Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

No more ‘deals’: what Palestinians want and will fight to achieve

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | November 26, 2024

A major problem in American thinking about the Middle East is the utter rejection of the notion that Palestinian rights are fundamental, if at all relevant, to the coveted peace and stability of the region. Long before Donald Trump’s first “Deal of the Century” was revealed officially on 28 January, 2020, successive US administrations attempted to “stabilise” the Middle East at the expense of the Palestinians.

Earlier plans, or deals, rested on the premise of the total marginalisation of the Palestinian people and their cause. They included the 1969 Roger Plan and Roger Plan II in the early 70s, which culminated in the Camp David Accords later in the decade.

When all had failed to subdue the Palestinians, Israel and the US began investing in an alternative Palestinian leadership that would be compliant with Israeli will, often in exchange for money and a minimal share of power. The outcome was the 1993 Oslo Accords, which initially segmented Palestinians politically, yielding competing classes, but eventually failed to defeat the Palestinian quest for freedom.

Numerous other initiatives and plans, produced mostly by the US and other western entities, tried to conclude the Palestinian struggle in favour of Israel without having to deal with the inconvenience of putting pressure on Israel to respect international law. They have all failed.

Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century” was another failure.

It was situated in previously thwarted Israeli plans centred around Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2009 “economic peace”. For Israel, the new “deal” was meant to represent a win-win scenario: ending Israel’s regional isolation, amassing wealth, making the Israeli military occupation permanent, avoiding any accountability under international law, and thus permanently defeating the Palestinians.

The ongoing Israeli war and genocide in Gaza, the destabilisation of the whole region and the ongoing Palestinian steadfastness and resistance are the final proof that there can never be real peace in the Middle East without justice for Palestinians and other victims of Israeli brutality. No number of future US-western deals and initiatives can ever alter this fact.

The same inference applies to those operating at a less official capacity, but still committed to the same perusal of creative “solutions” to the so-called “conflict”. Such notions may suggest that the lack of solutions reflects the lack of imagination, resolve or the dearth of legal text that makes a just end to the “conflict” impossible.

However, a solution is readily available. Indeed, the solution to military occupation, apartheid and genocide is simply to end the military occupation, dismantle the racist apartheid regime, and hold Israeli war criminals accountable for their extermination of the Palestinian people.

Not only do we have enough international and humanitarian laws and court orders to guide us through the process of holding Israel accountable, but we also have more than the needed critical mass of international consensus that should make this “solution” possible. The main obstacle is the stubborn and unconditional US support of Israel, which has allowed the occupation state to flout international law and consensus with total impunity for decades.

International law regarding Palestine is not an outdated resolution.

It is a robust and growing legal discourse that refuses to entertain any Israeli or US interpretation of the war crimes, including the crime of genocide underway in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories.

Last February, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began holding hearings that allowed representatives of over 50 countries to articulate their political, legal and moral stances on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. While the acting legal adviser at the US State Department argued that the 15-judge panel at The Hague should not call for Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied West Bank, China’s Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser, Ma Xinmin, contended that Palestinian “use of force to resist oppression is an inalienable right”.

In July, the ICJ issued a landmark ruling that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in all of its expressions is illegal under international law, and that such illegality includes the occupation of East Jerusalem, all Israeli Jewish settlements, annexation attempts and theft of natural resources.

In September, international consensus followed again, when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution demanding that Israel must end “its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” within 12 months.

This is but a footnote in the massive body of international law regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Yet more is constantly being added to the already clear discourse, including the latest arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for top Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu.

With such clarity in mind, why then should Palestinians, Arabs and the international community entertain or engage in any new deals, plans and solutions that operate outside the realm of international law and standards? The issue is obviously not the lack of a roadmap to a just peace, but the lack of interest or will, namely on the part of the US and a few of its western allies. It is their relentless backing of Israel and financing of its war machine that makes a just solution in Palestine unattainable, at least for now.

As far as Palestinians are concerned, there can only be one acceptable “deal”, one that is predicated on the full implementation of international law, including the Palestinian people’s right of return and right to self-determination. Continued US-Israeli attempts to circumvent this fact will never impede Palestinians from carrying on with their legitimate struggle for freedom.

November 26, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Germany has become Europe’s political wasteland

By Timofey Bordachev | Vzglyad | November 18, 2024

Germany is a political void in the center of Europe, even though it contributes significantly to the global economy and is influential in trade.

It’s also the Western country with which Russia has had the most historical, cultural and, until recently, economic contacts. A week ago the government in Berlin collapsed, and so far the leading German parties have agreed that early parliamentary elections will be in February 2025.

It’s very likely that the next government will be led by the main opposition force, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

At the start of the election campaign, CDU leader Friedrich Merz publicly announced that – if he wins – he’ll issue an ultimatum to Moscow over Ukraine. He’s promised that if this ultimatum is not accepted within 24 hours, his government will provide the Kiev regime with cruise missiles to attack Russian territory. The consequences of such a decision for Russian-Western relations are obvious. It is not surprising, therefore, that our main reaction was astonishment at the irresponsibility of such a high-ranking member of the German elite. There are even fears that Merz and those behind him intend to drag Germany into a destructive military conflict with Europe’s largest country.

But all this German talk means nothing in practice. Without US authorisation, or direct orders from Washington, the leaders in Berlin are not only incapable of starting a major war in Europe, they are incapable even of adjusting their shoelaces. Any statements by German politicians, the fall and rise of governing coalitions there, should only be seen in the context of how the Berlin establishment is trying to find a role in the shadow of total American dominance.

