Israeli general pegs cost of defending against attack – media
RT | April 14, 2024
Israel has claimed success in defending itself against Saturday’s drone and missile barrages by Iran, but that effort reportedly came at a high price.
The interceptors, jet fuel and other materials expended in shooting down Iran’s unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and missiles cost about 4 billion to 5 billion shekels ($1.06 billion to $1.33 billion), Israeli Brigadier General Reem Aminoach told local media outlet Ynet News on Sunday. The estimate included only Israel’s direct costs, not counting the considerable weaponry used by the US and other allies in helping to defend against the attack.
Aminoach, formerly the financial adviser to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff, said West Jerusalem used such munitions as Arrow and David’s Sling interceptor missiles, which have per-unit costs of about $3.5 million and $1 million, respectively. He also included sortie expenses for the fighter jets that did the bulk of the work in shooting down Iranian drones.
The general lamented that it was far cheaper for Iran to launch the attack than for Israel to defend itself. “The attack cost Iran less than 10% of what it cost us to defend against it,” he told Ynet. “In the future – in a year, two years, or five years – they can carry out 50 such attacks. And let’s say that if the IDF’s net budget in 2023 was 60 billion shekels, with less than double that you have no chance of reaching a situation where we can maintain the required amounts.”
The IDF claimed that 99% of the more than 300 kamikaze drones and missiles launched from Iranian territory were successfully intercepted. All of the UAVs and cruise missiles were shot down, military spokesman Daniel Hagari said, while a few ballistic missiles got through Israel’s defenses.
Those projectiles fell at the Nevatim Airbase and caused “only minor damage to infrastructure,” the spokesman said. He added that the drones launched by Iranian-backed militants in Iraq and Yemen all failed to reach Israeli territory. The only casualty was a shrapnel wound to a 10-year-old Bedouin Israeli girl who was hit while sleeping at her home in southern Israel.
Saturday’s attack came in response to an April 1 airstrike that killed seven Iranian military officers, including two senior commanders, at Tehran’s consulate in Damascus. Israel has vowed to “exact a price” from Iran for striking back.
Strike on Israel Shows US Bases Near Iran Are ‘Achilles Heel’ – Analyst
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 14.04.2024
Fears of a greater Middle East escalation were triggered after Iran launched a massive drone and missile attack against Israel, aided by Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis. Iran said the attack was in response to Israel’s bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, which killed seven members of the elite Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iran’s massive retaliatory attack on Israel from its own territory is a sign that the conflict could “escalate out of control.”
Michael Maloof, a former senior security analyst in the office of the US secretary of defense, told Sputnik that the first ever direct Iranian attack on Israel set a dangerous precedent.
“My concern is that this could easily escalate into something not only between Iran and Israel, but beyond the Middle East region,” he said.
Iran’s assault, which it stated was an act of “self-defense” after the Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus, was originally intended to be a “limited” one, said Maloof.
Iran first sent in “swarms of drones with lights on as a sign of psychological warfare,” but sending in cruise and ballistic missiles by Tehran was a “distinct escalation,” said Maloof.
The scale of Iran’s attack on Israel suggests that Tehran was sending a message, demonstrating that it possesses “extraordinary capabilities,” said Maloof.
“They have built up their missile capabilities extraordinarily, they have drones, cruise missiles, and some of the most accurate ballistic missiles in the region right now,” he added.
“I think that this clearly showed that Iran has a capability. I think it’s limited. They cannot do this on a sustained basis. And they did send their slower ordinance, such as drones, UAVs. But they also claim to have hypersonics,” Maloof noted.
“I think that if Israel were to retaliate, then I think they would engage the more sophisticated missiles and hypersonics, potentially, if they have them,” He added. “Then you’re talking some very serious escalation in the entire region. It’s already unprecedented, but this escalation could be even ratcheted up that could conceivably bring in other and extend beyond just this region.”
All signs point to the potential of a larger regional war erupting, Maloof warned, adding that everything now depends on Israel’s reaction. “Is this a tit-for-tat, a one-on-one, or a further escalation?” he asked.
