The head of a Lebanese Sunni political and militant group that has joined Hezbollah, a Shia resistance movement, in its fight against Israel said yesterday that the conflict has helped strengthen cooperation between the two groups, despite their sectarian differences.
Secretary-General of Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiya, or the Islamic Group, Sheikh Mohammed Takkoush, told AP that his faction has joined the fighting along the Lebanon-Israel border in response to the occupation state’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza and its strikes against Lebanese towns and villages, which have killed civilians including journalists.
“We decided to join [the battle] as a national, religious and moral duty. We did that to defend our land and villages,” Takkoush told the news agency at his group’s headquarters in Beirut. “We also did so in support of our brothers in Gaza,” where he said Israel was committing an “open massacre.”
According to AP, the Islamic Group’s armed wing, the Fajr Forces, carries out its operations against Israel mainly from the southern city of Sidon.
Takkoush said that he believed Israel has ambitions to seize more territory “not only in Palestine but in Lebanon too.”
The group acts independently but coordinates closely with Hezbollah and with the Lebanese branch of Hamas, Takkoush said. “Part of [the attacks against Israeli forces] were in coordination with Hamas, which coordinates with Hezbollah,” he explained, adding that direct cooperation with Hezbollah “is on the rise and this is being reflected in the field.”
“Our relations with Hezbollah are good and growing and it is being strengthened as we go through war,” adding that all the weapons they use are from their own arsenal: “We did not get even a bullet from any side.”
In a report published in November, L’Orient Today said Takkoush’s faction, which has been described as a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group, may help Hezbollah boost its credentials among some Lebanese Sunnis, although “it is not guaranteed to extend Hezbollah’s influence beyond the war.” This is because “The Sheikh has neither the oratory skills and charisma of Hassan Nasrallah, his Hezbollah counterpart, nor the popularity of Saad Hariri.”
China yesterday reiterated that “UN Security Council resolutions are binding” on Israel, rejecting US claims to the contrary, Anadolu reported.
China “calls on the parties concerned to fulfil their obligations under the UN Charter and to take due action as required by the resolution,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said in response to a question about comments by the top US envoy to the UN who claimed the resolution passed on Monday was “non-binding” on parties to the conflict in Gaza, which has been under an onslaught by Israel since 7 October.
More than 32,333 Palestinians have since been killed and over 74,694 injured amid mass destruction and shortages of necessities.
The UN Charter stipulates that all Security Council resolutions are legally binding under international law.
The Council passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza for the remainder of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which began on 11 March and is set to end on 9 April.
Fourteen countries on the 15-member Council voted in favour of the resolution. The US abstained.
The resolution demanded an “immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.”
It also insisted on the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs.” No mention was made of the thousands of Palestinians disappeared by Israel from the Gaza Strip since it launched its ground offensive at the end of October. After the resolution passed, the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, told the Council: “If fully and effectively implemented, [the resolution] could still bring long-awaited hope. Security Council resolutions are binding.”
Lin said Beijing “expects the state with significant influence to play a positive role on the party concerned, including by using all necessary and effective means at their disposal to support the implementation of the resolution.”
The Council “must continue to closely follow the situation in Gaza and get ready for further actions when necessary to ensure the timely and full implementation of the resolution,” said Lin.
Glenn Greenwald reports on the U.S. administration’s outright support for the intentional starvation of men, women, and children in Gaza and the 32,000+ Palestinians already killed by Israeli forces using US weapons. Citing the statement by an Israeli general that US support is what makes Israel’s actions possible, Greenwald concludes: “it’s Biden’s war.”
Glenn Greenwald is a journalist, former constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times bestselling books on politics and law. Foreign Policy magazine named Greenwald one of the top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013. He was the debut winner, along with “Democracy Now’s” Amy Goodman, of the Park Center I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism in 2008, and also received the 2010 Online Journalism Award for his investigative work.
Over 9,000 Palestinian women have been killed since the start of Israel’s war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Mothers have been the largest civilian population group killed by the occupation state, at an average of 37 per day since 7 October.
These statistics, from the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza and the Red Crescent Society respectively, only convey part of the suffering experienced by 2.3 million Palestinians in the Strip. There is not a single section of Palestinian society that has not paid a heavy price in the war, although women and children have borne the brunt of it, constituting over 70 per cent of all victims of the ongoing Israeli genocide.
While these women and their children have been killed at the hands of Israeli soldiers, it is true to say that they were murdered using weapons supplied by the US and Israel’s other Western allies. Now, however, we are told that the world is finally turning against Israel.
The West’s nod of approval to Tel Aviv to carry on with its daily massacres may soon turn into a collective snub.
This claim was expressed best by the 23 March cover of the Economist magazine. It showed a tattered Israeli flag, attached to a stick, and planted in an arid, dusty land. It was accompanied by the headline “Israel Alone”.
The image, undoubtedly expressive, was meant to serve as a sign of the times. Its profundity becomes even more obvious if compared with another cover from the same publication soon after the Israeli military conquered Arab territories in the war of June 1967, known to Palestinians as the Naksa. “They did it,” trumpeted the headline back then. In the background stood an Israeli tank to illustrate the West-funded triumph.
Between the two headlines much in the world and in the Middle East has changed. To claim that Israel now stands alone, though, is not entirely accurate, at least not yet.
Although many of Israel’s traditional allies in the West are now openly disowning its behaviour in Gaza, weapons from various Western and non-Western countries continue to flow, feeding the war machine as it, in turn, continues to harvest more Palestinian lives. This compels us to ask if Israel really does stand alone when its airports and seaports are busier than ever receiving massive shipments of weapons from all corners of the globe. The answer is simple: not in the least.
Almost every time a Western country announces that it has suspended arms exports to Israel, a news headline appears shortly afterwards indicating the opposite. This has happened repeatedly.
Last year, for example, Italy declared that it was blocking all arms sales to Israel, giving false hope that some Western countries were finally experiencing some kind of moral awakening. Alas, on 14 March, Reutersquoted Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto as saying that shipments of weapons to Israel are continuing, based on the flimsy logic that previously-signed deals would have to be “honoured”.
Another country that is also “honouring” its previous commitments is Canada, which announced on 19 March that, following a parliamentary motion, it had suspended arms exports to Israel. The celebrations of those advocating an end to the genocide in Gaza were just getting started when, a day later, Ottawa reversed the decision by announcing that it too will honour its commitments.
