...more and more Israelis were coming to regard the 'transfer' of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing 'more probable' with each passing day. Sharon 'wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed'.

But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? 'That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'

Remarkably, there appears to be no topic in this forum suitable for recording one's revulsion at Israel's latest crimes against humanity - and for expressing concern about the possibility that current events in the Holy Land may escalate into a full-scale war. One can find more discussion about soccer. Hence this new thread.

Collective punishment against civilian populations is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Today's Wikipedia informs us that: "Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people for the crime(s) of a few or even of one. It is contradictory to the modern concepts of rule of law and due process, (ie. civil society) where each individual receives separate treatment based on their individual circumstances — as they relate to the crime in question. Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention specifically forbids collective punishment."

In recent days, the Israeli military has been systematically demolishing the basic infrastructure of Gaza and the Lebanon and has conducted numerous remote assassination attempts, oblivious to the massive civilian causalities these so-called 'targeted attacks' are causing. There is no proportionality in Israel's violent actions. One can only infer its intent is to terrorize neighbors and enforce its will by brute force, unconstrained by any regard for national sovereignty or international law. Gaza is on the brink of a humanitarian debacle. Israel also shows signs of seeking to expand the conflict and ferment a wider war in the region.

Unsurprisingly, given its pro-Zionist bias, the western mainstream media has been fence sitting or openly siding with Israel. Condemnation of Israeli aggression by leaders of the self-styled 'free world' has been muted at best and completely lacking in many cases.

Most western politicians, journalists and other 'talking heads' are too intimidated by Zionists or too miseld and morally desensitized to blow the whistle on the criminal activities of the world's most dangerous rogue state. This silence encourages the Israeli Government to take further provocative actions. It has hinted at extending its punitive attacks to Syria and Iran.

Warning signs abound that Israel is in 'mad dog' mode, willing to jeopardize the very survival of civilization in pursuit of hegemony.

Peace-loving people everywhere must rise in active opposition to mad dogs such as Olmert and van Creveld lest they destroy civilization itself through their rabid sectarianism.

To play devil's advocate, it is not "collective punishment of a few or even one" to retaliate against a nation that has attacked you. Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization (an organization in Lebanon) that controls southern Lebanon and sits as part of the central Lebanese government.

Israel is retaliating against Hezbollah, and it makes sense to go ahead and irradicate Hezbollah now if possible since Hezbollah's apparent sole purpose on the planet is to destroy Israel (reportedly on behalf of Syria and Iran). So who the hell needs Hezbollah, and who will weep for them?

I believe that the targets hit in Beirut are Hezbollah targets, the airport and roads targeted to keep weapons from coming in and the kidnapped soldiers from being taken out, and the blockade likewise to keep weapons out of Hezbollah hands. All of Lebanon necessarily has to suffer for this. But the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon is Lebanon's responsibility, which the Lebanese PM has belatedly acknowledged, since he has now indicated, under a bit of pressure, that he may send the Lebanese Army south to do something about Hezbollah. That could mean civil war, which I suppose would somehow be Israel's fault too. It's all Israel's fault for Hezbollah being in Lebanon for the purpose of destroying Israel.

There is a fear that this could all lead to war with Iran. Well, Iran is a rogue nation, in the terrorism business for decades and now working on nuclear weapons, and which coincidentally like Hezbollah is also hellbent on the destruction of Israel. So looking at it from an Israeli perspective, this would seem like a good time to take care of the Iranian problem too.

Did Israel ask for all these nations and peoples to work toward its total destruction? There has been a long and confusing dispute about land in that region, but Israel wound up with a certain amount of it, and other parts were offered to Palestinians and refused, once back when Israel was created, and more recently when Arafat, one of the biggest embezzlers of his own people's funds in the history of the world, was offered about 99 percent of what the Palestinians wanted, which would seem like a fair deal. But noooo! The deal fell through because Israel would continue to exist, and because Arafat might have to quit embezzling after peace broke out.