“I think we are already getting that message from Netanyahu, his ministers, that they are going to respond… How they respond is going to determine the extent of that escalation through the [Middle East] region,” stressed Maloof. “I am quite concerned that neither side is going to stand down at this point.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to “continue an endless war in the region,” suggested Maloof, adding that he “knows he had the US backing,” and could opt to strike now, taking advantage of this “window of opportunity.”
“He may not get such an opportunity under a potential Trump administration coming in [after the US elections in November],” said the expert.
Looking at possible scenarios for Israel’s response, he noted that Tel Aviv had already stated publicly an intention to “go after the nuclear sites in Iran.”
“That is going to be exceedingly difficult, plus I don’t know that they have the power projection to do that on any consistent basis, and secondly, I don’t believe they have the so-called ‘bunker busters’ that would be needed to be able to drill down through the mountains to reach those facilities. The US has been reluctant to give Israel these bunker buster [munitions],” said Maloof.
As for the US, it has already “gotten sucked into this,” Maloof noted.
US President Joe Biden issued a statement on Iran’s attack against Israel after speaking with Netanyahu by phone. Biden condemned the attack “in the strongest possible terms”.
He reaffirmed Washington’s “ironclad commitment” to help support Israel’s security. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US does “not seek escalation” but will “continue to support” Israel’s defense. “I will be consulting with allies and partners in the region and around the world in the hours and days ahead,” he added.
“There is already a call in Congress to put on fast-track the legislation to approve new ordinance, and the $14 billion for Israel,” said the pundit. He remarked that the Pentagon might “empty its stockpiles to provide support to Israel,” and recalled that besides giving Israel bombs and artillery, the US supports its Iron Dome air defense system, whose missiles will need to be replenished.
“If you have a swarm, wave after wave of swarms, Israel is going to be very hard pressed to be able to defend against that. And that’s why the US now is coming in, and that gets the US directly involved,” Maloof pointed out. “And that could then open up US assets in the region.” We have got some 35 bases that surround Iran, and they thereby become vulnerable. They were meant to be a deterrence. Clearly, deterrence is no longer on the table here. Now they become the American Achilles heel because of their vulnerabilities to attack. They’ve got air defense systems, but they’ve got to be replenished. And given that you got active war going on right now in the region, it’s going to be difficult to replenish those supplies.”
According to the ex-Pentagon analyst, much now also depends upon what stockpiles Iran has and “with what consistency they can keep sending these wave after wave of drones and ballistic missiles… Ultimately, if they have them, the hypersonics… and there’s no defense against hypersonics. Not even Israel’s ‘Arrow’ system, which is designed to deal with ballistic missiles… And apparently, that’s been engaged tonight, as well as the Iron Dome.”
The United Nations (UN) Security Council is to meet on Sunday in response to a request from Gilad Erdan, Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations. The meeting is scheduled for 4 pm New York time (2000 GMT), as announced by the UN Department of Global Communications.
“I’m hoping that the UN Security Council can take this up and maybe some adult supervision could begin to intervene in this and maybe try to bring it to a halt for now,” Maloof said. “But right now, this minute, it doesn’t look like it. And again, it’s going to depend upon the response from the Israelis if they go directly into Iran in response.”
The current media frenzy surrounding the Iran strike is “disproportionately amplified compared to the actual events transpiring on the ground,” Dr Ahmed Al Ibrahim, a Riyadh-based political analyst, told Sputnik.
He added that any true aftermath of Iran’s strike will be discernible after a “thorough assessment.”
“Indeed, I dismiss the current situation as largely sensationalized, a “bubble” inflated by media coverage and public attention,” the political analyst said.
He expressed skepticism that any Middle Eastern countries would “willingly entangle themselves in the unfolding chaos.” Arguing that “Iran’s capacity to directly threaten Israel is limited by geographical constraints,” Ibrahim agreed that there is “potential for escalation.”