This demonstrates that some Western countries continue to preach to the rest of us with their unsolicited wisdom about human rights, women’s rights and democracy, but actually have no genuine respect for any of these values.
Canada and Italy are not the largest military supporters of Israel, however; the US and Germany are. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in the decade between 2013 and 2022, Israel received 68 per cent of its weapons from the US and 28 per cent from Germany.
The Germans remain unperturbed, even though five per cent of the total population of Gaza have been killed, wounded or are missing due to the Israeli war.
Yet, the American support for Israel is far greater, although the Biden administration is still sending messages to its constituency, the majority of whom want the war to stop, that the US president is doing his best to put pressure on Israel to end it.
Although only two approved military sales to Israel have been announced publicly since 7 October, the two shipments represent just two per cent of the total US arms sent to Israel. This was revealed by the Washington Post on 6 March at a time when US media reported a widening rift between US President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“That’s an extraordinary number of sales over the course of a pretty short amount of time,” a former senior Biden administration official told the Post. Jeremy Konyndyk reached the obvious conclusion that the “Israeli campaign would not be sustainable without this level of US support.”
For decades, US military support for Israel has been the highest of any in the world. As from 2016, this unconditional support increased exponentially during the Obama Administration to amount to $3.8 billion per year.
Immediately after 7 October, however, the weapons shipments to Israel reached unprecedented levels. They included 2,000-pound bombs known as 5,000 MK-84 munitions. Israel has used these bombs to kill hundreds of innocent Palestinians.
Washington claims frequently to be looking into Israel’s use of US weapons. According to the Washington Post, though, Biden knew too well that, “Israel was regularly bombing buildings without solid intelligence that they were legitimate military targets.”
In some ways, Israel does “stand alone”, but only because its behaviour is rejected by most countries and peoples around the world. However, it is hardly alone when its war crimes are being executed with Western arms and support.
For the Israeli offensive in Gaza to end, therefore, those who continue to sustain the ongoing bloodbath must end their supply of arms and ammunition. Then Israel must be held to account for its crimes, as must all of the arms suppliers, for they are complicit in genocide.
Ranked second only to Osama bin Laden, the US’s most notorious declared enemy during the so-called War on Terror was Jordanian jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
But a closer examination of Zarqawi’s life and his impact on events in Iraq shows that he was likely a product and tool of US intelligence.
Neoconservative strategists within the administration of George W. Bush utilized Zarqawi as a pawn to justify the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the American public.
Moreover, he was instrumental in fomenting internal discord within Iraqi resistance groups opposing the US occupation, ultimately instigating a sectarian civil war between Iraq’s Sunni and Shia communities.
Israel’s plan unfolds in Iraq
This deliberate strategy of tension in Iraq advanced Tel Aviv’s goal of perpetuating the country’s vulnerabilities, dividing populations along sectarian lines, and weakening its army’s ability to challenge Israel in the region.
It has long been known that the CIA created Al-Qaeda as part of its covert war on the Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s and supported Al-Qaeda elements in various wars, including in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya in the 1990s.
Additionally, evidence points to CIA support for Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups during the clandestine war in Syria launched in 2011 amid the so-called Arab Spring.
Despite this history, western journalists, analysts, and historians still take at face value that Zarqawi and AQI were sworn enemies of the US.
Without understanding Zarqawi’s role as a US intelligence asset, it is impossible to understand the destructive role the US (and Israel) played in the bloodshed inflicted on Iraq, not only during the initial 2003 invasion but in launching the subsequent sectarian strife as well.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was born Ahmed Fadhil Nazar al-Khalaylah but later changed his name to reflect his birthplace, Zarqa, an industrial area near Amman, Jordan. In and out of prison in his youth, he would become radicalized during his time behind bars.
Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to fight with the CIA-backed mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1980s. Upon his return to Jordan, he helped start a local Islamic militant group called Jund al-Sham and was imprisoned in 1992.
After his release from prison following a general amnesty, Zarqawi returned to Afghanistan in 1999. TheAtlantic notes that he first met Osama bin Laden at this time, who suspected that Zarqawi’s group had been infiltrated by Jordanian intelligence while in prison, which accounted for his early release.
Zarqawi then fled Afghanistan to the pro-US Kurdistan region of northern Iraq and established a training camp for his fighters in the fateful year of 2001.
The missing link
Eager to implicate Iraq in the 9/11 attacks, it wasn’t long before the Bush administration officials soon used Zarqawi’s presence to shroud Washington’s geopolitical agendas there.
In February 2003, at the UN Security Council, US Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq proved Saddam was harboring a terrorist network, necessitating a US invasion.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “This assertion was later disproved, but it irreversibly thrust Zarqawi’s name into the international spotlight.”
Powell made the claim even though the Kurdish region of Iraq, where Zarqawi established his base, was effectively under US control. The US air force imposed a no-fly zone on the region after the 1991 Gulf War. Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, was also known to have a presence there, a reality that Iran actively acknowledges and remains vigilant about.
Curiously, despite Zarqawi’s base being nestled within the confines of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Bush administration opted for inaction when presented with a golden opportunity to neutralize him.
The Wall Street Journalreported that the Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002 to strike Zarqawi’s training camp but that “the raid on Mr Zarqawi didn’t take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House.”
Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, justified the inaction by claiming “the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons,” even though the threat of chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of terrorists was supposedly the most important reason for toppling Saddam Hussein’s government.
In contrast, General John M. Keane, the US Army’s vice chief of staff at the time, explained that the intelligence on Zarqawi’s presence in the camp was “sound,” the risk of collateral damage was low, and that the camp was “one of the best targets we ever had.”
The Bush administration firmly refused to approve the strikes, despite US General Tommy Franks pointing to Zarqawi’s camp as among the “examples of the terrorist ‘harbors’ that President Bush had vowed to crush.”
As soon as Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq had accomplished its initial purpose of selling the war on Iraq to the US public, and after the March 2003 invasion was already underway, the White House finally approved targeting his camp with airstrikes. But by then, the Wall Street Journal adds, Zarqawi had already fled the area.
Singling out Shiites
Then, in January 2004, the key pillar of the Bush administration’s justification for war unraveled. David Kay, the weapons inspector tasked with finding Iraq’s WMDs, publicly declared, “I don’t think they exist,” after nine months of searching.