I am not an expert on the history of the conflict over there, I don't pretend to understand it all, and much of what I have said may therefore be 99 percent wrong-headed. Anyone therefore feel free to correct me. But it basically seems to me that when attacked across their border and their soldiers kidnapped by these single-minded fanatics who seem to live only for the destruction of Israel, I can hardly blame the perennially despised Israelis for saying, "Pardon me if we 'overreact.'" Or how do you say "Enough is enough" in Hebrew?

So who the hell needs Hezbollah, and who will weep for them?

Report: Israel gives Syria ultimatum

Looks like its time for stage 2.

A couple of fascinating non-mainstream commentaries on the current state of play in the Israeli Wars of Agression (2006).

First, an article in the Daily Kos entitled John Bolton: Dead Lebanese worth less than dead Israelis which discusses current negotiations over terms for a ceasefirs. It examines what the mainstream media isn't saying about behind the scenses manouvering inside the Security Council.

Second, a hot-off-the-press classic by Israel Shamir: The Yoke of Zion

Shamir sees Hezbollah's largely unpredicted success in the current conflict as the sign and trigger for a major turnaround in Arab fortunes. He claims that even reactionary pro-American Arab regimes are turning to support Hezbollah, after initiially joining American condemnation of Hezbollah 'terrorism'.

This is the second quite upbeat article by Shamir that applauds the recent successes of Hezbollah (he lives in Haifa so this is not a position he can take lightly).

I tended to discount early reports of Israeli troops stalled in their advance through southern Lebanon, but weeks have passed and it seems a real and unexpected phenomenon is unfolding; Israel's military juggernaut is experiencing fierce and spirited resistance and this time is finding the invasion of Lebanon hard going.

No wonder the US-Israeli axis pushes for French troops to take over their self-appointed task of disarming Hezbollah. No wonder the French politely decline.

Viva Hezbollah! (and to hell with the stupid, discriminatory, unjustifiable and palpably pro-Zionist laws in countires such as Australia that brand resistance forces "terrorist" while we cozy up to the undisputed Lords of Aerial Mass Terror).

As many of you know, JFK came out for Algerian independence in 1956 as a US Senator. Sadly, I believe if Kennedy had lived and implemented a more balanced approach to affairs in this region, we would not be where we are today. I sent in a petition to President Bush a while back urging peace in the middle east. It included JFK's American University speech. The petition had parts of the speech in it and a picture of our executed president. I have never recieved a response from the White House yet.

Hi Peter

You may be interested in some of the earlier debates on this Forum that discuss the hypothesis that Israeli intelligence and its international support network were at the center of the conspiracy to murder JFK. It's a hypothesis most developed in the writings of Michael Collins Piper who writes for American Free Press in the USA.

Piper's book 'Final Judgment' has been discussed on this forum and he made a brief appearance here earlier this year.

Final Judgment, now in its sixth edition, has never been available in highstreet bookshops and has never been reviewed in mainstream media. First published in the mid-1990s, Final Judgment draws on archival releases from the early 90s which make it clear that JFK was having a major row with Israel's leadership - especially Ben Gurion - in the years preceding his assassination. This stand-off was kept private. The lack of publicty meant there was no reason for most people to suspect at the time that Israeli intelligence would have had any motive for killing JFK. Kennedy was pursuaded not to demand UN inspections of Dimona, but instead to continue US inspections that were outside the public spotlight.

After Kennedy's death, the US attempt (begun by Eisenhower and continued by Kennedy) to stop Israel from gaining nuclear weapons was quietly abandoned. By 1967 Israel had developed its first nuclear weapons.

On this forum, for instance, these references are relevant:

• Journalists and the Assassination of JFK
• Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgment (in JFK Assassination Debate)
• Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgment (in History Books)
• Biography: Michael Collins Piper
• Israel,LBJ and the JFK assassination

Warning: Some language used in these threads is not 'family-friendly' and plenty of the dialogue is most unfriendly to Piper.