It’s deeply symbolic that Chancellor Olaf Scholz took a decisive step towards the collapse of the governing coalition on 6 November, the day on which the domestic political balance of power in the United States changed radically. In the context of significant changes at the center, the peripheral political systems must react as sensitively as possible: at the level of how a branch of a large corporation reacts to a change in its general management.

Berlin’s international position is defined by its crushing defeat in the Second World War, which ended any hope of determining its own future. Germany, like Japan and South Korea, is a country with a foreign occupying force on its territory, albeit under the NATO flag. The German elite, both political and economic, is, with few exceptions, even more integrated with the US than the British elite. To say nothing of those running France, Italy or other European countries.

Germany has no autonomy in determining its foreign policy, nor does it aspire to have any. It’s no coincidence that over the past two and a half years of the Ukraine crisis, it’s been Berlin that has provided the largest amount of military and financial aid to the Kiev regime. Almost ten times more than, say, France, whose president likes to make bellicose speeches.

Naturally, the representatives of the German establishment look like pale copies of what we used to consider real politicians. And this is a natural product of the loss of any possibility of determining their own destiny.

Of course, Berlin can still set the parameters of economic policy for the weak countries of the European Mediterranean. States such as Greece, Italy or Spain are given to Germany to ‘feed’ within the framework of the European Union and its single currency. But even Poland, which has a special relationship with the US, has managed to avoid tying itself to Germany’s industrial grip. France is resisting slightly. But it is gradually sinking to the level of southern Europe. The UK has left the EU, but retains its position as the main representative of the US in Europe.

It should be noted that such a state of affairs for Germany did not come about overnight. Even during the Cold War, the Federal Republic (FRG) was led by bright personalities. Under chancellors such as Willy Brandt (1969-1974), the Moscow Treaty was signed between the FRG and the USSR on the recognition of post-war borders in Europe. In the early 1970s, German politicians and business were able to persuade the US to allow Germany to establish energy cooperation with the Soviets. In our time, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (1998-2005) pushed for European energy security based on German-Russian cooperation. But all this came to an end with the global economic crisis of 2008-2013, after which the US began to tighten the screws on its allies. In the spring of 2022, Olaf Scholz, who had previously been committed to dialogue with Russia, fully supported the military-political confrontation created by the Americans over Ukraine.

Now German politicians are not free to choose their own future. For most of them, with the exception of the non-systemic opposition, this is quite obvious. Why appoint bright personalities to the highest positions if nothing depends on their decisions? Gradually, the entire political system and the mood of the electorate are adapting to these conditions.

The differences in the parties’ platforms are becoming blurred. Observers are already talking about the likelihood that the government will be formed by the Social Democrats and their main opponents from the CDU. This means that disagreements on fundamental issues are a thing of the past. Only the technical aspects of forming a government need to be agreed upon, and the main goal of all efforts is to hold on to power as such.

The united and sovereign German state existed for 74 years (1871-1945). Its revival as such is not possible: even if Russia and China would look favourably on it, the Anglo-Saxon world will not allow it for several reasons at once.

Firstly, both German attempts – in the First and Second World Wars – to play a leading role in the West came close to succeeding. So nobody will give them a third chance. Just to be on the safe side. It should be borne in mind that the West takes order within its own community even more seriously than it does the defence of its privileges against the rest of humanity.

Second, Germany’s position at the center of Europe, its huge industrial base and its industrious population make it an ideal partner for the US and Britain, the maritime trading powers. Politically insignificant, Germany can economically control much of the rest of Europe, but cannot dictate the substance.

Third, the revival of visible German independence is in the interests of Moscow and Beijing because it would split the ranks of the consolidated West. A small front of countries like Hungary, Slovakia or even one a little larger cannot create such a split. And the unity of the West under the leadership of the US is a fundamental obstacle to the implementation of the plans for a multipolar world order promoted by Russia and China.

Germany is now a political wasteland in the heart of Europe. Tiny shoots of reason are, of course, breaking through the decades-old system based on pandering to the interests of American patrons. With some very obvious exceptions, the representatives of the non-systemic German opposition are talented people. But their prospects are still very dim because of the way things are manage.

In the future, we can expect to re-establish some economic ties with Germany but we must treat it as a political colony of the US, rather than thinking about try to establish full inter-state relations with Berlin.

Timofey Bordachev is the program director of the Valdai Club.

This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

November 18, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Islamic world reorganizes the strategy in Riyadh

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation |  November 15, 2024

On 11 November, an emergency Arab-Islamic summit on the question of Palestine was held in Riyadh. It was an extremely important event, from which the directives of the coming months for the Middle Eastern Islamic world and beyond will take their course. A shared international strategy emerged, even if contradictions and risks are not entirely absent.

A necessary window for dialogue

On Monday, 11 November, Riyadh invited the 22 countries of the Arab League and the 50 or so states that make up the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to take part in a summit dedicated to the ongoing conflicts in the region. The meeting focused on ongoing conflicts in the region, with a particular focus on Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office.

At the opening of the summit dedicated to Israel’s wars in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman used the term ‘genocide ’ to describe Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip: ‘We call on the international community to assume its responsibility […] by immediately ending Israeli attacks against our brothers in Palestine and Lebanon’.

The assembled Arab and Muslim leaders took the same stance towards Israel, condemning the horrific and shocking crimes committed by the Israeli army in Gaza, denouncing torture, executions, disappearances and outright ethnic cleansing, as stated in the final communiqué of the meeting.

Mohammed bin Salman also called on Israel to ‘respect the territorial sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran” and to ”refrain from attacking its territory’. Most members of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation will support these very firm statements. Although there are big differences between the countries that have normalised relations with Israel and those that oppose it, starting with the Islamic Republic of Iran. MBS explicitly said that not only the very existence of Palestine is now in question, but also the fate of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the second holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca, a statement reminiscent of the name of the Hamas operation entitled ‘Storm Al-Aqsa’. Evidently, Hamas leaders expected that such an emergency Arab-Islamic summit would convene much earlier, for instance soon after the start of Israel’s ground operation in Gaza.