Scott Ritter: Iran’s Retaliatory Attack ‘Reestablished Deterrence’ to Hold Israel, US in Check
By Svetlana Ekimenko | Sputnik | April 14, 2024
Iran’s mission to the United Nations stated earlier that Tehran’s retaliatory drone and missile attack against Israel had “concluded.” The “military action” was a response to Israel’s “aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus,” it said, adding that the strike “hit designated targets.”
By launching its retaliatory drone and missile attack on Israel, Iran “reestablished deterrence,” former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter told Sputnik.
“Israel believed that it could launch a strike against Iran and suffer no consequence. That is no longer the case,” Ritter noted.
As Israeli military officials survey the damage done to their bases, “they understand the following: that Iran deliberately chose not to inflict extremely lethal action against Israel,” the analyst remarked.
Iran launched a massive drone and missile attack against Israel overnight, assisted by Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis. Over 300 projectiles were fired at Israeli territory from Iran, with Iran’s mission to the United Nations stating that its retaliatory attack on Israel had “concluded,” and that the strike “hit designated targets.” Israel’s military has claimed that 99% of the projectiles were intercepted.
Iran’s strike was designed to send a signal to Israel and the United States, “that it could do what it did in Nevatim, at Ramona, anywhere in Israel, anywhere in the Middle East, and there was nothing the United States or Israel could do in response.”
“This is deterrence. This means that in the future, if either Israel or the United States plan on carrying out an action against Iran, they have to weigh in the consequences of their actions knowing that Iran has the capacity to reach out and touch any place, any spot, any target in the region in Israel or out of Israel, and there’s nothing anybody could do to stop that,” the retired US Marine Corps intelligence officer said.
US President Joe Biden issued a statement on Iran’s attack against Israel after he spoke on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The POTUS condemned the strike “in the strongest possible terms.” He also reaffirmed Washington’s “ironclad commitment” to help support Israel, and added that there were no attacks on US forces or facilities on Saturday, but that the US “will remain vigilant to all threats.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US does “not seek escalation,” but will “continue to support” Israel’s defense. “I will be consulting with allies and partners in the region and around the world in the hours and days ahead,” he added.
Weighing in on the flurry of talks between US and Israeli leaders, Scott Ritter said:
“This is why President Biden has been on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, telling him, ‘Do not retaliate.’ The United States will not be a partner in any offensive action against Iran. Not because the United States is friendly to Iran, but the United States understands the consequences that will accrue, should such an attack take place. The United States has been deterred against further action against Iran.”
The question uppermost at the moment is, “what will Israel do?” Ritter noted.
“Israel has been trying to lead the United States into a larger conflict with Iran for some time now. Indeed, some people have speculated that the Israeli attack against the Iranian Consulate in Damascus was designed for just that purpose… But the Iranians were very clever in designing their response – just like they did, when they retaliated against the United States for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani back in 2020,” Ritter said.
He recalled that at the time, Iran launched over a dozen missiles against the Al-Asad air base in Iraq, but Tehran gave Washington advance notice that that base was going to be struck. Thus, Iran ended up destroying empty buildings, Ritter recalled.
“But it demonstrated to the United States that it had the capacity to strike any American base in the region with extreme precision and kill as many Americans as they wanted – if they wanted to do that. And America was deterred against future action of that sort. Will Israel be deterred?” the analyst wondered.
No decision has been made yet regarding an Israeli response to the Iranian missile and drone attack, an Israeli official told The Times of Israel. It was added that a potential response would be discussed at a war cabinet meeting set for later on Sunday. Israel’s response to the Iranian attack will be coordinated with its allies, The New York Times reported earlier, citing an Israeli official.
After Iran’s unprecedented strike, Tel Aviv “understands that any escalation could mean the destruction of Israel,” Scott Ritter noted.
“Israel probably isn’t going to launch a response against Iran. Israel has been deterred from launching that response by the Iranian actions. In this case, we can say that operation ‘True Promise’ was an extraordinarily successful operation, not only for Iran, but indeed for the world, because Iranian deterrence now is a reality that can hold Israel and the United States in check,” Ritter said.