TheGuardianreported that the failure to locate any WMDs was such a devastating blow to the rationale for invading Iraq that now “even Bush was rewriting the reasons for going to war.”
On 9 February, as the WMD embarrassment mounted, Secretary of State Powell again claimed that before the invasion, Zarqawi “was active in Iraq and doing things that should have been known to the Iraqis. And we’re still looking for those connections and to prove those connections.”
Two weeks before, US intelligence had conveniently made public a 17-page letter it claimed Zarqawi had written. Its author claimed responsibility for multiple terror attacks, argued that fighting Iraq’s Shia was more important than fighting the occupying US army, and vowed to spark a civil war between the country’s Sunni and Shia communities.
In subsequent months, US officials attributed a series of brutal bombings targeting Iraq’s Shia to Zarqawi without providing evidence of his involvement.
In March 2004, suicide attacks on Shia shrines in Karbala and the Kadhimiya district of Baghdad killed 200 worshippers commemorating Ashura. In April, car bombings in the Shia-majority city of Basra in southern Iraq killed at least 50.
Regarding the Karbala and Kadhimiya attacks, Al-Qaeda issued a statement through Al-Jazeera strongly denying any involvement, but Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) head Paul Bremer insisted Zarqawi was involved.
Zarqawi’s alleged attacks on Iraq’s Shia helped drive a wedge between the Sunni and Shia resistance to the US occupation and sowed the seeds of a future sectarian war.
This proved helpful to the US army, which was trying to prevent Sunni and Shia factions from joining forces in resistance to the occupation.
‘Dividing our enemies’
In April 2004, President Bush ordered a full-scale invasion to take control of Fallujah, a city in Anbar province that had become the epicenter of the Sunni resistance.
Vowing to “pacify” the city, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt launched the attack using helicopter gunships, unmanned surveillance drones, and F-15 warplanes.
The attack became controversial as the Marines killed many civilians, destroyed large numbers of homes and buildings, and displaced the majority of the city’s residents.
Eventually, due to widespread public pressure, President Bush was forced to call off the assault, and Fallujah became a ‘no-go’ zone for US forces.
The failure to maintain troops on the ground in Fallujah had US planners turning back to their Zarqawi card to weaken the Sunni resistance from within. In June, a senior Pentagon official claimed that “fresh information” had come to light showing Zarqawi “may be hiding in the Sunni stronghold city of Fallujah.”
The Pentagon official “cautioned, however, that the information is not specific enough to allow a military operation to be launched to try to find al-Zarqawi.”
The sudden appearance of Zarqawi and other Jihadists in Fallujah at this time was not an accident.
In a report written for the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) entitled “Dividing our enemies,” Thomas Henriksen explained that the US military used Zarqawi to exploit differences among its enemies in Fallujah and elsewhere.
He writes that the US military maintained the goal of “fomenting enemy-on-enemy deadly encounters” so that America’s “enemies eliminate each other,” adding that “When divisions were absent, American operators instigated them.”
The Fallujah Case Study
Henriksen then cites events in Fallujah in the fall of 2004 as “a case study” that “showcased the clever machinations required to set insurgents battling insurgents.”
He explained that the takfiri–Salafi views of Zarqawi and his fellow jihadis caused tension with local insurgents who were nationalists and embraced a Sufi religious outlook. Local insurgents also opposed Zarqawi’s tactics, which included kidnapping foreign journalists, killing civilians through indiscriminate bombings, and sabotaging the country’s oil and electricity infrastructure.
Henriksen further explained that US psychological operations, which took “advantage of and deepened the intra-insurgent forces” in Fallujah, led to “nightly gun battles not involving coalition forces.”
These divisions soon extended to the other Sunni resistance strongholds of Ramadi in Anbar province and the Adhamiya district of Baghdad.
The divisions instigated by US intelligence through Zarqawi in Fallujah paved the way for another US invasion of the restive city in November 2004, days after Bush secured re-election.
BBC journalist Mark Urban reported that 2,000 bodies were recovered after the battle, including hundreds of civilians.
Conveniently, “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not among the dead,” having slipped through the US cordon around the city before the assault began, Urban added.
Domestic consumption
US military intelligence later acknowledged using psychological operations to promote Zarqawi’s role in the Sunni insurgency fighting against the US occupation.
TheWashington Postreported in April 2006 that “The US military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” which helped “the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks.”
The Post quotes US Colonel Derek Harvey as explaining, “Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will – made him more important than he really is.”
As the Post reports further, the internal documents detailing the psychological operation campaign “explicitly list the ‘US Home Audience’ as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.”
The campaign to promote Zarqawi also proved helpful to President Bush during his re-election campaign in October 2004. When Democratic challenger John Kerry called the war in Iraq a diversion from the so-called War on Terror in Afghanistan, President Bush responded by claiming:
“The case of one terrorist shows how wrong [Kerry’s] thinking is. The terrorist leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for planting car bombs and beheading Americans, is a man named Zarqawi.”
Who killed Nick Berg?
Nick Berg, a US contractor in Iraq, was allegedly beheaded by Zarqawi. In May 2004, western news outlets published a video showing Berg, dressed in an orange Guantanamo-style jumpsuit, being beheaded by a group of masked men.
A masked man claiming to be Zarqawi stated in the video that Berg’s killing was in response to the US torture of detainees in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
Berg was in Iraq trying to win reconstruction contracts and disappeared just days after he spent a month in US detention in Mosul, where he was interrogated multiple times by the FBI.
On 8 May, a month after his disappearance, the US military claimed they found his decapitated body on the side of a road near Baghdad.
But US claims that Zarqawi killed Berg are not credible. As the Sydney Morning Heraldreported at the time, there is evidence the beheading video was staged and included footage from Berg’s FBI interrogation. It was uploaded to the internet not from Iraq but from London and remained online just long enough for CNN and Fox News to download it.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt also lied about Berg having been in US military custody, claiming instead he had only been held by the Iraqi police in Mosul.
But the video cemented in the minds of the American public that Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda were major terror threats.
Such was the impact in the US, that following the video’s release, the terms ‘Nick Berg’ and ‘Iraq war’ temporarily replaced pornography and celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears as the internet’s main searches.