In this regard, the Crown Prince referred to Iran as a ‘sister republic’, which made the press throughout the Islamic world rejoice, signalling a detente in relations between the two countries. Diplomatic relations were officially reopened in March 2023, after a seven-year blockade, thanks to an agreement brokered by China, and after the infamous 7 October 2023, dialogue resumed and intensified. Iran supports the Palestinian Islamist movement, while Saudi Arabia tries to contain the spread of the conflict.

At the summit, Iran’s First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref called Israel’s assassination of the leaders of Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah ‘organised terrorism’, adding that ‘Operations misleadingly described as “targeted killings”, in which Palestinian elites and leaders of other countries in the region are killed one by one or en masse, are nothing but organised terrorism’. Similarly expressed by Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who called on the international community to continue sending aid to Lebanon. It should be noted that Mikati spoke a few days ago of ‘interference by Iran’ in Lebanon, an accusation rejected by Tehran.

It is worth noting the simultaneous involvement of Assad and Erdogan. Only recently, such crossovers were impossible. The government in Ankara has spoken increasingly strong and clear words against the extermination that Israel is perpetrating, certainly favouring a round table with the neighbouring Islamic countries, at least from the point of view of positive intentions.

Why only now?

There is almost nothing left of the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah. This is a fact to be confronted with. Such a summit would have been very different if the leaders of the Resistance were still alive.

The reason for this delay is perhaps the American elections. While the BRICS+ summit in Kazan had paved the way and pointed in a direction of international cohesion in condemning Israel’s actions and the need to restore Palestinian autonomy, it is true that the final placet was missing to move from theory to action.

Donald Trump’s victory must be framed from an Arab-Islamic perspective. Trump is a supporter of right-wing Zionism, that of Netanyahu and certain radicals such as Smotrich, Ben Gvir and Rabbi Dov Lior, who have never shied away from proclamations of massacres, sacrifices and religious destruction. For Zionists, Jerusalem is as important as Al Quds for Islamists (Al Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem). In the election campaign, Trump never gave an inch about his pro-Zionist position and support for the government in Tel Aviv. It was he who proposed moving the capital of the Zionist entity to Jerusalem and it was he who ordered the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. Trump’s election strengthened the prospects for US-Israeli collaboration, so much so that Smotrich immediately declared his intention to attack the Palestinians in the West Bank and blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Trump has accelerated these processes. The next goal, which he personally supported and financed, is the construction of the Third Temple, an eschatological keystone for the entire American neocon world. The physical destruction of all of Israel’s enemies is not a side effect or minor harm, but a duty inherent in Jewish messianism.

The emergence of the Islamic pole in the multipolar world is acquiring an increasingly recognisable and identifiable form. Of course, there are still many problems to be solved: Saudi Arabia and Turkey do business with the US and Israel, continue to play on opposing sides, and are historically unreliable. The countries of South East Asia still have to define their position with regard to international relations with the West, in order to definitively emancipate themselves and make themselves safe from blackmail and retaliation.

The questions many are asking themselves are various: will the next American president commit himself to ending the ongoing conflicts as he has promised? Or will he be an unconditional supporter of Israel, both in the war and in his plans to torpedo any prospect of establishing a Palestinian state? Saudi Arabia makes any normalization with Israel conditional on the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The two-state solution is supported by much of the international community as a means to resolve the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arab and Muslim leaders hold firm to the position, in accordance with UN resolutions and the 2002 Arab peace plan, that Israel must return all territories occupied since 1967.

The Abrahamic agreements are no longer enough. This time, however, the US can no longer decide the entire future of the Middle East on its own, because the chessboard has changed and the new positions taken by the Islamic countries will force Washington to weigh up more elements. Russia and China will not let the multipolar project be compromised. Not even the African countries, where the Palestinian cause is a deeply felt and shared issue of freedom, identity and anti-colonialism, are going to give way in the fight against this historic injustice.

The Muslim population of Islamic countries, seeing the passivity of the rulers, will not tolerate the ongoing extermination and attack on the holy places of their religion much longer.

Probably, only a common war against a common enemy can unite Muslims. And that could happen very soon.

November 16, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ukraine in league with Al-Qaeda – Syria

RT | November 12, 2024

Ukrainian agents have been working with Al-Qaeda in Syria, offering them drone warfare training and some of their US-supplied weapons in exchange for manpower, the government in Damascus has told RT.

The terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra, since rebranded as Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS) has been reduced to parts of Idlib province in the northwest of the country, thanks in part to Russia helping the Syrian government defeat various rebel militants, including Islamic State (formerly ISIS).

RT’s Roman Kosarev has visited Syria and saw “undeniable evidence” that Kiev has made an alliance with HTS.

“We have real confirmation of the Ukrainian instructors’ presence in Syria,” a Russian soldier, identified only by the callsign ‘Gilza’, told RT. He said Kiev’s operatives have been teaching HTS militants how to fly suicide drones, as well as supplying them with such weapons.

Video footage filmed on a ship showed a US-made Switchblade 600 drone being delivered to the Syrian militants in crates labeled as humanitarian aid. Another video showed a man, wearing a black T-shirt with a Ukrainian trident symbol, chatting with a militant somewhere in Idlib.

Mohammed Hamra, a former government official who had to flee Idlib, has his own sources about what’s going on in the province. He told RT that around 250 Ukrainian instructors have been training HTS militants to kill Syrians and Russians.