Iran describes response to Israeli attack as ‘legitimate defense’
Press TV – April 13, 2024
Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations defends the country’s retaliation against the Israeli regime’s recent terrorist attack on the Islamic Republic’s diplomatic premises in the Syrian capital.
“Iran’s military action was based on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter concerning legitimate defense in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus,” the mission said in a statement on Saturday.
“The matter can be considered as concluded,” it added.
The mission, however, warned that if the Israeli regime perpetrated another mistake, Iran’s subsequent response could be “remarkably more intense.”
The statement concluded that the conflict was one between Iran and the rogue regime, “of which the United States should stay away.”
Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), on Saturday night, launched “extensive” retaliatory missile and drone strikes against the occupied territories, defining the mission as “Operation True Promise.”
The Israeli attack had resulted in the martyrdom of Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, his deputy, General Mohammad Hadi Haji Rahimi, and five of their accompanying officers.
The terrorist attack drew sharp condemnation from senior Iranian political and military leaders, who vowed “definitive revenge.”
On Thursday, the Iranian mission to the United Nations said the UN Security Council’s condemnation of the Israeli atrocity could have prevented the need for retaliation.
“Had the UN Security Council condemned the Zionist regime’s reprehensible act of aggression on our diplomatic premises in Damascus and subsequently brought to justice its perpetrators, the imperative for Iran to punish this rogue regime might have been obviated,” it said on the social media platform X Thursday.
End of Escalatory Ladder in Ukraine & MidEast – John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
The Duran | April 12, 2024
WHEN IT’S OKAY TO NUKE A COUNTRY
By Norman Finkelstein | April 12, 2024
Historian Benny Morris supports Prime Minister Netanyahu’s resolve to attack Rafah (“Israel’s Security Depends on Rafah,” NY Times, 11 April 2024). Normally home to 280,000 Gazans, Rafah now also contains 1.2 million internal refugees swept into the city during Israel’s massive ethnic cleansing the past six months. It’s probably the most densely populated spot on God’s earth. In a disingenuous wordplay, Morris designates these 1.5 million Gazans a “human shield.” This locution denotes the involuntary conscription by an armed force of civilians to protect itself. But Hamas didn’t conscript these forsaken souls as shields; it was Israel that drove them there while now purporting that it must kill them to get at Hamas. Morris’s article is couched in this propagandistic idiom. He still refers to the casualty figures as based on the “Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry” even as independent professional studies have confirmed these figures, and they are almost certainly an underestimate. He states that the current 33,000 figure “includes the more than 12,000 Hamas fighters the Israeli military claims to have killed these past six months.” In fact, the casualty figures Israel alleged in its previous “operations”—dutifully repeated by Morris in his books—wildly differed from the findings of human rights groups, while Israel has bandied about a mass of wildly discrepant figures of militants killed during the past six months. The IDF hasn’t even a clue how many Hamas combatants have been killed: it’s almost certain that most militants have fallen victim anonymously alongside civilians in the course of Israel’s deliberately indiscriminate terror assault on Gazan society; there have only been a handful of “battles” where Hamas corpses can ultimately be counted while, judging by previous Israeli operations—in which its “crazy” and “insane” firepower overwhelmed Hamas fighters and thus they rarely made it to actual combat—there cannot have been many Hamas battlefield corpses in the latest round to add up; the IDF doesn’t usually enter the Hamas tunnels it discovers but just explodes the shafts; Israel routinely classifies any dead adult male it stumbles upon during its “operations” as a Hamas “terrorist.” Meanwhile, Israel’s prime minister recently avowed that the IDF has killed only one civilian for every Hamas militant it killed. Does Morris believe this?