It looks like Israel and its underwriter, the US, might be headed for defeat in their latest adventure, if these observations are on the money:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34271

I reach the last part which pertains to the political part. I say this: I would like to confirm to our Lebanese people and the peoples of our nation as well as the world. I want to be very clear. The killings, massacres, destruction, atrocities and barbarism that have taken place since the first day of the war and continue to be, Bush and his US administration are the first ones to be blamed. In our opinion, Olmert and his government are mere executive tools of this war. I want to stress on this meaning and say that the blood of the women and children in Qana as well as the blood of all the old people and innocent civilians whose blood was shed in Lebanon are tainting the faces of Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and this US administration. This administration is the assassin, murderer and assailant. Until now, this administration has been thwarting all attempts to stop the aggression and it is designing the terms and trying to dictate these terms. This issue must be clear to each Lebanese, each Moslem and Christian, and each noble person in this world. We are explaining this issue to eliminate any confusion.

Dear Mark:

I have read through the exchange that happened on this forum with Michael Piper and to say I am not impressed by the conduct of some of the researchers here is an understatement.

"Final Judgment" does an excellent job of showing how the Lansky crime syndicate fits in with a lot of the research that is already out there. At the very least , you finally understand who Jack Rubenstein really is.

Until Final Judgment, most people also were not aware of Kennedys conflict with Ben Gurion. And rather than going over, ad nauseum , all the details of the execution day , Final Judgment finally looks at the big picture.

Angleton seems to be the link to the Mossad which makes it a combined CIA/Mossad operation. And the proposed motive is very clear; State Survival.

In any event, with the shut down of protection that day, it is very clear that it was an "inside job". While Johnson was covered by his bodyguards in a heartbeat, Kennedy was left to die.

PM

Hi Peter,

Yes, it's true that the welcome afforded to Michael Piper by some on the Forum was less than couteous. It is, of course, a very sensitive subject.

While this topic would be more suited to the assassination section of the Forum, I will briefly say that I agree with your comments about Ruby and Angleton. Angleton's connection to Israel is rarely discussed, even though he ran the CIA's 'Israel desk' for many years. He spent most of his career accusing almost everyone of being a Russian spy, never missing an opportunity to fan the flames of US/Soviet mistrust. Piper claims that his CIA Mossad liason desk were central to the CIA's deep cover alliances with the Lansky crime syndicate, a claim I find quite plausible. In the photo section of the 6th edition of 'Final Judgement' there is a photograph of a monument, erected in Israel in honor of Angleton, inscribed 'in memory of a dear friend James J Angleton 1917-1987'. Piper claims it is the only known photograph of this monument ever to be published.

Norman Finkelstein's site has posted a very interesting August 3rd speech from Hassan Nasrallah.

An excerpt:



Looks like I'm not the only who thinks the power of the Lobby is over-hyped.

Owen,

Try as I might, I couldn't get your link to the article to come up, but it doesn't matter--I get the gist. Fiery anti-US rhetoric indeed, but where does Nasrullah explicitly state that, in his opinion, the power of the Israeli lobby in the US is over-hyped? I believe this is your conclusion, not his.

THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE ZIONIST STATE OF ISRAEL?

Alan Hart at International Institute of Strategic Studies, New Civilisation debate, on Thursday, August 10, 2006.

I’m going to suggest to you that what we might now be witnessing is the long beginning of the end of the Zionist state of Israel. In the next 10 minutes or so I will talk my way to an explanation of why I think so; and then I’ll address the question of what the most likely consequences would be. I can see two ­ One State of Palestine for All and real, lasting peace, or Catastrophe for All… and by “All” I don’t just mean Israeli Jews and the Arabs of the region, I mean all of us, everywhere.

I thought I would be the first to give voice in public to the idea that Israel might be planting in Lebanon the final seeds of its own destruction, but while I was working on my text for this evening, I came across an interview given by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Carter’s National Security Adviser. He said: “Eventually, if neo-con policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well.”

As Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon unfolded, a great deal of nonsense was written and spoken by pundits and policymakers throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian world about why it was happening. The main thrust of the nonsense was that Hizbullah started the war and that Israel was merely defending itself. I think the truth about Hizbullah’s role in triggering the war can be summarised as follows ­ bearing in mind that the border incident of 12 July was one of many since Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, and which more often than not, according to UN monitors, were provoked by Israeli actions and/or Israeli violations of agreements. By engaging an IDF border patrol, killing three Israeli soldiers and taking two hostages, and firing a few rockets to create a diversion for that operation, Hizbullah gave Israel’s generals and those politicians who rubber-stamp their demands the PRETEXT they wanted and needed to go to war ­ a war they had planned for months.

I was reminded of what was said to me on the second of the six days of the 1967 war when I was a very young ITN correspondent reporting from Israel. One of my sources was Major General Chaim Herzog. He was one of the founding fathers of Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence. On the second day of that war he said to me in private conversation: “If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a PRETEXT for war now, we would have created one in the coming year to 18 months.”

Hizbullah’s purpose in taking Israeli prisoners/hostages was to have them as bargaining chips - to secure the return of Lebanese prisoners Israel had refused to release in a previous prisoner exchange. As former President Carter implied in an article for The Washington Post on I August, it was not unreasonable for Hizbullah to assume that an exchange would be possible because “the assumption was based on a number of such trades in the past.”But on 12 July 2006 the government of Israel was not interested in trades. It did not give a single moment to diplomacy or negotiations of any kind. It did not even consider a local retaliation to make a point. Israel rushed to war. As Defence Minister Amir Peretz put it: “We’re skipping the stage of threats and going straight to the action.”On the subject of Hizbullah’s rockets, (which are hit-and-miss low tech weapons when compared with Israel’s state of the art firepower), it is right to ask ­ Why, really, were they there? What, really, explains Hizbullah’s stock-piling and its bunkering down? The honest answer, which has its context in the whole history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Zionism’s demonstrated designs on Southern Lebanon in particular, is this: Hizbullah was strengthening itself militarily for the same reason as Eygpt did when President Nasser, with great reluctance after America had refused to supply him, accepted weapons from the Soviet Union. Nasser did NOT upgrade Eygpt’s military capabilities to make war on Israel. He wanted to be able to demonstrate to Israel that attacking Eygpt to impose Zionism’s will on it was not a cost-free option. In other words, Hizbullah had been improving its military capability to deter Israeli incursions and attacks, which was something the Lebanese army was incapable of doing. Am I suggesting that Hizbullah would NOT have let loose its rockets if Israel had not gone for the war option? YES! The notion that, on 12 July 2006, Hizbullah was joined in conspiracy with Iran and Syria to wipe Israel off the face of the earth is nothing but Zionist and neo-con propaganda nonsense ­ to justify Israel’s latest war of aggression and also, perhaps, to justify, in advance of it happening, war on Iran.

It’s true that the rhetoric of Iran’s President gave and gives a degree of apparent credibility to Zionist and neo-con spin ­ but only to those who are unaware of, or don’t want to know, the difference between the facts and documented truth of the real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (as in my book) and Zionism’s version of it.

To those who really want to understand why the Zionist state of Israel behaves in the way it does, and is (as described in a recent article courageously carried by The Independent) “a terrorist state like no other”, I say not only read my book, but give special attention to page 485 of Volume One. On it I quote what was said behind closed doors in May 1955 by Moshe Dayan, Israel’s one-eyed warlord and master of deception. He was in conversation with Israel’s ambassadors to Washington, London and Paris. At the time the Eisenhower administration was pressing Israel to abandon its policy of reprisal attacks.