Syrian intelligence has confirmed the presence of “several” Ukrainian operatives in Idlib. One of the Syrian officials, who sought anonymity, told Kosarev that Kiev’s instructors have been preparing HTS militants for attacks on government-controlled territory, in particular the Russian base at Khmeimim.

Kiev has delivered drones and even drugs – stimulants to keep militants alert – to HTS through Turkish territory, the Syrian said. In return for advice and technology, Kiev has asked HTS to release Chechen militants from their ranks so they could fight in Ukraine.

Moscow has “reliable information” that Islamic State militants and “similar groups” have been fighting in Ukraine under the guise of Chechen and Crimean Tatar units, according to Alexander Bortnikov, head of the Russian security service FSB.

Russia has accused Ukraine of “openly supporting terrorist groups in Africa,” pointing to an incident in Mali earlier this year involving Touareg militants. Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence agency has boasted about providing the Touaregs with information and drone warfare techniques to help them kill government soldiers and Russian security contractors.

November 13, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Algeria halts trade with France over Western Sahara stance

MEMO | November 8, 2024

Algeria has instructed its banks to suspend financial transactions related to imports and exports with France, while also lifting the longstanding ban on imports from Spain, imposed more than two and a half years ago.

The move marks Algeria’s first tangible response to France’s position on the Western Sahara dispute.

In July, Algeria withdrew its ambassador from France after Paris endorsed Morocco’s autonomy plan as the sole basis for resolving the Western Sahara conflict.

France’s former Ambassador to Algeria, Xavier Driencourt, said the Algerian decision was a “major blow to economic relations between the two countries” and warned that it could lead to serious consequences for both parties.

Algeria had previously suspended its 20-year Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighbourliness, and Cooperation with Spain due to Madrid’s stance on the Western Sahara issue. However, it reversed the decision in September. The Algerian Banking Association informed bank directors in a document that the previous suspension of financial transactions with Spain was no longer in effect.

Relations between Algeria and Spain have since improved, with Algeria recently appointing a new ambassador to Madrid after recalling the previous envoy.

November 8, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump wants US troops out of northern Syria: RFK Jr

Press TV – November 7, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump wants to withdraw US troops from northern Syria rather than leave them as “cannon fodder” if fighting breaks out between Turkey and Kurdish militants, his ally Robert F Kennedy Jr has said.

Kennedy, who is expected to play a major role in the new US government, said during a live broadcast that Trump had expressed his intentions for northern Syria during a plane journey.

“We were talking about the Middle East, and he took a piece of paper and drew on it a map of the Middle East with all the nations on it, which most Americans couldn’t do.

“He was he was particularly looking at the border between Syria and Turkey, and he said, ‘We have 500 men on the border of Syria and Turkey and a little encampment that was bombed,’” Kennedy said.

Trump had told him there were 750,000 troops in Turkey and 250,000 militants in Syria. “If they go up against each other, we’re in the middle,” Trump told him, according to Kennedy.

Trump was told by the “generals” that the US troops would be “cannon fodder” if Turkey and the Kurdish forces came to blows. “And he said, ‘Get them out!'” Kennedy said.

Trump was re-elected president on Wednesday after easily beating his rival Kamala Harris.

The US military has for long stationed its forces and equipment in northeastern Syria, with the Pentagon claiming that the deployment is aimed at preventing the oilfields in the area from falling into the hands of Daesh terrorists.

Damascus maintains the deployment is meant to plunder the country’s natural resources. Trump admitted on several occasions that American forces were in the Arab country for its oil wealth.

Turkey has also deployed forces in Syria in violation of the Arab country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Ankara views US-backed YPG Kurdish militants as a terrorist organization tied to the homegrown Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been seeking an autonomous region in Turkey since 1984.

November 7, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , | 2 Comments

Germany is a ‘banana republic’ – Zakharova

RT | November 7, 2024

The collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government just hours after Donald Trump was elected US president is a sign that Germany has become a “banana republic,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

The coalition collapsed on Wednesday, prompted by disagreements over the budget deficit and further aid to Ukraine.

“The … coalition breakdown has exposed the main problem of Germany’s political system: it is a classic ‘banana republic’,” the spokeswoman wrote in her Telegram channel. According to Zakharova, Berlin failed to maintain good economic relations with Russia, the supplier of cheap natural gas, which was “vitally important for its citizens and industry.”

Scholz’s government also could not keep the national economy afloat and allowed its industries to “emigrate” to the US, the spokeswoman stated, adding that it was all apparently done to “please Washington.”

Last month, the newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported that the German economy is expected to contract for a second year in a row as it struggles to keep up with soaring energy costs after cutting itself off from Russian gas. The nation’s industrial output dropped by 4.6% in September year-on-year as orders for domestic-made goods have also plummeted, according to official data released this week.

“Berlin stopped even pretending that the German government had any sovereignty and … was not just proxies for the American neoliberals in the EU,” Zakharova added.

Scholz fired Finance Minister Christian Lindner, the head of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP), late on Wednesday. The FDP was one of three parties comprising the German government coalition together with the chancellor’s Social Democrats and the Greens.

In response to the dismissal, the FDP announced its withdrawal from the government and formally ended the three-way coalition. The development left Scholz with a minority government consisting only of his own party and the Greens.

On Thursday, Scholz admitted that aid to Ukraine had become a major point of contention during talks the previous day during which the coalition members failed to find common ground.

According to the chancellor, he put forward a four-point plan that included “increasing our support for Ukraine” among other things. Lindner rejected the proposal and reportedly suggested calling for snap elections instead.

Earlier, Lindner had reportedly asked the Defense Ministry to limit military assistance to Kiev, citing budgetary difficulties. The government is still seeking a way to plug a multibillion-euro hole in next year’s budget and to revive the struggling economy.