Morris justified an Israeli assault on the grounds that Rafah is the last stronghold of Hamas in Gaza; that an “expansive Hamas tunnel system” lies beneath Rafah; and that the “Hamas battalions” numbering “thousands of its fighters” ensconced in these tunnels must be “obliterated.” How does he know all this? Yes, Israel alleges that Hamas has built 450 miles of tunnels beneath Gaza. But that figure exceeds in length the famed sprawling, ramified New York City subway system (430 miles of tunnels), and, if true, every 1,200 hundred feet along minuscule Gaza’s 5-mile-long width, there is yet another 25-mile-long tunnel stretching its full length. Is that credible? It’s also anyone’s guess whether “Hamas battalions” are hiding in Rafah. Just a few months ago Israel alleged that Hamas’s command-and-control center lurked beneath al-Shifa hospital. Then it alleged that Hamas’s leaders had fled to Khan Younis. And on and on. Even as each claim proved to be false, they did nonetheless serve as a useful pretext to pulverize the infrastructure of another parcel of land as Israel proceeded to make Gaza uninhabitable. It seems that—with an assist from Morris—that fate now awaits Rafah.
Morris’s admonition that Hamas must suffer total defeat places him squarely within the consensus of Israeli politics. But the Israeli political spectrum is off the spectrum. There’s no center let alone left in Israeli politics: there’s only a right, a far right, and an ultra right. On the US political spectrum Morris’s opinion is echoed in a new publication by the neocon Jewish Institute for National Security of America: Hamas must be “effectively destroyed”; Israel must inflict a “visible and overwhelming defeat of Hamas.” (JINSA, “The Day After: A Plan for Gaza,” March 2024) The lead authors of this report are John Hannah, Elliott Abrams, and Lewis Libby. This trio was last heard from when they played crucial roles in the George W. Bush administration’s decision to unseat Saddam Hussain. So if you’re curious where Morris is coming from, think of the—crazed—mindset that brought us Iraq.
Morris anticipates that if the attack on Rafah goes ahead, “the additional civilian casualties and the attendant further disruption of humanitarian aid … will ratchet up condemnation of Israel’s conduct by its Western allies, led by the United States.” Notice his one and only concern is that the assault won’t go over well in the West. A just-released report by the respected International Crisis Group observes that Israel’s “stated goals of destroying Hamas and toppling the government” cannot be reconciled with “saving what remains of Gaza and preventing mass death from starvation and disease.” It’s one or the other. The report concludes that “The goal of toppling Hamas cannot justify abetting a famine that could claim tens of thousands of lives.” (“Stopping Famine in Gaza,” April 2024) But the moral dilemma of pursuing an assault that could result in a hecatomb doesn’t even register for Morris. His moral calculus only reckons the diplomatic fallout. Here again, he is an Everyman Israeli.
Professor Morris was once a serious historian. Like everyone else, he had his biases, but his books were replete with rich archival findings. But, per the generality of Israelis, he has in recent decades become so consumed by hatred and contempt of Palestinians, so given to bile-filled rants, that not a word he says can any longer be trusted. (I publicly challenged Morris during a debate to answer my stringent parsing of his recent scholarly output. Morris agreed—but then abruptly, albeit predictably, backed out after reading my analysis.) He has exploited his deserved past reputation to disseminate Israeli state propaganda. Like the JINSA neocons, he has been repeatedly exhorting the US to join Israel in an attack on Iran. What’s more, he has even rattled the threat that, if Israel has to go it alone, it will have no recourse except to nuke Iran:
“Realistic leaders in Washington and Jerusalem cannot allow Teheran to have the Bomb. And, in the coming months or year, must do what is necessary to halt and destroy the Iranian nuclear project. And if this involves a protracted, conventional air assault on the Iranian nuclear facilities—then so be it. The Iranians will have brought that assault on their own heads. And, if conventional weapons cannot do the job—and if Israel is forced to go the course alone, it is doubtful that its conventional capabilities will be sufficient to destroy the Iranian nuclear project. Then non-conventional weaponry will have to be used to stymie the project. And many innocent Iranians will die. But the Iranians will have brought this upon themselves by bringing to power and leaving in power a leadership that will have forced Israelis to do what was necessary in order to survive.” (“A Second Holocaust?: The threat to Israel” (2 May 2008; www.mideastfreedomforum.org/de/node/66)
It’s a most intriguing proposition. If the Iranian people elected their current government, then, if they are wiped out in a nuclear attack, “they will have brought this upon themselves.” Doesn’t it then follow that, if the Israeli people elected their current genocidal government—indeed, according to polls, overwhelmingly support the genocide—then “they will have brought this upon themselves” if …?
