provocations that would worsen the situation, using [the exercise] as an excuse.”
China chimed in to the contrary, with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying criticizing the drills during a regular press conference. Hua called them “not helpful to the de-escalation of the current tensions and the efforts made by all relevant parties to promote peace talks.” She added that the situation on the peninsula was “highly complex, sensitive and delicate” and that South Korea and the US shouldn’t “add fuel to the fire.”
Despite tensions with North Korea at their highest in decades, US Forces Korea has downsized American participation in the exercise from 2016: 17,500 American soldiers are participating in the 2017 exercises, down from 25,000 the previous year.
Hua urged both sides to focus on more “constructive actions” instead, such as accepting China’s proposal of “suspension for suspension.” The solution, proposed by Beijing in March, calls for North Korea to stop all missile tests in exchange for the US and South Korea stopping all military exercises.
Pyongyang welcomed the plan, while Washington and Seoul rejected it. American military experts called the deal overwhelmingly advantageous for North Korea, as they get to continue their own military exercises and thus better prepare for offensive or defensive warfare.
“It is hard to imagine why the United States would accept [suspension for suspension], because of the vulnerability it would create,” said Bruce Bennett, a senior defense researcher at Rand Corp., to the Charlotte Observer.
Hua also added that the “tense situation on the Korean Peninsula has shown a slight sign of abatement recently.” This may have been a reference to General Joe Dunford, the United States’ highest ranking military officer and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visiting China earlier in August to meet with President Xi Jinping.
During his visit, the US and China agreed to strengthen military ties and the lines of communication to help find a resolution to the North Korean crisis.
You may like Donald Trump or not but he will go down in history as the President who made decisions of fundamental importance for his country and the world. Nobody else but Donald Trump will determine the configuration of US future nuclear arsenal, which is to go through massive modernization. Modernizing the US’s entire nuclear arsenal would cost $400 billion by 2026, according to a figure released by the Congressional Budget Office. The United States will modernize nearly every part of its nuclear arsenal, including replacement warheads, upgraded command-and-control systems, and other improvements across the strategic triad. Kicked off in April to be finished by the end of the year, the Nuclear Posture Review is underway and the final decisions are to be taken during the Donald Trump’s tenure.
The issue is being debated, with new visions presented and new proposals put forward. Concerned over America «fallen behind on nuclear weapon capacity», the Supreme Commander-in-Chief wants the US to stay at the «top of the pack». The US Air Force is studying the options for «variable yield» bombs – nukes that can be dialed down to blow up an area as small as a neighborhood, or dialed up for a much larger punch.
Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes that the future of nuclear deterrence lies, at least in part, in smaller nuclear weapons that the United States might actually use. «Whether we do it with a ballistic missile or re-entry vehicle or other tool in the arsenal, it’s important to have variable-yield nukes,» he said. Speaking at the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute at the Capitol Hill Club on August 3, the US number two military leader confirmed that as part of the Pentagon’s ongoing nuclear posture review, it is looking at a new generation of low-yield «mini-nukes» in order to ensure that the threat from America’s nuclear arsenal remains credible.
He thinks a conventional response to a nuclear strike would not be sufficient to deter the attacker. It’s not tactical or battlefield weapons the general is talking about but rather munitions with explosive force increased or reduced electronically through a dial-a-yield (variable yield) system. This combination of accuracy and low-yield will make them the most usable nuclear weapons in America’s arsenal to ensure global domination.
The threat of mutually assured destruction doesn’t work against smaller nations, such as North Korea and Iran, in the way that it used to against Russia or China. The US needs to be able launch a nuclear attack on an adversary without global consequences.
In practical terms, accurate munitions with low yield can destroy any specific target without devastation indiscriminate killing of civilians through explosive force or radioactive fallout. According to some estimates, a US counterforce strike against China’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos using high-yield weapons detonated at ground blast would kill approximately 3-4 million people. Using low-yield weapons and airbursts, the figure drops to just 700 fatalities.
In December, the Defense Science Board urged the Pentagon to incorporate low-yield and variable-yield reentry vehicles into future ICBM designs. The Air Force had not yet made a final decision on that. Discriminate employment options could be provided by a suite of low-yield, special-effects warheads (enhanced radiation, earth penetration, electromagnetic pulse, and others), including a shorter-range cruise missile that could be delivered by F-35s.
Variable yield with in combination with great accuracy means less destruction. But there is the reverse side of the medal. The smaller yields and better targeting can make the arms more tempting to use — even to use first, rather than in retaliation. Gen. James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes that «what going smaller does,» he acknowledged, «is to make the weapon more thinkable». The Federation of American Scientists, has also argued that the high accuracy and low destructive settings meant military commanders might press to use the bomb in an attack, knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited.
So, the introduction of low yield accurate weapons (the nuclear utilization target selection – NUTS) asserts that such a thing as a limited nuclear war does exist and it is possible for a limited nuclear exchange to occur. So, the door is open for introducing nuclear warfare into local conflicts, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, you name it. But a tiny nuke still has a larger impact than any conventional massive ordnance air blast (MOAB). The temptation to use more here and there will be irresistible to gradually turn the planet into a wasteland. Mutual mass destruction would occur at a slower rate, but it would still happen as mini-nukes gradually create the same amassed yield as normal nukes.
Congressional critics say the proliferation of such weapons would bring less, not more security. «I have no doubt the proposal to research low-yield nuclear weapons is just the first step to actually building them», Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Roll Call in February. «I’ve fought against such reckless efforts in the past and will do so again, with every tool at my disposal».
There is another aspect of the problem. The introduction of variable yield weapons will provoke Russia, China and other nuclear powers into taking similar measures. Uncontrolled arms race will start. The plans to equip the delivery means with variable yield munitions never mention the problem of arms control, probably because the process is uncontrollable. Small size, variable yield warheads could be installed on a wide range of delivery means to make verification impossible. It will put an end to all hopes for saving the arms control regime which is being eroded to put the world back to the brink of nuclear war where it had been before the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963. All the efforts applied to make the world safer will go down the drain. President Trump can prevent that from happening.
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Last part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 28, 2016
Amidst his litany of condemnations, Jonathan Kay reserves some of his most vicious and vitriolic attacks for Kevin Barrett. For instance Kay harshly criticizes Dr. Barrett’s published E-Mail exchange in 2008 with Prof. Chomsky. In that exchange Barrett castigates Chomsky for not going to the roots of the event that “doubled the military budget overnight, stripped Americans of their liberties and destroyed their Constitution.” The original misrepresentations of 9/11, argues Barrett, led to further “false flag attacks to trigger wars, authoritarianism and genocide.”
In Among The Truthers Kay tries to defend Chomsky against Barrett’s alleged “personal obsession” with “vilifying” the MIT academic. Kay objects particularly to Barrett’s “final salvo” in the published exchange where the Wisconsin public intellectual accuses Prof. Chomsky of having “done more to keep the 9/11 blood libel alive, and cause the murder of more than a million Muslims than any other single person.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.