November 7, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation | , | 1 Comment

Israel’s limited counter to Iran’s massive attack

By Fereshteh Sadeghi | The Cradle | October 27, 2024

After weeks of grandiose threats, Israel struck a number of military sites in Iran over the weekend. While many details of the attack remain unclear, Iran’s leadership suggests that a qualitative response is on the horizon.

Twenty-five days after Iran’s massive 1 October missile attacks on Israel, and following weeks of threats and bluster about its huge preparations, Tel Aviv unleashed its own offensive against military sites of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the early hours of Saturday, 26 October.

The Israeli attack started in the capital, Tehran, where at around 02:15 local time (22:45 GMT), very loud explosions were heard on the western side of the city. Reports which usually are published immediately on the social media platform X, suggested six explosions had been heard.

A multi-wave attack 

Footage surfacing afterward — though scarce in number — showed Iranian anti-aircraft guns firing into the sky over Tehran, but no sign of missiles were recorded in those videos. The lack of visible missile evidence sparked debate among analysts, with some suggesting that the occupation state employed tactics designed to evade traditional detection methods, potentially by using low-altitude or stealth drones. But others have questioned whether Israeli jets even entered Iranian airspace.

The second and third waves of strikes came two to four hours later when aerial defense systems became active in Iran’s western province of Ilam and the southwestern province of Khuzestan. This multi-wave strategy indicated a calculated attempt to wear down Iran’s defenses, probing their response times and resilience in multiple regions simultaneously.

With news about the initial raids ebbing, western media began to frame the Israeli strikes as enormous as well as successful. These evidence-free portrayals were met with skepticism from Iranian officials, who emphasized the effectiveness of their air defenses in minimizing any damage from Israeli strikes.

The New York Times wrote, “Israeli jets first targeted air defense batteries and later struck Iran’s missile arrays and production sites.”

Axios quoted Israeli officials as claiming, “Israel had sent a message to Tehran, ahead of the airstrikes, warning the Iranians not to respond.”

In the morning, the Israeli military issued a statement saying “it had completed its strikes but that if Iran makes the mistake of carrying out another attack, Israel will have to fight back.”

The Khatam al-Anbiya Air Defense Base — the central command in charge of defending the skies of Iran — meanwhile announced that:

“Despite all previous warnings from the Iranian authorities to the criminal, illegal Zionist regime against engaging in any form of adventurism, that fake regime in an escalating move struck military locations in Tehran, Ilam, and Khuzestan. The joint aerial defense of the country successfully intercepted and thwarted the aggressor’s raids. Despite that, limited damage was done to some sites with the extent of the harm being investigated.”

The Iranian army later in the day announced the death of at least four officers, including a colonel, killed during Israeli air raids in Khuzestan. An informed source speaking to The Cradle on condition of anonymity reveals that the number of Iranian casualties is higher than what is officially being reported.

What were Tel Aviv’s tactics? 

More than 24 hours on, details about the Israeli air raids or the extent of the harm to the Iranian military are unclear and patchy at best. Both sides have a vested interest in controlling the narrative: Tel Aviv to project power and deterrence, and Tehran to maintain an image of resilience and minimize perceived vulnerabilities.

Israel says it deployed over 100 F-35 fighter jets to conduct the offensive. However, an Iranian conservative lawmaker on Saturday morning claimed that the strikes in Tehran were actually carried out by small drones or quadcopters.

Hamid Rasaei wrote on his Telegram channel that “the Zionist regime’s agents in Tehran were involved in those attacks and Iranian anti-aircraft guns fired at those microdrones.”

The narrative in the west of the country was different. Images of an Israeli missile’s booster falling in Iraq’s Salahuddin province suggest Israel used the Golden Horizon Air launched Ballistic Missile to hit Iranian radars in the western belt of the country.

The use of Iraqi airspace by Israel was confirmed by the Khatam Al-Anbiya Air Defense Base. It has blamed the US military for allowing Israel to fire air-launched ballistic missiles into Iranian territory from 100 kilometers deep inside the Iraqi soil. No such permission had been granted from Iraqi authorities.

Baghdad was joined by other Arab capitals in strongly condemning the Israeli attack on Iranian soil without referring to the use of its airspace by Israel. The Cradle’s correspondent in Baghdad says, “Iraq did not approve of the use of its skies, but Prime Minister [Mohammed Shia] al-Sudani has no say in this matter because Washington controls the Iraqi airspace, while Iraqi radar systems are old.”

Khatam al-Anbiya has not mentioned Jordan, a country that denies involvement in the Israeli aerial attack despite its track record of defending the occupation state from previous Iranian retaliatory strikes.

Limited success or major damage? 

Although the official Iranian media have downplayed the extent and strength of the Israeli strikes, University of Tehran academic and political analyst Mohammad Marandi tells The Cradle that “it was a big operation on the side of Israel and actually a considerable one, as Israelis did a harm to Iranian radar and defense systems.”

Iranian academic Foad Izadi believes “the Israeli attack was not something that many had expected, much less than what was thought it would do.” But, he emphasizes, “(In essence) Israel has no right to strike Iran, whether the strikes are small, medium or large. Iran is an independent country, and attacking another country is a violation of international law.”

Izadi dismisses western claims that Israel’s patently illegal strikes on Iran are justified as “self-defense,” pointing out that, in all cases, Tel Aviv launched the original aggressions while Tehran was legally retaliating.

“Iran fired a barrage of missiles on Israel for the first time in April in the wake of an Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, that had been conducted despite Tehran’s previous warnings. The second encounter happened following Israel’s assassination of Hamas’s leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Iran had the right to respond to the killing of its guest, as well as the events that unfolded in Lebanon including Nasrallah’s assassination.”