Sectarianism, a key US–Israeli goal
Large-scale sectarian war erupted following the February 2006 bombing of the Shia Al-Askari Shrine in the Sunni city of Samarra in central Iraq, although the full extent was mitigated thanks to religious guidance issued by the highest and most influential Shia authority in the land, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Al-Qaeda did not take credit for the attack, but President Bush later claimed that “the bombing of the shrine was an Al-Qaeda plot, all intending to create sectarian violence.”
Zarqawi was finally killed in a US airstrike a few months later, on 7 June 2006. An Iraqi legislator, Wael Abdul-Latif, said Zarqawi had the phone numbers of senior Iraqi officials stored in his cell phone at the time of his death, further showing Zarqawi was being used by elements within the US-backed Iraqi government.
By the time of Zarqawi’s death, the neoconservative agenda to divide and weaken Iraq through instigating chaos and sectarian conflict had reached its pinnacle. This goal was further exacerbated by the emergence of a successor group to AQI – ISIS – which played an outsized role a few years later in destabilizing neighboring Syria, igniting sectarian tensions there, and providing the justification for the renewal of a US military mandate in Iraq.
The leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement has said the Saudi-led war on Yemen is part of a strategy pursued by the US and Britain to reshape the region in favor of Israel.
Abdul-Malik al-Houthi made the remarks in a televised address on Monday night marking the ninth anniversary of the Saudi-led war on Yemen.
“The Yemen war was part of a larger geopolitical strategy pursued by the United States, Britain, and Israel to reshape the region for the benefit of the Zionist regime,” he said.
He condemned the Saudi-led offensive as an unwarranted and deceitful conflict aimed at obliterating Yemen, seizing control, and subverting the people’s entitlement to liberty and autonomy.
Houthi went on to highlight the resilience of the Yemeni nation in overcoming the invading forces and their ongoing progress.
The Ansarullah chief noted that the Saudi-led aggression on Yemen has resulted in the death or injury of over 50,000 civilians, mostly women and children.
He reiterated that the Yemeni nation’s spirit remains unbroken, despite the extensive damage inflicted on the country’s essential infrastructure and high civilian toll.
Houthi also emphasized that the Yemeni Armed Forces will further develop their indigenous military capabilities and that authorities in the Sana’a-based National Salvation Government will strive to boost the economy.
He finally called upon certain countries to rectify their miscalculations and renounce their aggressive policies towards Yemen.
In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and its allies launched the war on Yemen to restore power to the impoverished country’s Western- and Riyadh-allied government.
The war has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Yemenis and turned the entire country into the site of what the United Nations has described as the one of world’s worst humanitarian crises.
A massive tragedy struck Moscow last week as five armed assailants stormed the Crocus Concert Hall and opened indiscriminate fire on concertgoers, murdering over 130 and wounding many more.
The horrific massacre at the glitzy commercial center, which prompted a massive manhunt, led to the arrest of one assailant at the scene of the crime and others in the Bryansk forest, about 340 km southwest of the Russian capital.
Almost immediately, Daesh (or as the West calls “ISIS”) claimed responsibility for the ghastly massacre, releasing body cam footage of the shooters opening fire on people at the popular concert hall.
Since then, many have raised questions about the terrorist group’s motivations and objectives of the attack – and rightfully so.
Daesh has historically been at the service of Western powers. For example, any time the US needs an excuse to justify military operations from Syria to Iraq – Daesh just happens to raise its ugly face and sow chaos and destabilization.
In fact, Daesh is still the main justification for why the US illegally occupies much of Syria and Iraq – despite Axis of Resistance forces led by the late anti-terror commander General Qassem Soleimani destroying the edifice of the terror group in the region.
Or when Iran faced foreign plots in the form of armed riots in 2022 – rioters that had received training and financial support from American agencies – Daesh took advantage of the chaos and killed over a dozen pilgrims in a cowardly attack on the Shah Cheragh shrine in southern Iran’s Shiraz city.
The timing of the attack came as local security agencies were busy containing the armed rioters, and was seemingly a final bid by foreign hostile powers to foment chaos and disorder in Iran.
Chaos and destabilization are key to the nefarious plots hatched by US imperialists to push their hegemonic agendas. Since the very beginning of the Cold War, the US has been notorious for using mercenary proxy forces in order to advance its imperialistic goals.
So what is Daesh doing in Moscow? Three events come to mind that suggest things aren’t exactly what they seem. In other words, there is more to it than meets the eye.
Let’s switch back to January 2024 – outgoing US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said “Putin faces some nasty surprises on the battlefield this year.”
Nuland was referencing the $60 billion supplemental funding for Ukraine from US Congress – funding that has from the start never been kept track of. Billions of dollars worth of money go into weapons, logistics, and other “aid.” It is no secret that Ukraine has been using mercenaries – even Takfiris.
Daesh fighting in Ukraine is not even a new development. Reports of Daesh fighters fleeing Syria to fight in Ukraine could be recorded as far back as 2015. Fighters were trained under Daesh and then sent to Ukraine to fight Donbas separatists on behalf of the Kiev regime.
We have seen Daesh fighting on the same side as American interests at least twice in recent times – once in Syria against the democratically-elected Syrian government, and second in Ukraine, against Russia – a key US adversary. Also, let’s not forget Afghanistan where Daesh fought the Taliban alongside the US.
Nuland insists that Putin will face challenges on the “battlefield” but Ukrainian drone attacks and bombings throughout Moscow have already set a terroristic precedent for attacks on Russian soil.
A diversity of tactics by employing Takfiri terrorists is still carrying out the same violence by other, more shocking means.
Second, the US knew in advance of a terrorist attack – with the US embassy in Moscow cautioning Americans to avoid large gatherings days before the dastardly attack that claimed more than 130 lives.
In a message to Americans, the embassy stated: “The Embassy is monitoring reports that extremists are planning to attack large gatherings in Moscow, including concerts, in the near future, and US citizens should avoid large gatherings for the next 48 hours.”
Though the message was posted on March 7 and warned of an imminent attack within two days, it seems the US had some damning intelligence. To what degree this information was shared – if it was shared at all – remains unclear.
It is well within the US playbook to post a message of this nature before an attack to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing – but what did the embassy staff and their handlers knew in advance?
The knowledge of the imminent attack also raises other questions. The apprehended shooters revealed they were recruited by unknown people via Telegram, and offered a million rubles for the job.
This is not the modus operandi of Daesh – who typically send fighters on missions that would most certainly ensure they do not survive. However, this does have the markings of the US – which has previously tested Daesh recruitment methods via entrapment cases.
Furthermore, Russian intelligence confirmed years ago that the US has been training Daesh for attacks on Russian soil. So regardless of whether the assailants were Daesh or not, US influence is clearly in one way or another seen in this attack.
Even if Daesh wants to take credit for the attack, ultimately they are just tools in the hands of their American financiers who are seemingly only deployed when the US needs to cause commotion.
And of course, there is the final point – the timing of the attack, and the usage of Daesh itself – corresponds to the international critical lens on Israel.
The Tel Aviv regime has never been under more pressure and detested to such a degree. Its war crimes in the besieged Gaza Strip and disregard for international law have exposed its illegitimate nature.
The public image of Israel has simply never been worse, and they would need something absolutely horrific – and something they can use to their own benefit politically – to get out of the mess.
So where does Daesh come in? One must recall the first few weeks of the Al Aqsa Storm operation – where Zionist media started a campaign falsely equating Hamas with Daesh (ISIS).
The campaign, circulated with the false slogan “Hamas is ISIS” painted Hamas resistance fighters as Takfiri terrorists in order to gain international support for the Zionist cause.
This backfired massively. Hamas and Daesh are well-known enemies, are not ideologically aligned, and do not consider themselves allies in the slightest matter.
This Zionist lie was so far-fetched that even Western media outlets such as Time magazine, Politico, and AP news agency published articles detailing how the two groups are not alike.
Now, as the Zionist image is in tatters, a Daesh attack works in its favor – as it always has.
Racist Zionist politicians and pundits scrambled to social media to warn the world of “Islamism” and to insist yet again that Daesh is the same as Hamas, warning that if they do not destroy Hamas the world would see these attacks in Europe and in the United States, carried out by Hamas (who have never conducted terrorist operations as all of their targets are military targets, and further Hamas operations are limited to only occupied Palestine).
The attack that killed over a hundred innocents is being used as Israeli propaganda to conduct their own war crimes against the Palestinian people.
At best, this is standard Zionist racism and propaganda. At worst, the Zionists themselves had a direct hand in this, at a bare minimum having some knowledge from US intelligence services.
The entire situation screams of foreign manipulation and shadowy Western actors. Daesh has been the Western tool for over a decade now to sow chaos and mayhem – and it seemingly continues to be a go-to tactic for CIA-Mossad operations.
Over a hundred lives were lost and thousands were changed forever. The world must mourn with Moscow and the Russian people over this horrific loss of life – but it must also remain vigilant and ask the right questions.
Who really benefits from chaos and destruction in Russia? Who really benefits from chaos and destruction in Somalia, Iraq and Syria, where Daesh also operates?
One thing is undeniable: wherever you find Daesh, you will always find the shadow of the US with it.
Shabbir Rizvi is a Chicago-based political analyst with a focus on US internal security and foreign policy.
The majority of Americans believe it is likely that the US will be involved in a world war during the coming decade. Under President Joe Biden, the US is preparing for great power wars with Russia and China, engaged in multiple Middle East conflicts, and posturing for a confrontation with Iran and North Korea.
According to a new YouGov poll, 61% of Americans responded that it is very or somewhat likely that a world war would break out in the next five to ten years. About two-thirds of people responding to the poll said they believe the war will turn into a nuclear conflict.
When asked what countries would be aligned against the US, a majority of Americans said that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and China. Americans identified NATO members such as France and the UK, as well as Israel and Ukraine, as allies in the coming world war.
Americans are not overly optimistic about the potential conflict. A slight majority believe the US and its allies would defeat Russia. While under half of respondents said the US would lose a war with Russia or against an alliance between Moscow and Beijing.
While most Americans believe a global conflict is on the horizon, they are not interested in fighting the war. More than twice as many respondents said they would refuse service even if drafted than stated, they would volunteer if the war broke out. Americans responded that they were more likely to serve in non-combat roles or if the homeland was threatened.
The survey was conducted as President Biden embroiled the US in multiple conflicts, putting America on the brink of war across various global hot spots. The White House is fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. That conflict has escalated in recent weeks as Ukraine is losing territory and lashing out with attacks on Russia. In response, Moscow has launched more attacks on Ukrainian cities and devastated energy infrastructure with a missile barrage last week.
In the Middle East, Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, but in October, he followed Israel into a massive regional war. Washington is shipping thousands of bombs to Tel Aviv. The US is also bombing Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. Three American soldiers were killed in Jordan earlier this year. Even within the halls of the White House, US officials are concerned Biden’s Middle East policy could lead to a broader war with Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
President Biden has also continued a military buildup in the Asia-Pacific, stoking tensions with North Korea and China. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has responded with a rash of missile tests and fiery rhetoric. Beijing has increasingly pushed back against Washington’s support for Taipei and Manila with military drills in the Taiwan Strait, South, and East China Seas.
A growing divide in the world economy is further adding to global tensions. A rising number of countries, including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, Yemen, and Zimbabwe, face significant US sanctions. Economic warfare has led to a growing number of countries forming blocs outside of Washington’s control.
Washington is reportedly opposed to the potential release of Fatah leader Marwan al-Barghouti as a result of Israeli pressure on the US regarding the matter.
Barghouti is currently being held in Israel’s Megiddo prison and has been imprisoned since 2002, the second year of the Second Intifada. He was a supporter of armed Fatah operations against Israel and was convicted of murder.
“The US, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority [PA] have identical positions toward Barghouti, and do not want to release him as part of any prisoner exchange deal between Hamas and the occupation,” informed sources told Arab21 on 24 March.
Hamas had previously demanded Barghouti’s release as part of any exchange deal with Israel.
According to observers cited by the outlet, PA President Mahmoud Abbas fears “severe polarization” within the Fatah movement if Barghouti is released – given his popularity among Palestinians.
Barghouti reportedly faces direct threats in Israeli prison, prompting some to fear for his life. The head of the Palestinian Prisoners’ and Ex-Detainees Authority, Qaddoura Fares, was recently subjected to several physical attacks.
He added that 13 Palestinian prisoners have been killed inside Israeli prisons since 7 October and that there “is real concern for the life of Marwan Barghouti, who may suffer the same fate if these attacks continue.”
Recent polls indicate that Barghouti has soaring popularity among Palestinians. A poll released on 20 March – carried out by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) – states that in the case of a hypothetical election, Barghouti would win the majority of support by Palestinians.
“In presidential elections against current president Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas’ leader Ismail Haniyeh, Barghouti wins the majority of those participating in the elections. In a two-way competition between Barghouti and Haniyeh, the former wins by more than 60 percent of the participating voters. These findings indicate an 11-point rise in the vote for Barghouti among voters and an 8-point drop in the vote for Haniyeh,” the poll reads.
Despite US opposition to Barghouti’s release, western media has portrayed Barghouti – an advocate of the two-state solution – as essential to future peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Arab21 report comes as Washington has been pushing the idea of a ‘reformed’ PA taking administrative control over post-war Gaza, with the eventual establishment of a two-state solution. Hamas has referred to such an initiative as “a failed conspiracy that will not come to fruition.”
According to the PCPSR poll, Palestinians have shown little support for such a plan. Only thirteen percent of respondents selected the PA with Abbas at the helm, with 11 percent choosing the PA without Abbas.
In comparison, about 60 percent of respondents agreed that Hamas would be the preferred choice in ruling Gaza.
With the United States abstaining, the United Nations Security Council has finally adopted a long-awaited resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
The resolution was put forward by the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council. It received unanimous support from the remaining 14 members on Monday.
Washington had already vetoed similar bids three times since Israel started its brutal campaign in Gaza in early October.
The resolution demands an immediate ceasefire for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the release of Israelis the resistance movement Hamas took captive during Operation Al-Aqsa Storm on October 7, 2023. It also underscores the “urgent need to expand the flow” of aid into Gaza.
The regime says 253 Israelis were taken captive during the operation.
Given the duration of Ramadan, the truce demanded by the resolution would last for about two weeks.
The draft, however, says the truce should lead to a “lasting, sustainable ceasefire.”
Failure to implement truce ‘unforgivable’: UN chief
Right after the vote, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres welcomed the resolution.
“This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable,” Guterres posted on X.
The Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour said in remarks to the Security Council that the resolution must be “a turning point” in ending hostilities in Gaza.
“This must signal the end of this assault, of atrocities against our people.”
Hamas also welcomed the prospective ceasefire, saying the resistance group is ready for a prisoner exchange.
Slamming ‘US retreat’ at UN
Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, responded to Washington’s abstention.
He said the move, which allowed the resolution to pass, “hurts both the war effort” and the effort to release the captives, according to a statement by his office.
Netanyahu “made it clear last night that if the US withdraws from its principled position, he will not send the Israeli delegation to the US.”
“This is a clear retreat from the consistent position of the United States at the Security Council since the beginning of the war.”
President Joe Biden of the United States had asked Netanyahu to send a team for consultations over the regime’s plans to launch a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians have sought shelter.
The UN Security Council’s call for a ceasefire comes as international fears have grown over the planned Israeli ground invasion.
Human rights groups say a ground invasion of Rafah would drastically worsen a heavy civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
“It’s time for Jews to be feared!” declared Rabbi Shmuley recently. Jews having failed to overcome anti-Semitism by trying to be loved, respected or admired, must now make themselves feared. This is the new watchword.
The problem is, if Jews want to be feared, then they must also accept being hated. “Fear of the Jews” can be translated, literally, as “Judeophobia” (from the Greek phobos, to fear). To be feared, you must have the power to harm, and you must prove it. So if Jews want to be feared in order to fight anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism has a bright future ahead.
This all doesn’t make much sense. But it’s very biblical. To my knowledge, the Hebrew Bible does not recommend that Jews should strive to be loved by non-Jews. On the contrary, Yahweh said to his people in Deuteronomy 2:25:
“Today and henceforth, I shall fill the peoples under all heavens with fear and terror of you; whoever hears word of your approach will tremble and writhe in anguish because of you”
If Yahweh wants to spread terror among non-Jews, doesn’t that make him a terrorist, or the god of terrorists? It does, and it makes Zionists good Yahwists. In his 1951 memoir The Revolt, Menachem Begin bragged about “the military victory at Deir Yassin,” because the news of this slaughter of 254 villagers (mostly unarmed men, women, and children) immediately led to the “maddened, uncontrollable stampede of 635,000 Arabs. … The political and economic significance of this development can hardly be overestimated.”[1] Wasn’t Begin a worthy servant of his national god?
What Netanyahu is doing today is more than a hundred Deir Yassins. And the goal, again, is not just to kill indiscriminately, but by doing so to terrorize millions of Palestinians into leaving “voluntarily”. This explains why they let so many images of the martyrdom of Gaza filter: it is a public crucifixion, meant for all to see. (Andrew Anglin has suggested another reason, not contradictory with this one).
One of Netanyahu’s favorite biblical stories is the Book of Esther. He mentioned it in 2015 before the American Congress, as an argument why America should bomb Iran.[2] The Book of Esther is important for understanding how the Jews want to be feared. Under the influence of his minister Haman, the Persian king Ahasuerus issued a decree of final solution regarding the Jews of his kingdom, because “this people, and it alone, stands constantly in opposition to every nation, perversely following a strange manner of life and laws, and is ill-disposed to our government, doing all the harm they can so that our kingdom may not attain stability” (3:13). But thanks to Esther, Ahasuerus’s secretly Jewish wife, the Jews turn the situation around and obtain from the king that Haman be hanged with these ten sons, and that a new royal decree is promulgated, which gives the Jews “permission to destroy, slaughter and annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, together with their women and children, and to plunder their possessions” (8.11). And so the Jews massacred seventy-five thousand people. Throughout the land, the book concludes, “there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and holiday-making. Of the country’s population many became Jews, since now the Jews were feared” (8.17).
This story is entirely fictional, but it is very important to Jews, because every year, at Purim, they celebrate the hanging of Haman with his twelve sons, and the massacre of 75,000 people, including women and children.
According to the conclusion of this story, fear of the Jews produces new Jews, meaning Gentiles who become Jews out of fear of the Jews: “many became Jews, since now the Jews were feared.” Or in a more literal translation: “many people became Jews because the fear of the Jews fell upon them.” As I said, fear of Jews is more likely to produce anti-Semites than new Jews. Yet there are many examples of people who make themselves Jews out of fear of the Jews: any non-Jewish politician who one day put a yarmulke on his head and swore eternal loyalty to Israel fits that profile.