Indonesia won’t normalize with Israel because Indonesians won’t allow that
By Dina Y. Sulaeman | Press TV | April 13, 2024
In the last few days, Israeli media has been reporting about Indonesia mulling normalization of relations with the Tel Aviv regime to fulfill the requirements for accession to The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a neoliberal market-based alliance countries.
The news circulated at a dizzying pace on social media platforms and triggered a wide array of reactions from netizens worldwide, including in Indonesia. It wasn’t something they were expecting.
Indonesian foreign ministry was quick to deny the reports in a midnight statement, saying no such plan was in offing. “I affirm that, as of now, there are no plans to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, particularly given Israel’s actions in Gaza,” the ministry spokesperson Lalu Muhamad Iqbal said.
Most people in Indonesia, I can vouch for, reject and condemn any plan that leads to the normalization of ties between the two sides or Jakarta’s recognition of the apartheid colonial entity.
Several notes can be taken from this frenzy. First, the behavior of the Israeli media, citing anonymous sources, to report on Indonesia’s plans to normalize relations with Israel. It has happened several times in the last few years.
Indonesian foreign ministry has always denied such reports. It again denied it and then it was as if there was nothing more. There was no apology from the Israeli media, nor was there any criticism of the Israeli media from the Indonesian side.
This time, the news about Indonesia’s so-called normalization coincided with simmering regional tensions in the wake of Iran’s vow to retaliate against the Israeli bombing of its consulate in Damascus.
Bombing a country’s diplomatic mission is a fatal violation of international law and can be equated with bombing the country’s territory. From this perspective, Iran has every right to retaliate.
So, the situation turned extremely difficult for Israel. Many countries issued travel advisories for the occupied territories while Israeli regime officials frantically tried to get Iran to “not escalate.”
The unspecified timing of Iran’s retaliation has caused psychological torture for the Israeli regime and settlers. In conditions like these, rumors regarding Indonesia-Israel normalization appear to have been deliberately circulated by the Zionist media to reduce tensions and divert world public opinion.
The second point is that Indonesia’s support for Palestine is deep-rooted. This support predates Indonesia’s independence, so it cannot be shaken so easily by the Zionist propagandists.
In 1934, when the Palestinians fought against the British (at that time, Indonesia was still colonized by the Dutch), the clergy in Indonesia collected donations from the people to help Palestine.
It is also recorded in history that a rich Palestinian businessman, Muhammad Ali Taher, in 1944 donated a large amount of money to the struggle for Indonesian independence.
In history lessons at schools, our teachers often repeated the phrase: “Palestine was the first to recognize Indonesia’s independence.”
What it actually meant is that after the proclamation of Indonesian independence on August 17, 1945, the Indonesian diplomat, M. Zein Hassan, came to Egypt to promote recognition of that independence.
In order to support Hassan’s efforts, a number of resistance figures in the Arab world based in Cairo founded Lajnatud Difa’i ‘an Indonesia on October 16, 1945, including General Saleh Harb Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League and Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha, Chairman of the Palestine Committee.
The recommendation from the Lajnah was a resolution to support the Republic of Indonesia and an appeal to all countries, especially Arab and Islamic countries, to recognize the new republic.
After that, almost all the Arab countries recognized the Republic of Indonesia one by one.
Apart from that, Indonesia initiated and hosted the Asia-Africa Conference from 18 to April 24, 1955, the first conference of formerly colonized countries in the world whose main spirit was to liberate all the colonized people on earth.
Support for Palestinian independence was one of the dominant issues at this conference. Indonesia has a historical burden to maintain that spirit and fulfill its promise of independence for Palestine.
The third point is, it needs to be acknowledged that there are indeed parties in Indonesia, both politicians and prominent figures, who are secretly establishing personal relations with Israel.