Izadi points to a stellar performance by Iran’s air defense systems, in which “Iran was basically able to minimize the effect of this aggression” by Israel.

Marandi, who served as a consultant for the Iranian negotiating team at the last round of Vienna nuclear talks, agrees with the assessment that Iran’s air defenses performed well:

“Iranians had conducted security and intelligence operations ahead of the strikes and succeeded in limiting the extent of damage by dummies and decoys as well as spreading misinformation about sensitive sites.”

As he tells The Cradle, the damage inflicted on Iranian military sites was not grave because “the possibility of a direct confrontation with the United States convinced Iranians many years ago to relocate almost all sensitive sites and strategic production facilities underground. Neither warplanes nor missiles are able to penetrate into those underground facilities.”

“What remains on the ground are small workshops producing missile spare parts and they are scattered across the country, but not near borders, that’s why the strike failed to leave a significant harm,” Marandi adds.

True Promise 3?

Saturday’s direct hits on the Iranian capital and Iran’s provincial military facilities were the first since 1987, when former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s military forces rained missiles on Tehran and other Iranian cities. The psychological impact of targeting Tehran itself cannot be overstated; it represents a symbolic blow that challenges Iranian security and sovereignty and will likely necessitate a meaningful and calibrated response.

That notion was reiterated by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on all national security matters. During a meeting with“Martyrs of Security” family members earlier today, Khamenei pointed out that Israel has yet to learn its lesson:

“They (the Israelis) need to understand the power, determination, and innovation of the Iranian nation and its youth. How to convey this power and resolve of the Iranian nation to the Zionist regime is for our officials to determine, and what is in the best interest of the nation and the country should be done.”

Foad Izadi believes a third Iranian attack against the occupation state is likely because “Iran’s leaders are very much in line with the analysis that attacking the country should not become normalized. Mohammad Marandi says Tehran’s retaliation isn’t a matter of if, but when: “Even if Tehran had not been struck and only Ilam had been targeted by the Israelis, the Iranian leadership would have reacted,” he tells The Cradle. 

“Iran’s retaliation to April’s Damascus strike took days. After Haniyeh’s assassination, it took months for Tehran to strike back,” Marandi elaborates. Following the Israeli strikes, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council met to get briefed on the targets that were hit and assess the extent of damage. While a possible Iranian military response was reportedly discussed, there is no information yet on whether that decision has been made.

October 27, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Rewriting Resolution 1701: Hochstein’s diplomatic cover for Israeli expansion

By Anis Raiss | The Cradle | October 25, 2024

On 21 October, Amos Hochstein, born in Israel in 1973 and once an Israeli tank crewman, returned to Lebanon as a US envoy, not to protect peace but to redefine it on Tel Aviv’s terms.

The irony is undeniable: Israel, having lost 28 tanks in almost as many days during its latest invasion attempt, now sends one of its former tank crew members, not in battle, but in diplomacy – to achieve through words what military force could not secure: control over Lebanon through revisions to UN Resolution 1701.

Hochstein’s mission may appear to be an act of diplomacy, but is it really about fostering peace? Or is he aligning with Israeli policy to reframe control while eroding Lebanon’s sovereignty? The diplomatic veneer only thinly conceals the underlying agenda of control.

From Oslo to 1701: Reinterpreting peace for control

The Israeli playbook of manipulating peace processes is nothing new. In a 2001 leaked video, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted about his manipulation of the Oslo Accords, using vague phrases like “military facilities” to tighten Israeli control over contested areas.

Netanyahu openly stated, “America is something that you can easily maneuver,” hinting at the ease with which Israeli influence shapes US diplomacy – a dynamic that is evident today in Hochstein’s actions.

The Israeli army veteran’s push for amendments to Resolution 1701 is a clear continuation of this strategy: advancing the occupation state’s interests under the guise of diplomacy from Washington. Just as Netanyahu reinterpreted the Oslo Accords to solidify Israeli control, Hochstein’s proposed changes to 1701 seek to turn it into a tool for extending Tel Aviv’s influence. This is not diplomacy for peace; it is diplomacy for power.

1701: Israel’s unfinished battle

Resolution 1701, passed by the UN Security Council on 11 August 2006, marked a critical point for Israel, which found itself unable to defeat Hezbollah during the July War despite its advanced military capabilities.

Brokered by then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the ceasefire allowed Israel a face-saving exit under the guise of diplomacy rather than face a prolonged, unwinnable battle. But the resolution has since been a point of ongoing contention – one Israel has repeatedly violated.

One notable violation is Israel’s continued occupation of Shebaa Farms, which contravenes both Resolution 1701 and the earlier Resolution 425. Hezbollah’s decision to remain armed, often criticized internationally and in some quarters domestically, becomes a logical and legally justified response under international law, given Israel’s occupation of Lebanese land. The ongoing presence of Israeli forces undermines the very peace that Resolution 1701 aimed to establish.

Tel Aviv’s disregard for the resolution extends beyond territorial occupation. Since 2013, Israel has repeatedly violated Lebanese airspace to conduct strikes on Syria, treating Lebanon’s skies like an unguarded backdoor for foreign interventions.

This belligerent behavior is akin to a trespasser using a neighbor’s yard to attack another – an act that undermines Lebanon’s sovereignty entirely. In August 2019, a significant escalation occurred when Israel launched a drone strike in Beirut, which then-president Michel Aoun condemned as a “declaration of war.”

Moreover, Israel’s occupation of the northern part of Ghajar village further violates both the Blue Line and Resolution 1701. Despite UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces deploying south of the Litani River, Israel’s persistent refusal to withdraw ensures that peace remains elusive, leaving Lebanon under the constant threat of Israeli aggression.