There is another story in the Book of Joshua that goes along the same lines. At the beginning of chapter 2, Joshua, who receives his orders directly from Yahweh in the Tabernacle, sends two spies to the city of Jericho. Having been spotted, they hide with a prostitute named Rahab. She helps them escape in exchange for being spared together with her family when Israel attacks the city, because, she says, “we are afraid of you and everyone living in this country has been seized with terror at your approach” (2:9). Because Israel is so terrifying, she assumes that “Yahweh your god is God.”
The French Catholic Bible de Jérusalem adds a footnote saying that “Rahab’s profession of faith in the god of Israel made her, in the eyes of more than one Church Father, a figure of the Gentile Church, saved by her faith.” I find perplexing the idea of making the whore of Jericho a symbol of the Church because, out of fear of Israel, she converted to the god of Israel and helped Israel to commit the genocide of her own city (“men and women, young and old, including the oxen, the sheep and the donkeys, slaughtering them all,” Joshua 6:21).
On the other hand, it is not a bad metaphor for the complicity of the Christian world in the Israeli genocide of Gazans. There is no doubt that, in most Christians today, fear of the Jews is much stronger than pity for the Gazans. And the heads of states of most Christian nation would rather start World War III with Russia than criticize Israel. Russia is, after all, a rational enemy, while no one knows what psychopathic Israel is capable of.
Israel is the only country that openly threatens to blow up the planet. They call it the Samson Option. The Samson Option is the combination of Israel’s nuclear capability and Israel’s reputation as a dangerous paranoid. Everyone knows that Israel has a hundred nuclear warheads (80 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). And everyone knows that Israel is biblical, eager to fulfill prophecies, such as Zechariah 14:12:
“And this is the plague with which Yahweh will strike all the nations who have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet; their eyes will rot in their sockets; their tongues will rot in their mouths.”
Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the University of Jerusalem, explained to the British newspaper The Gardian in 2003 that the Palestinians’ recurrent Intifadas will find only one solution: the “transfer” of all Palestinians out of Palestine. On the risk of opposition from the international community to such a project, he added:
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions … We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”[i]
That’s the Samson Option in a nutshell. Its essence is nuclear terrorism.
The audacity and impunity of Israel today are incomprehensible if we do not take into account the Samson Option. But the Samson Option, like Jewish Power in general, is taboo: everyone must know about it, but no one has the right to talk about it. This silence is the ultimate test of Israel’s fear. In a very recent post, Seymour Hersh writes:
“No one who’s anyone in Washington is allowed to talk about Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Or how it affects the region. Or whether it serves U.S. interests, even as the Middle East teeters on the brink of regional war.”[3]
As Hersh himself has documented in The Samson Option, it was thanks to the Kennedy assassination that Israel was able to adopt the Samson Option. Jefferson Morley, an investigator on the Kennedy assassination, noted, in a comment on Hersh’s post, that there is also an “Israeli gag” in Kennedy research:
“you can see the effects of the Israeli gag rule in the long-classified testimony of James Angleton, chief of CIA counterintelligence, to Senate investigators in June 1975. The redactions make visible what the U.S. and Israel government seek to conceal in 2024: how Israel obtained nuclear weapons on Angleton’s watch.”[4]
In the extract below, the word “Israeli” has been redacted to conceal the fact that Angleton was running the “Israeli account” and was, in that function, the sole liaison with the Mossad.
In his remarkable biography of Angleton, Morley shows that Angleton’s loyalty to Israel went as far as allowing and covering their smuggling of nuclear materials and technology. As every Kennedy researcher knows, Angleton is also the number one suspect in the CIA for the Kennedy assassination. Which means the CIA trail in the Kennedy assassination runs directly into the Mossad trail (something that Morley avoids saying, as a respectable member of the mainstream It’s-the-CIA school).
I must say that I am very disappointed by President Kennedy’s nephew, Robert Kennedy Junior, who either seems to have no idea of the heavy suspicion hanging over Israel in the assassinations of his uncle and father, or else pretends not to know, or just doesn’t want to know.
And since I started this article talking about Rabbi Shmuley, the sad news is that Rabbi Shmuley is one of RFK Jr.’s friends and advisors. At a rally on July 25, 2023, he introduced Robert Kennedy by mentioning his father:
“On the fifth of June, 1968, at 12:15 am, … Robert Kennedy Sr., one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, was gunned down by a Palestinian domestic terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan, and murdered because of his support for Israel. He was gunned down because he wanted to share the fate of the Jewish people.”
Bobby Jr. listened and took it in, without the slightest sign of disapproval, even though he knows very well that his father was not killed by Sirhan, and certainly not for his support of Israel. He remained frozen and mute in his chair, not even nodding when a brave lady in the audience protested, “Why are you lying? Sirhan Sirhan was not the murderer of Robert Kennedy…”[5] RFK Jr. will not contradict the lying Rabbi.
It’s a sadly revealing moment. By publicly humiliating Robert Kennedy Junior, insulting the memory of his father with his gross lie, right beside him, Shmuley is making an example. To be feared, Jews must show their power by making examples. That’s a good example.
Notes
[1] Menachem Begin, The Revolt: Story of the Irgun, Henry Schuman, 1951, quoted in Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel?,op. cit., p. 81.
[2] “Benjamin Netanyahu Speech to Congress 2015” on YouTube.
The book Gaza Writes Back is a collection of short stories from twenty young Gazans. Although published in 2013, the book is highly relevant today. The stories reveal how the last five months is the culmination of a process which has been going on for decades.
The title is curious: Gaza Writes Back. Perhaps it is an alternative to “Gaza Fights Back”. Certainly in the context of Gaza, writing is an important form of resistance to Israeli repression, occupation and massacres. The oppressor recognizes this as well. At least ninety five journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza since October 7.
The editor of Gaza Writes Back was an English literature and creative writing professor at Gaza’s Islamic University named Refaat Alareer. Many of the contributors to this collection of short stories were Alareer’s students.
There are many references in the book to Israel’s attacks on Gaza in 2008-9 named “Operation Cast Lead”. As the anthology was being printed and first distributed, Israel launched the massacre named “Operation Protective Edge”. In six weeks, Israel killed 2,191 Palestinians and injured 11,231 while 71 Israelis were killed. Thirty Palestinians for every single Israeli. As editor Alareer says, “This book shows the world that despite Israel’s continuous attempts to kill steadfastness in us, Palestinians keep going on , never surrendering to pain or death, and always seeing and seeking liberty and hope in the darkest of times.”