Indonesia’s decision to submit a membership application to the OECD, an organization controlled by Western capitalist countries, instead of joining a new economic power that is far more promising for shared prosperity, namely BRICS, shows the dominance of the West in Indonesia’s economic posture.
Membership in the OECD requires the consent of all members, including Israel. It is very possible that there are figures behind the scenes who are trying to normalize Indonesia-Israel for their interests, especially business interests.
However, they never expressed their intentions openly because it would be tantamount to political suicide. No politician in Indonesia would dare to commit suicide at this time when public sentiment is very strong in supporting Palestine and against Israel’s genocidal crimes in Gaza.
Thus, it can be concluded that the rumors of normalization were Israeli propaganda that took advantage of the tendencies of a few parties behind the scenes but which immediately hit a wall of failure.
The Indonesian people will not allow that normalization to happen as Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, stated: “As long as the independence of the Palestinian people has not been handed over to the Palestinian people, the Indonesian people will always stand up to challenge Israeli colonialism.”
Dina Y. Sulaeman is an assistant professor at the International Relations Department, Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia.
IRGC seizes Israel-linked container ship in Strait of Hormuz
Press TV – April 13, 2024
The special naval forces of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) have seized Israel-linked MSC Aries container ship near the Strait of Hormuz, official news agency IRNA reports.
The ship was impounded by the Sepah Navy Special Force (SNSF) in a heliborne operation and rappelling of forces on the ship’s deck, the agency said Saturday.
“The ship has now been directed towards the territorial waters of our country,” IRNA said.
The Portuguese-flagged ship, operated by Zodiac Maritime, is owned by Israeli real estate, energy, technology and shipping magnate Eyal Ofer, it added.
Zodiac Maritime is part of the Israeli billionaire’s Zodiac Group.
A video released by IRGC shows SNSF commandos rappelling down onto a stack of containers sitting on the deck of the vessel.
A crew member on the ship could be heard saying: “Don’t come out.” He then tells his colleagues to go to the ship’s bridge as more commandos come down on the deck.
Reports said the MSC Aries had been last located off Dubai heading toward the Strait of Hormuz on Friday. The ship had reportedly turned off its tracking data, which has been common for Israeli-affiliated ships moving through the region.
The incident comes amid Israel bracing for Iranian retaliation after the regime’s April 1 strike on a building in the Iranian embassy compound in the Syrian capital of Damascus, which killed seven IRGC military advisors, including two generals.
Western leaders reveal their total contempt for Palestinian lives
By Dimitri Lascaris | April 11, 2024
Six months into Israel’s genocide, Western leaders continue to issue statements that reveal their total contempt for Palestinian lives.
The Prime Ministers of Canada and France have just issued a joint statement.
In it, they declare that they “unequivocally condemn” Russia’s “ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine”.
They also claim to be “extremely concerned” about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and “the appalling situation of the civilian population.”
They “condemn” the strike that resulted in the deaths of several World Central Kitchen workers, including a Canadian citizen, and “emphasize Israel’s obligation, under international humanitarian law, to allow and facilitate the unfettered access of humanitarian aid to Gaza and to protect humanitarian workers and the civilian population.”
Also, “in the strongest possible terms”, they “condemn” the terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel on October 7 and “call for the immediate, unconditional release of all hostages.”
So let’s get this straight.
In six months, Israel has killed more than three times as many civilians in Gaza as have died in more than two years of war in Ukraine.
And yet, the French and Canadian Prime Ministers still can’t bring themselves to “condemn” Israel’s mass murder of Palestinian civilians, including nearly 14,000 Palestinian children.
With respect to Israel’s crimes, they use the word “condemn” only once, but they apply it not to Israel’s slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Rather, they apply it to Israel’s massacre of aid workers who *came from Western countries*.
It is now beyond obvious that Western ‘leaders’ attach little to no value to the lives of Palestinians. These people are anti-Palestinians racists masquerading as champions of human rights.

@dimitrilascaris
‘Silencing a witness to genocide’: Germany detains Gaza war surgeon
Press TV – April 12, 2024
Germany has detained Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu Sittah who was invited to attend a Palestinian conference in the capital Berlin.
Abu Sittah took to X on Friday, saying that he was being held at a Berlin airport and would not be able to attend the conference, to which he was invited to speak “about my work in Gaza hospitals.”
“The German government has forcibly prevented me from entering the country.”
Abu Sittah was set to address ‘The Palestine Conference. We will put you on trial,’ that was due to start at noon, with over 800 tickets sold.
German police, however, said only 250 people would be allowed to attend.
“Silencing a witness to genocide before the ICJ adds to Germany’s complicity in the ongoing massacre,” said Abu Sittah, referring to a legal case filed against Germany over its arms supplies to Israel.
Abu Sittah, also a British citizen, returned to Gaza immediately after Israel started its relentless bombardment of the besieged territory in October.
The surgeon became one of the most high-profile and respected medical professionals who highlighted the devastating medical shortages faced by doctors in hospitals across the Gaza Strip.
Speaking to media about the challenges, he once said that doctors resorted to vinegar and other household items to conduct surgery.
After more than six relentless months of Israel’s bombardment, full-scale ground offensive and blockade on fuel, water, and humanitarian aid, the Gaza Strip has been turned into an uninhabitable place that lacks the most basic components of life and basic medical services.
The Israeli attacks have killed at least 33,634 Palestinians and injured 76,214 more, mostly women and children, since October 7.
Abu Ghraib survivors to get their day in court
RT | April 12, 2024
Twenty years on from reports that the US military was torturing prisoners at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, three survivors will finally get a chance to bring their claims before an American jury.
A trial in the civil lawsuit filed by former Abu Ghraib inmates against the US military contractor that they blame for their suffering is scheduled to begin on Monday in a federal court near Washington. The private security contractor, CACI International, has strung the case along for 16 years by making over 20 unsuccessful attempts to have the lawsuit dismissed.
CACI, which supplied the interrogators who worked at Abu Ghraib, has insisted that its employees weren’t accused of abusing detainees. The Virginia-based company also has argued that as a Pentagon contractor, it should be protected by the government’s sovereign immunity against the torture allegations.
However, the plaintiffs claimed that CACI set the conditions for their torture by directing or encouraging abuses by military guards, at least partly to “soften up” prisoners for interrogations. All three of the former detainees are Iraqi civilians who were held at Abu Ghraib until eventually being released without charges.
The trial will be “an exceedingly rare opportunity for accountability for the egregious harms suffered by Iraqis after the US invasion in 2003,” according to a statement earlier this month by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a US group that is representing the plaintiffs. “In fact, this is the first lawsuit where victims of US post-9/11 torture will get their day in court.”
The Abu Ghraib scandal first came to public attention in April 2004, when photos of abused prisoners and their smiling US guards were published. At the time, CBS News aired a report describing the abuse and showing American soldiers taunting naked prisoners. The abuses included stacking nude prisoners in pyramids or dragging them by leashes around their necks. Others were threatened by dogs or hooded and attached to electrical wires.
One of the plaintiffs, former Al-Jazeera reporter Salah Al-Ejaili, claimed he was forced to wear women’s underwear, terrorized by dogs, deprived of sleep, and put in stress positions that caused him to vomit black liquid. Another survivor, Suhail Al-Shimari, has claimed that he suffered beatings, electrical shocks, and sexual assaults.
CACI has argued that its employees weren’t in a position to give orders to military police and that the US government was responsible for setting the conditions at Abu Ghraib. The company has continued to receive lucrative US government contracts for the past two decades, and only low-level soldiers were criminally prosecuted for the abuses.
A Pentagon investigation found that acts of “brutality and purposeless sadism” occurred at the prison at the hands of military police and US intelligence agency personnel. Retired US Army General Antonio Taguba, who led the investigation, concluded that at least one CACI interrogator should be held accountable for directing military police to set the conditions that led to abuses. Taguba will reportedly testify at the Abu Ghraib trial.