Rewriting 1701

The amendments proposed by Hochstein to Resolution 1701 reveal Israel’s broader strategy of using international mechanisms to further its objectives. These changes would extend UNIFIL’s jurisdiction two kilometers north of the Litani River, allowing international forces to conduct searches, patrols, and inspections without requiring approval from Lebanese authorities. These inspections can include searching vehicles, private properties, and suspected weapons sites.

Effectively, this is a demand for Lebanon to cede control over its own territory – a clear infringement on its sovereignty. Under the guise of peacekeeping, this would grant Israel indirect control over Lebanon’s internal security dynamics, especially since intelligence for these operations may be influenced by, or even originate from, Israeli sources.

Eyes on the south

Hochstein’s proposal raises critical concerns about intelligence oversight: Who will guide these operations, and how might covert Israeli interests be served? The potential involvement of Israeli tech companies like Toka, co-founded by former prime minister Ehud Barak, is telling.

Toka specializes in advanced surveillance technologies that can hack into and manipulate live or recorded video feeds from public and private security cameras, including those in ports, airports, and border crossings.

If Toka’s technology is deployed in southern Lebanon, it could potentially compromise the very systems used by UNIFIL. This technology, which leaves no trace, could be exploited to monitor Hezbollah and Lebanese military movements, all under the guise of international peacekeeping operations. The consequences would be profound: a complete erosion of Lebanon’s security, replaced by a surveillance network manipulated by Israel to serve its own strategic interests.

Israel’s covert surveillance approach can be seen in how it handles Beirut’s southern suburbs. The infamous Dahiya Doctrine advocates for overwhelming destruction of civilian areas to target Hezbollah strongholds, yet Israel seems to avoid fully enacting this policy – possibly due to its desire to preserve infrastructure that supports covert operations.

Technologies like Toka’s suggest a more calculated plan, enabling 24/7 monitoring of Hezbollah-controlled areas south of the Litani River. Armed with precise intelligence, Israel could execute targeted strikes or assassinations akin to those witnessed during the 2006 war, turning southern Lebanon into a zone of perpetual surveillance and intermittent violence – all under the pretense of adhering to Resolution 1701.

Berri’s rejection

Nabih Berri, long-time leader of the Amal Movement and a staunch ally of Hezbollah, immediately opposed Hochstein’s proposed amendments. As Speaker of Parliament since 1992, Berri has been a key figure in resisting Israeli encroachments and defending Lebanese sovereignty.

His longstanding relationship with Hezbollah and the broader Shia political movement positions him as a critical figure in Lebanon’s struggle against foreign intervention. Upon receiving Hochstein’s proposals, Berri recognized them for what they were: an attempt to undermine Lebanese sovereignty under the guise of enhanced peacekeeping.

While Hochstein framed these amendments as necessary for stability, Berri’s response was clear: the real issue is not a lack of oversight but Israel’s continued violations of Lebanese airspace and territory. As Berri emphasized, any genuine pursuit of peace must begin with holding Israel accountable for its aggression and ensuring it abides by existing UN resolutions.

He also announced that “the consensus among the Lebanese on Resolution 1701 is a rare consensus, and we are committed to it,” adding, “We reject any amendments to Resolution 1701, whether by increase or decrease.”

In an interview with Al Arabiya TV, Berri also stated, “I have been mandated by Hezbollah since 2006, and it agrees to 1701.”

Resolution 1701, meant to establish peace, is being reshaped into a surveillance tool – a mechanism for Israel to achieve what it could not through military means. The use of sophisticated surveillance technology, the selective enforcement of ceasefire terms, and the involvement of international forces all serve to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty, rendering “peace” a hollow word.

October 25, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , , | 1 Comment

“Israel” Is Top Suspect in Turkish Terror Attack

By Kevin Barrett with extensive translated quotes from Al-Jazeera Arabic | October 24, 2024

Who was behind Wednesday’s terrorist attack on Turkey’s leading aerospace company? According to reports, at least five people were killed, and 22 others wounded, when two terrorists attacked the facility with explosives and gunfire before being “neutralized.”

First clue: Turkish president Erdogan “was holding talks in Russia with Vladimir Putin at the time of the attack.” That suggests that one or more members of the “collective West”—in other words, the Zionist-occupied US empire—probably orchestrated the attack as a rebuke or warning to Turkey and Erdogan. And by targeting Turkey’s leading aerospace facility, someone was presumably sending a message of disapproval regarding activities related to that facility: “We know what you’re up to, so don’t even think about it.”

The attack was not only timed to coincide with Erdogan’s meeting with Putin, but also came during the apparent lead-up to an Israeli attack on Iran that is expected to ignite a major regional war. The Turkish government, like its close ally Qatar, is a major supporter of Hamas, whose leaders Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh have been martyred by the Zionists, kindling even stronger global support for the resistance group. At the same time, Israel exercises covert influence in Turkey due to its penetration of the deep state and armed forces with Donmeh (satanic Jewish) traitors.

Israel, which has probably conducted more terror attacks (against both allies and enemies) than all of the world’s other 190+ nations put together, is obviously the leading suspect in the Ankara slaughter. Everyone familiar with the region knows this, but most only say so with hints and whispers for fear of being next on the Zionist terror target list. And though Al-Jazeera English has ignored the elephant in the room, Al-Jazeera Arabic has published an interesting analysis by Saeed al-Haj that discretely echoes the consensus of regional experts. Highlights:

The terrorist attack on the Aerospace Industries Company in Ankara came at a sensitive time in Turkish domestic politics, as well as regional developments, especially the possibility of expanding the “Israeli” aggression in the region, which carries many implications and refers to political, military and security messages to Ankara from several parties.