The editor Alareer says, writing is “an act of resistance and an obligation to humanity to raise awareness among people blinded by the multi-million dollar Israeli campaign of ‘hasbara’ (‘persuasion’, or more accurately, disinformation.)”
Most of the stories recount difficult moments and experiences. That is natural because the oppression in Gaza has been relentless for decades. Here is a concise summary of the conditions in 2014 when this book came out: “If you lived in Gaza, how would YOU feel?”
It is impressive that Gazans continue to resist and maintain their humanity despite the efforts to dehumanize them.
The story “L is for Life” is about a young woman writing a letter to her father who died eleven years earlier. She speaks of her mother’s “bitter loneliness”. It reminds us that for every Palestinian killed there is pain and suffering caused to each of their friends and family. How many women and men share that “bitter loneliness” because their partners or children were killed? How many lives have been irreparably harmed by the injuries and amputations? The author travels to an orphanage that her late father spoke of and sees hope in the midst of destruction.
The story “One War Day” describes a mother who opens all the windows at night to avoid windows exploding inwards if there is an Israeli bombing. When the roof collapses the author’s brother is buried under the rubble with his hands still on the book he was reading.
The story “Spared” describes a girl whose mother insists she stay inside for lunch rather than go out where kids are playing soccer in the street. That saves her from death or injury when a bomb is dropped. Kids died and there were amputated limbs and scarred faces. “Our neighborhood was blown to smithereens in a split second. No more games played. No more goals. No more cheering. And my friends grew up in a second.“
In the story “A Wish for Insomnia” the writer imagines she is an Israeli soldier with post traumatic stress disorder. As the young writer imagines, there must be Israeli soldiers who take home the nightmare of what they have done just as there are US soldiers with the same mental and emotional disorder. The Palestinian author writes, “The past few weeks were agonizing for the family. Their father (the Israeli soldier) did not leave the bedroom. All they saw and heard of him was his screaming in the middle of the night, the noise of things breaking, and his moaning during the day.” He has nightmares and says, “We were sent in tanks to Gaza…. We were instructed to shoot to kill and we shot almost every moving thing. We shot the water tanks, a couple of stray dogs, a cow, a dozen people, and there was that woman with her kid…. I wish I could know what happened to the kid. The kid cried the whole night. I kept hearing the commander’s order in the background, but it was the little kid’s voice that haunted me everywhere…..”
The short story titled “Please Shoot to Kill” portrays family life and fear during nights and days of bombing and Israeli soldiers kicking down the door to their house with M16 rifles ready to fire. It describes what it’s like to see the soldiers ransacking the house then hitting the father. What it’s like to see one’s little sibling hit by shrapnel so badly the leg would be amputated. What it’s like to have Apache helicopters overhead and Meerkhava tanks on the street. The father needs a kidney operation in Egypt but is unable to go there. Instead, a baby that needs surgery is allowed to go. “Laila did not hate the little baby who was sent instead of her father. She only hated Israel for making it so that the doctor had to choose. She only wished this baby would survive, grow up, and become a freedom fighter.”
The story titled “From Beneath” describes the thoughts of a young woman under the rubble, unable to move and sensing what parts of her body have been crushed and how her life was coming to end.
The story “Lost at Once” is a love story giving insights into Gazan social class differences.
These are just a few of the twenty-three short stories in this fine book.
The editor, Professor Refaat Alareer, was also a moving poet and an influential voice with 83 thousand followers on Twitter/X. His twitter handle was @ThisIsGaZa. In his last interview before being killed, Refaat said “I am an academic. Probably the toughest thing I have at home is an Expo marker. But if the Israelis invade, if they barge at us, charge at us, open the door to massacre us, I am going to use that marker to throw it at the Israeli soldiers, even if that that is the last thing I do. And this is the feeling of everybody. We are helpless. We have nothing to lose.”
Refaat Alareer and his brother, sister and four of their children were killed in a targeted airstrike on 6 December 2023. His last poem is a testament to his courage and dedication. It has been widely remembered at demonstrations against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
If I Must Die
If I must die,
you must live
to tell my story
to sell my things
to buy a piece of cloth
and some strings,
(make it white with a long tail)
so that a child, somewhere in Gaza
while looking heaven in the eye
awaiting his dad who left in a blaze—
and bid no one farewell
not even to his flesh
not even to himself—
sees the kite, my kite you made, flying up above
and thinks for a moment an angel is there
bringing back love
If I must die
let it bring hope
let it be a tale
Some of Refaat Alareer’s outstanding academic lectures are available online. A tribute to him by his publisher Just World Books is online here. The heading of Refaat Alareer’s twitter account says, “I teach; therefore, I am. Have you read Gaza Writes Back?”
This book exemplifies courage and dignity in the face of hardship and repeated attacks. Each story is different but collectively they give a sense of continued dignity and hope despite suffering and pain. Ultimately, the stories are uplifting. It is a measure of Israel’s lawlessness that they had to murder the editor of Gaza Writes Back.
Rick Sterling can be reached at rsterling1@protonmail.com.
By Mark Curtis | MintPress News | November 16, 2022
There is a myth the UK did not support Washington’s war against Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, Labour and Conservative governments backed every phase of US military escalation and played secret roles in the conflict, declassified files show.
UK sent SAS team to Vietnam in 1962, flew secret RAF missions to deliver arms, and provided intelligence to US
UK governments lied to parliament they were not providing military advice to South Vietnam’s brutal regime
Labour government secretly gave arms to US for use in Vietnam, stressing need for “no publicity”
It also connived with Washington to deceive UK public over its support for US
UK governments knew of atrocities against civilians but backed US war aims
Whitehall only started to advocate a peaceful solution, on US terms, once the war became unwinnable
During its war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s the US dropped more bombs than in the whole of World War Two, in a conflict that killed over two million people. The wholesale destruction of villages and killing of innocent people was a permanent feature of the US war from the beginning, along with widespread indiscriminate bombing.
Britain’s role in the war has been largely buried and must be almost completely unknown to the public. When the UK media mentions the war now, reports often simply reference the refusal by Harold Wilson’s government to agree to US requests to openly deploy British troops.
Although this was certainly a public rebuff to Washington, Britain did virtually everything else to back the US war over more than a decade, the declassified documents show. … 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.