Eisenhower was aware that Nasser did not want war with Israel, and that he would, when he could, make an accommodation with it. Eisenhower also knew that Israel’s reprisal attacks were making it impossible for Nasser to prepare the ground on his side for peace with Israel.
In conversation with Israel’s three most important ambassadors to the West, Dayan explained why he was totally opposed - whatever the pressure from the West - to the idea that Israel should abandon its policy of reprisal attacks. They were, he said, “a life drug.” What he meant, he also explained, was that reprisal attacks enabled the Israeli government “to maintain a high degree of tension in the country and the army.” What, really, did that mean?Israel’s standing or full-time army was (as it still is and must be) relatively small, not more than about 23,000 souls in all. The other quarter of a million fighting men and women who could be mobilised in 48 hours were reservists from every walk of Israel’s civil society. The real point? Without Israeli reprisal attacks and all that they implied ­ that the Zionist state was in constant danger of being annihilated - there was a possibility that some and perhaps many reservists would not be motivated enough to respond to Zionism’s calls to arms.Put another way, what Dayan really feared was the TRUTH. He knew, as all of Israel’s leaders knew, that Israel’s existence was NOT in danger from any combination of Arab forces. And that was the truth which had to be kept from the Jews of Israel. Dayan’s fear was that if they became aware of it, they might insist on peace on terms the Arab regimes could accept but which were not acceptable to Zionism. Among those present when Dayan explained the need for Israeli reprisal attacks as a “life drug” was the Foreign Ministry’s Gideon Rafael. He reported what Dayan told the ambassadors to Prime Minister Moshe Sharret ­ in my view, and with the arguable exception of Yitzhak Rabin, the only completely rational prime minister Israel has ever had. And we know from Sharret’s diaries what Rafael then said to him: “This is how fascism began in Italy and Germany!”

Ladies and gentlemen, I think future historians may say that was how fascism began in the Zionist state of Israel.
The idea of Israel as a fully functioning democracy is a seriously flawed one. It’s true that Israeli Jews are free to speak their minds (in a way that most Jews of the world are frightened to do), and to that extent it can be said that Israel has the appearance of a vibrant democracy... But in reality, and especially since the countdown to the 1967 war, it’s Israel’s generals who call most of the policy shots, even when one of them is not prime minister.

In June 1967 Israel’s prime minister of the time, the much maligned Levi Eshkol, did NOT want to take his country to war. It, war, was imposed upon him by the generals, led by Dayan. As I explain in Volume Two of my book, what really happened in Israel in the final countdown to that war was something very close to a military coup in all but name.

And that’s where we are today ­ the generals effectively calling the shots in Israel, to the applause of the neo-cons.Why, really, did Israel’s generals want to make war on Lebanon? There was obviously much more to it than the collective punishment of a whole people as part and parcel of a stated objective ­ the destruction of Hizbullah as a Moslem David which could hit and hurt the Zionist Goliath.I think there were two main reasons.The first was that Israel’s generals believed they should and could restore the “deterrent power” of the IDF (Israel’s war machine). They believed, correctly, that it had been seriously damaged by Hizbullah’s success in not only confronting the IDF following Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, but eventually forcing it to withdraw, effectively defeated and humiliated… I think it is more than reasonable to presume that for most if not all of the past six years, Israel’s generals were itching to make war on Lebanon to repair that damage ­ to restore the IDF’s deterrent power. Put another way, it was time, Israel’s generals believed, to give the Arabs (all Arabs, not just Hizbullah) another lesson in who the master was.

The second main reason for the insistence of Israel’s generals on 12 July this year that war was the only option…?I think it’s also more than reasonable to presume that they saw the opportunity to ethnically cleanse Lebanon up to the Litani River, with a view, eventually, to occupying and then annexing the ethnically cleansed territory. For Zionism this would be the fulfilment of the vision of modern Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion - a Zionist state within “natural” borders, those borders being the Jordan River in the East and the Litani River of Lebanon in the north. Israel gained control of the Jordan River border in its 1967 war of expansion, but prior to its rush to war on 12 July, all of its attempts to establish the Litani border had failed. Since 1982 because of Hizbullah’s ability to cause the occupying IDF forces more casualties than Israeli public opinion was prepared to tolerate.According to those currently calling the policy shots - Israel’s generals and politicians, the neo-cons in and around the Bush administration and their associate in Downing Street - the name of the game is creating a “new Middle East”. It IS happening. A new Middle East is being created.

But what kind of new Middle East will it actually be? In my analysis it will be one in which the Zionist state of Israel, having rejected a number of opportunities to make peace with the Palestinians and all the Arab states, will become increasingly vulnerable and, at a point, actually for the first time ever in its shortish history, could face the possibility of defeat.In my view the seeds of that possible defeat have just been sewn in Lebanon. The fact is that Israel’s latest military adventure has been totally counter-productive in that has caused Hizbullah to be admired by the angry and humiliated masses of the Arab and wider Moslem world. That being so, would it really be surprising if, in growing numbers, Arabs and Moslems everywhere begin to entertain ­ if they are not already entertaining ­ something like the following thought: “If 3,000 Hizbullah guerrillas can stand up to mighty Israel for weeks and give it a seriously bloody nose, what would happen if we all joined the fight?” (Do I hear the sound of pro-Western Arab regimes being toppled? Yes, I think so). I imagine that even the thought of Israel being defeated one day will bring joy to very many Arabs and other Moslems. But there ought to be no place for joy because there’s no mystery about what would happen in the event of Israel actually being on the brink of defeat. I want to quote to you now from one of my Panorama interviews with Golda Meir. (It can be found, this quote, on the second page Volume One of my book, in the Prologue which is titled Waiting for the Apocalypse).

At a point I interrupted her to say: “Prime Minister I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying… You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?” Without the shortest of pauses for reflection, Golda replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.” In those days Panorama went on-air at 8 o’clock on Monday evenings. Shortly after the transmission of that interview The Times had a new lead editorial. It quoted what Golda had said to me and added its view that “We had better believe her.” How, actually, would the Zionist state of Israel take at least the region down with it? It would arm its nuclear missiles, target Arab capitals, then fire the missiles. Such an End-Game to the Arab-Israeli conflict, if it happened, and which I would describe as a self-fulfilled Zionist prophesy of doom, would probably take many years to play out. But the countdown to such a catastrophe would be speeded up if, as Brzezinski put it, “neo-con policies continue to be pursued.” If they are, and if Iran is attacked, I think that a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, would become unstoppable.Is there no way to stop the madness and create a “new Middle East” worth having? Yes, of course, there is, but it requires the agenda of the neo-cons and their associates to be thrown into the dustbin of history, in order for there to be a resolution of the Palestine problem, which I describe as the cancer at the heart of international affairs.Unfortunately, and because of the facts Zionism has been allowed to create on the ground in Israel/Palestine, it’s already much too late for a genuine two-state solution, one which would see Israel back behind more or less its pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem an open city and the capital of two states.The conclusion which I think is invited is this: If the countdown to catastrophe for all is to be stopped, the only possible solution to the Palestine problem is One State for All. That would, of course, be the end of Zionism’s colonial enterprise and of Zionism itself. But in my view that’s what has to happen if there’s to be a “new Middle East” in which there can be security and peace for all, Arabs and Jews..Ladies and gentlemen: I’m not a politician or, any more, a working journalist and broadcaster who must write and speak in way that doesn’t offend very powerful vested interests. I am a reasonably well informed human being who cares and who is free to say what he really thinks. (Which probably makes me a member of a very small club!) And in summary of all that I’ve said this evening, what I really think comes down to this: The equation is a very simple one: No justice for the Palestinians = no peace for any of us.

Blaming the USA - or its substandard, illegitimately-elected President - for the latest Lebanon debacle, is a predictable but unconvincing ploy.

Of course the USA shares culpability for what has happened. The USA funds and uncritically supports the terrorist State of Israel. It therefore shares culpability for its actions. But to suggest that Israel's Government was pushed unwillingly by Washington into assaulting The Lebanon, as various Zionist apologists now claim, is once again to falsify history in an attempt to deceive and gain current advantage.