… the Turkish president has been talking for weeks about the need to “strengthen the internal front” to protect Turkey from external dangers that have begun to threaten it with “Israel’s expansionist policies in the region”, as he put it, and the increasing possibility of a regional war according to Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.

… The attack targeted the largest aircraft manufacturing company in Turkey, owned by the Turkish Armed Forces and the government, which is working on developing the first domestically-made fighter jet, in addition to other projects.

… We recall Erdogan’s statement about the necessity of Turkey strengthening itself in the field of defense industries “so that Israel cannot do what it is doing now,” recalling his country’s military contribution to both Libya and the South Caucasus, and the possibility of repeating this in Palestine, a statement to which the occupation’s foreign minister responded by threatening Erdogan with “the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

This external dimension is also reinforced by the timing of the attack, which coincided with the Turkish president’s participation in the BRICS summit in Kazan, which many view as an economic bloc competing with or alternative to the G7, as it includes countries such as Russia, China and India, which Ankara recently announced its quest for membership. It is important to note the similarity between the name of the city hosting the summit (Kazan) and the Ankara suburb where the targeted company is located (Kazan), regardless of the degree of deliberateness or coincidence in that. (Emphasis mine -KB).

Because Turkey’s pursuit of BRICS membership, in addition to membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, comes in the context of unstable relations with the West, in light of the stagnation of EU accession negotiations and US sanctions due to the Russian S-400 defense system deal and Washington’s procrastination in completing arms export deals (recently F-16 fighters), Turkish-Western tension over the war on Gaza, and Turkey’s apprehension about the role of Greece and Cyprus in any scenario of this kind, this revives the debate about “Ankara changing its direction from the West to the East.

Publicly, Erdogan has blamed the Kurdish separatist terror group PKK and ordered his air force to bomb PKK sites in Syria and Iraq in response to the terror attack. But what most Americans don’t realize is that Turkey is bombing US-Israeli proxies! The PKK-linked Syrian Defense Forces (SDF), directly controlled by the Washington-Tel Aviv axis, controls a quarter of Syria, including its most agriculturally productive and oil-rich regions. Likewise the YPG in Iraq is a Zio-American mercenary force. Both “Kurdish” Israeli-American occupations ship oil to Israel against the wishes of the governments and peoples of Iraq and Syria, and reap massive profits that rightly belong to the legitimate Syrian and Iraqi governments (both of which have ordered US occupation forces to leave).

So Turkey just bombed an American-Israeli occupation army, killing 12 people in Syria and a still-unknown number in Iraq. It is not known whether the Turkish bombings targeting the occupiers of Syria and Iraq killed any of the American or Zionist occupiers.

Conclusion: The likely US-Israeli attack on the Turkish aerospace facility, and the Turkish retaliation against US-Israeli proxies in Iraq and Syria, suggests that when Israel ignites a massive regional war by attacking Iran, Turkey will side with Iran (and Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and indeed the people of the region). But whether it will do so boldly and openly, or in a more subtle and covert manner, remains to be seen.

October 24, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Leaked report finds Israel targeting UN troops in Lebanon, injured several with white phosphorus

The Cradle | October 23, 2024

Israel’s military has attacked UNIFIL troops deployed on the Lebanon–Israel border a dozen times, including possibly with white phosphorus, the Financial Times (FT) reported on 22 October.

According to a confidential report prepared by a country contributing troops to the UN mission, Israeli forces forcibly entered a clearly marked UN base and are suspected of using the incendiary chemical white phosphorus, injuring 15 UN soldiers.

Israeli forces began targeting UN troops shortly after launching ground operations across the border into Lebanon on 1 October.

UNIFIL has called the attacks “deliberate” and a “flagrant violation of international law.”

UN troops, which come from 50 separate countries, have rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that they evacuate their border posts to clear the way for current Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon.

Israel hopes to establish a so-called security zone and push Hezbollah fighters some 30 kilometers away from the border to positions behind the Litani River.

The confidential report viewed by FT includes photographs documenting the extent of the damage done to bunkers that shelter UN troops, perimeter walls, and observation towers at several bases.

On Sunday, an Israeli bulldozer deliberately demolished an observation tower and perimeter fence of a UN position in Marwahin.

On 10 October, two UN troops were injured when an Israeli Merkava tank opened fire and struck an observation tower at the UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura on the Lebanese coast. The same day, Israeli forces fired at a UN bunker sheltering Italian troops in Labbouneh.

The report says the Israeli military first surveilled the area with drones and destroyed the bunker’s cameras before attacking.

Israeli forces also fired several munitions, which landed near a base and emitted “smoke of suspected white phosphorus” into it.

The FT notes that Israel has used white phosphorus in Lebanon throughout the past year. Its use is unlawful in populated areas under international law.

UN troops were deployed to the Lebanon–Israel border following Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon in 1978. Repeated invasion attempts were made in 1982, 2006, and 2024.

Israeli troops occupied large areas of southern Lebanon between 1982 and 2000 before armed resistance by Hezbollah forced them to withdraw.

October 23, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

Who Is GOP Mega-Donor Miriam Adelson & What Does She Want?

Glenn Greenwald | October 17, 2024

This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble.

You can watch the full episode for FREE here: https://rumble.com/v5ixvbh-system-upd…

Now available as a podcast! Find full episodes here: https://linktr.ee/systemupdate_

Join us LIVE on Rumble, weeknights at 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald

Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/

Follow Glenn:

Twitter:   / ggreenwald  

Instagram:   / glenn.11.greenwald  

Follow System Update:

Twitter:   / systemupdate_  

Instagram:   / systemupdate__  

TikTok:   / systemupdate__  

Facebook:   / systemupdate.tv  

LinkedIn:   / systemupdate  

October 23, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »