Search This Blog

Friday, July 30, 2010

Peres: I do not need mediators to meet with PA officials

[ 30/07/2010 - 03:46 PM ]

NAZARETH, (PIC)-- The Israeli President Shimon Peres stated that he regularly meets with high ranking officials of the Palestinian Authority without the need for mediators, at a time there are increasing Israeli demands for launching direct talks with the PA.

The statement by Peres was in response to news reports that Peres asked the head of the Kadima bloc in the Knesset to Haim Ramon to meet with Saeb Urikat, the chief PLO negotiator, to advice him against going for direct negotiations with the Israeli government.



A statement issued by the Israeli President's office on Thursday said that Peres meets with all leaders of the world including PA officials and he does not need mediators to do that.

The Israeli radio has reported that the opposition Kadima party has asked the PA not to go for direct negotiations with the Netanyahu government as such negotiations would be fruitless.

The radio quoted a witness who overheared a conversation between Haim Ramon and Saib Urikat as saying that Ramon advised Urikat not to move to direct talks the Netanyahu government during a meeting that took place at the restaurant of the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem on 8 July.

According to the witness, Ramon told Urikat that he was sent by Peres and that there was no way that the present Prime Minister will offer the Palestinians more than what the former Prime Minister has offered, thus moving to direct negotiations was a waste of time.

Meanwhile, Ramon admitted that the witness's statement was partially right, but he denied that he was asked by Peres to convey this message to the PA.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Qana…Where Jesus’s 1st Miracle Turns Bloody

Batoul Wehbe


30/07/2010 “We have lived through hell,” Qana resident, Fawzeya Atwi cried. “The people were chopped into pieces by the Israeli bombs. They bleed these people. You should have seen the heads.”

“Do you know what the dogs did at night after the killings? They were hungry and I saw them in the ruins eating fingers and pieces of our people,” Atwi said about the Qana massacre during the July 2006 Israeli War on Lebanon.

Head of the Red Cross in Tyre Sami Yazbak, who was helping to pull bodies from the ruins, told The Guardian that the first call about the bombing was received at 7 a.m., 6 hours after the bombing took place. He said that previous shelling on the road to Qana had delayed the arrival of Red Cross personnel.

Yazbak said that “many of the children who were sleeping inside were handicapped.”

Many journalists who arrived in Qana to cover the incident became rescuers, dugging through the rubble with the Red Cross in search for bodies.

Journalist Bahia El Ainain talks about her experiences during the 2006 Israeli massacre in Qana. “I cried several times. I couldn’t be a journalist over being a mother when I saw dead young girls. I couldn’t but think of my daughter.” She also recounts an incident when she was on a roof, along with all the foreign press and their cameras. Bahia pushed the cameras away; she admits that her patriotism outweighs the journalist’s instincts for objectivity.

WINE TURNS TO BLOOD

The southern Lebanese town of Qana is believed by some to be where Jesus performed his first miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana of Galilee mentioned in the Gospel of St John.

But in modern times it is blood, not wine, that is indelibly linked with the town. The blood of Lebanese civilians killed in Israeli bombing.

In 1996, one of the deadliest single events of the whole Arab-Israeli conflict took place there - the shelling of a UN base where hundreds of local people were sheltering.
More than 100 were killed and another 100 injured, cut down by Israeli anti-personnel shells that explode in the air sending a lethal shower of shrapnel to the ground.

Ten years later, the town is again in the headlines, this time because of a massive bomb dropped by an Israeli aircraft, causing a building to collapse on top of dozens of civilians - many of them children in their pajamas- taking cover in the basement. It was an attack by the Israel Air Force on a three-story building in the small community of al-Khuraybah near the South Lebanese village of Qana on July 30, 2006. 28 civilians were killed, of which 16 were children.

Israel is back in the Lebanese quagmire.

“Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disemboweled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in their building’s shelter, believing that they were safe.
A pile of corpses was burning. The roof had crashed in flames onto their bodies, cremating them in front of the world’s eyes. When I walked towards them, I slipped on a human hand...” an investigative journalist who was present that day describes what she saw.

The aerial attack killed members of the Shalhoub and Hashem families.

HEZBOLLAH SINKING LEBANON INTO CRISIS

One day after Qana massacre, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was “deeply saddened” by such losses.

“Too many families have been displaced. Too many people urgently need medical care, or are living in shelters,” she said. But she qualified her statement adding “I know what caused this. And I know that there are underlying circumstances having to do with the need to really make this a strong and democratic government that can really extend its authority, that can rebuild its army, that can shield itself from harmful foreign influences, that cannot... have its territory be used in the way that Hezbollah, without its knowledge, used its territory, really sinking then the whole area into the kind of crisis that we've got.”

The US is the main supplier of military equipment and the main political backer of Israel.

Responding to the incident, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Saniora denounced “Israeli war criminals” and canceled talks with Condoleezza Rice. In a television address to the country, he said, “There is no place on this sad morning for any discussion other than an immediate and unconditional cease-fire as well as an international investigation into the Israeli massacres.” After the announcement, Rice canceled her planned visit to Beirut.

Saniora appealed to the U.N. Security Council for an emergency session, which held consultations on July 30. In a statement, the Security Council expressed the world body's “extreme shock and distress” at the Qana bombing and offered its condolences for the deaths.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said in a July 30 statement on the Israeli attack on Qana: “Issuing advance warning to the civilian population of impending attacks in no way relieves a warring party of its obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law.” It also called for “a distinction to be drawn at all times between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. All necessary precautions must be taken to spare civilian life and objects.”

Human Rights Watch also warned that the “consistent failure to distinguish combatants and civilians is a war crime.”

More than 600 Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israel in July 2006 War and close to 800,000 displaced, as a result of what Israel said were two Hezbollah-captured Israeli soldiers that Israel wanted back and refused to exchange for detainees held in Israeli prisons.

Now I’ll leave you with pictures because a picture is worth a thousand words.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Rectification and amelioration for the current dictionaries :

Frustrated Arab's Diary

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zQcZdi0uT3Y/RzDnWMrObCI/AAAAAAAAANM/85WBI5zhPcc/S220/DSC03928.JPG
Eng.Moustafa Roosenbloom ,
studying the phone-book
.

Israeli-citizenship :
an artificial-identity
based on a case of an assumed-identity
while living as colonialists
on a stolen Land.


The State of Israel :
a 11Th. century invention confused with a Biblical-myth
of a Kingdom that never was called " Israel"
but Judea and or Samaria.


The Israelites :
a vanished-population
which coincided with the narratives
of the Bible-stories.
In the meantime the Israelites have become Christians
and later Muslims too....
otherwise known as today´s Palestinians !!


The Jews :
people who adhere to Judaism
and are found in different countries
from different races and different cultures
with also different roles in History.


Zionism :
a criminal-colonial- ideology
based on the misinterpretation of the Bible
and based also on a false-genetic- identity


Zionist :
a person who believes in Zionism
whithout necessarily being a Jewish-person.


God´s "promise" to Abraham :
the meeting with Jesus the Messiah
on the Land of Canaan.
(and not the Land of Canaan,itself )


Anti-semitism :
is actualy , Anti-Ashkenazim.
(a European-Christian- Disease,
not at all related to Palestine
nor to Arabs , nor to Islam )



Terrorism :
the power of the powerless.


The writings of Sherlock Hommos :
The simple truth ,
covered with a double- layer
of humour and sarcasm.

Raja Chemayel
(brother-in- law of Sherlock Hommos
and cousin to Eng. Moustafa Roosenbloom)
 
Posted by Тлакскала at 9:10 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Is the United States a Dictatorship?



JNOUBIYEH | 12:35 PM 

Via VineyardSaker

By Omar Ghraieb for The Palestine Telegraph


Unfortunately for some decades now the past Presidents and key members of the US Government have been on one continuous war footing. They have embarked on an extremely aggressive foreign policy and taken over the role of policing the world in place of the United Nations. It is clearly evident that as far as the United States is concern you had better “Do as I say or else.”

This aggressiveness is so advanced it is no longer possible to negotiate with them on a fair and balanced playing field. This policy is not only confined to the US but also extends over in the UK, France, Germany and Israel which has basically made each of their leaders and respective governments very unpopular with the people.
It is a known fact that when a leader or government reaches an all time low it is time to assert your authority, spread fear or mass hysteria amongst your populations and then take your country to war, all of which in on false pretenses.
We have seen this time and time again with the wars in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan and now Yemen and Somalia. One can now see two other wars on the horizon as a direct result of their big bully tactics.
What gives the US and its allies the right to police the world and say who should be allowed to develop nuclear energy or nuclear weapons when they themselves remain unchecked? What gives these countries the right to dictate what any country can or cannot do when they themselves are carrying out a massive programme of deceit?
What allows them to hide behind this so called Non Proliferation Treaty in reducing the amount of WMD’s when they are not only developing them bus also using them on a daily basis?
It is clearly evident that the US, UK, NATO Members and Israel are using their weapons of “Mass Destruction” totally unchecked in all the past and current areas of conflict. The aftermath of this totally irresponsible action has basically contaminated the entire Middle East and the world beyond.
To prove that this is not just hearsay we have to look at the gallant efforts of a small group of dedicated people who put themselves at great risk to reveal the truth to the world.
altOn such person is Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster who recently compiled a report on a survey carried out in the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
The city of Fallujah as we all know received a bombardment of WMD weapons by the US and coalition forces resulting in an horrific rise in birth defects and many forms of cancer. One could go well beyond Fallujah to learn that as a direct result of the use of these weapons, almost every location in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza and the entire Middle East and beyond have been severely contaminated with weapons that contain uranium components.
Let’s just take a look at some comments made in the UK’s Independent newspaper on Saturday as written by Patrick Cockburn: Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.
Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi are the authors of a report titled: “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009"
The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving (4,800 individuals) details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. It was interesting to note that the Iraqi Government tried to encourage people not to take part in this survey!
The report revealed evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report also stated that the types of cancer are “similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout.”
Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says “what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.”
altThe findings also revealed dramatic changes in the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females.

The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.
What we are looking at in Fallujah also applies to the City of Basrah and many other locations around the region. I am convinced that the amount of weapons used in Afghanistan for instance is much higher than those used in Iraq. These same weapons are also being used by the US in Northern Pakistan and as we have seen so many times before the contamination does not identify any borders. The radioactive nano particles drift on the wind and carry out their deadly work well beyond the fields of battle.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Israeli Government allowed both US and Israeli made “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to be used in and around the Gaza Strip with exactly the same projected outcome. This contamination also crossed over the border into Israel itself, West Bank and all adjacent countries such as Jordon, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria etc.
This now brings us back onto the topic of the US/Israeli threat currently being made against Iran. We can clearly see that they are both geared up for conflict with the doubling up of the weapons stockpile in both Israel and Diego Garcia. In the Persian Gulf there are several US Carrier groups with supporting vessels armed with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles including US Marine amphibious vessels and attack submarines. As one would expect the US are supported by other NATO vessels and also the Israeli Navy with its Dolphin Class Submarines that are armed with nuclear missiles.
There is also another large battle group in the Eastern Mediterranean, consisting of a large US Carrier group from the 6th Fleet, A French carrier and several other naval vessels from Germany, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece and Spain etc. On could also expect a carrier group to be operational in the Red Sea all of whom are capable of a united strike on Iran.
altAs we have seen before this build-up is not only significant but would appear to be an indication of some pending action. In the case of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s now a matter of waiting for the right time.
One can expect a significant “False Flag” incident to take place in the near future in order for the US to justify an attack on Iran…..this could be at any location within the US, UK or other NATO partner country and obviously this will then be blamed onto Iran.

As we have seen so many times before any US led plan will implicate all other NATO countries based on “An attack on one is an attack on all.”
This strategy by the US of manipulating all NATO countries is done so as not to tarnish the US too much as being the instigator and immediately allows the US to control the conflict as well as demanding that all NATO countries provide suitable forces to combat the problem.
The current US Foreign Policy towards Iran is not only heavy handed but is also operating outside of the United Nations. Any attack on Iran would be considered catastrophic to say the least and would involve thousands of weapons that contain depleted uranium components as well as real nuclear weapons. Should this attack take place it will spread radiation charged nano particles around the entire Middle East within 2 days and the rest of the world within 1-2 weeks.
What makes this US intimidation of Iran so absurd is the fact that it is secretly assisting Israel to develop its own nuclear programme. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and therefore this is a very clever way for the US to assist in nuclear development and use that to its own advantage. This evil and sinister under the table deal will allow Israel to increase its stockpile and at the same time allow the US to share that stockpile in much the same way it has done when Obama allowed the US military to double the US arms stockpile in Israel. This extremely clever covert operation now allows the transfer of arms from military to military without going through Congress in the normal way (US Department of Defense Transmittal Notice).
altOver on the other side of the world we have the same situation developing between the US/South Korea and North Korea with a massive military build up on both sides. What makes this entire scenario absurd is that it has nothing to do with nuclear development or towing the line but rather a Geo Political stance by the US in attempting to control the world’s natural resources or to acquire world markets for its own companies etc.
So the big showdown looms on the horizon and all are on full standby waiting for the US to find justification to attack one or both locations. We could also assume that because of the sensitivity of such an attack China would be pulled into the conflict as well as possible support from Syria, and Lebanon etc. Either way it again reveals the total arrogance of the Obama regime who now has the full support of the US, France, Germany and Israel.
It is my opinion that the West has miscalculated the military might of Iran and could well regret such an attack. Iran is very well prepared and is likely to respond with a significant retaliatory attack that could be extremely devastating for Israel in so many ways.
Environmentally speaking it would be catastrophic for the entire Middle East and the world leading to mass genocide in many countries. From the New World Order perspective this type of depopulation is what they have been working on for some considerable time. No doubt the likes of Kissinger and Cheney would be rubbing there hands together with great joy should this conflict eventuate.
It is time for Congress and the people of the US and the world to read between the lines and to fully understand that Obama and his NPT is a total cover up and that the true “Axis of Evil” is right in the heart of the White House, Wall Street and Central London.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

On Israel's Right,Left and the the Dead two state solution and the Discovery of the One-State Solution"

Comment: The arguement of Uri on the Debate of Zionist's Left and Right about the seperation wall, reminded me how, one year ago, "Free-minded" think thanks attacked me for supporting Brother Gilad .

Two Quotes

"The Pls are at the forefront of a clash between 2 totalities. between 2 symbolic orders. It is not a political debate and it is not an issue of local tactics or strategy. As Israeli intelligence generals have been predicting for 2 decades, all Pls need in order to win is to survive.If you look at Israel and Zionism from that very perspective, you would realise that the 'Wall' is actually the biggest Pls victory. They dismantled the Zionist project and made the Israeli into a 'diaspora ghetto Jew'. The Pls have managed to push the Jew back to the ghetto, and this ghetto will shrink as Pls ballistic capability grows. The Jewish state is a matter for Historians, its future is doomed. " Gilad Comment 27

+++++++++++++++++++++++


"you claim along with Gilad that the Separation Wall is a "great Palestinian achievement". Can you please respond to the two people, including another Palestinian like yourself, who challenge this statement that Zionist oppression instruments are "Palestinian achievements". I am not the only one who looked at this and was aghast, there were others in public and private. I would like to hear your defence of this." Mary Rizzo Comment 71

Mary

Read my reply here

****************************************************************************
Israel's Right Discovers the One-State Solution

Uri Avnery who discovered the two state solution is horrified with the "thunderous silence about the mother of all questions: what will happen when the Palestinians become the majority in the One State? That is not a question of "if," but of "when": there is not the slightest doubt that this will happen, not "within a generation," but long before.

A Quote:


It has Uri Avnery’s Gush shalom along with hardcore Israeli Zionist government officials, the ‘Israel-First’ American neocons, Republicans, the Christian Zionists, the puppet Fatah (Mahmoud Abbas) unelected government and somewhat reluctant European nations."
*************************************

Israel's Right Discovers the One-State Solution

Moshe Arens, an extreme rightist and a fanatical Likud member.


Since I witnessed the rise of the Nazis during my childhood in Germany, my nose always tickles when it smells something fascist, even when the odor is still faint.

When the debate about the “one-state solution” began, my nose tickled.

Have you gone mad, I told my nose, this time you are dead wrong. This is a plan of the Left. It is being put forward by leftists of undoubted credentials, the greatest idealists in Israel and abroad, even certified Marxists.

But my nose insisted. It continued to tickle.

Now it appears that the nose was right, after all.

This is not the first time that a kosher leftist plan leads towards extreme rightist consequences.

That happened, for example, to the ugliest symbol of the occupation: the separation wall. It was invented by the Left.

When attacks multiplied, leftist politicians, headed by Haim Ramon, offered a miracle-solution to the problem: an impassable obstacle between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. They argued that it would stop the attacks without recourse to brutal actions in the West Bank.

The Right opposed the idea vehemently. To them it was a conspiracy to fix the borders of the state and promote the two-state solution, which they saw (and still see) as an existential threat to their designs.

But suddenly the Right changed its tune. They realized that the wall offered a wonderful opportunity to annex large tracts of West Bank land and turn them over to the settlers. And that is what happened: the wall/fence was not put up along the Green Line, but cuts deep into the West Bank. It takes away large areas of land from the Palestinian villages.

Nowadays leftists are demonstrating every week against the wall, the Right is sending soldiers to shoot at them, and the two-state solution has been set back.

Now the rightists have discovered the one-state solution. My nose is tickling.

One of the first was Moshe Arens, former Israeli minister of defense. Arens is an extreme rightist, a fanatical Likud member. He started to talk about one state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, in which the Palestinians would be granted full rights, including citizenship and the vote.

I rubbed my eyes. Is this the same Arens? What has happened to him? But this apparent mystery has a simple solution.

Arens and his companions are faced with a mathematical problem that seems insoluble: turning the triangle into a circle.

Their aim has three sides: (a) a Jewish state, (b) the whole of Eretz Israel, and (c) democracy. How to combine these three sides into one harmonious circle?

Between the sea and the river there now live about 6.5 million Jews and 3.9 million Palestinians – a proportion of 59 percent Jews to 41 percent Palestinians (including the inhabitants of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Palestinian citizens of Israel.) This number does not include, of course, the millions of Palestinian refugees who are living outside the country.)

Several “experts” have tried to dispute these numbers, but respected statisticians, including Israelis, accept them with tiny changes here and there.

The proportion, alas, is rapidly changing in favor of the Palestinians. The Palestinian population is doubling every 18 years. Even taking into account the natural increase of the Jewish population in Israel and the potential immigration in the foreseeable future, one can predict with almost mathematical precision when the Palestinians will constitute the majority between the Jordan river and the sea. It’s a matter of years rather than decades.

The inescapable conclusion: one can reconcile between any two of the three aspirations, but not all three at once:
(a) a Jewish state in the entire country cannot be democratic,
(b) a democratic state in the entire country cannot be Jewish, and
(c) a Jewish and democratic state cannot include the entire Eretz Israel.

Simple. Logical. One does not have to be Arens, an engineer by profession, to see this. Therefore the Right is looking for another logic that would allow the creation of a Jewish and democratic state in the entire country.

Last week Haaretz published a stunning sensation: prominent personalities of the extreme Right – indeed, some of the most extreme – accept the solution of one-state from the sea to the river. They speak about a state in which the Palestinians will be full citizens.

The rightists quoted in Noam Sheizaf’s article do not hide their reasons for adopting this line: they want to obstruct the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, which would mean the end of the settlement enterprise and the evacuation of scores of settlements and outposts throughout the West Bank. They also want to put an end to the growing international pressure for the two-state solution.

Among some leftists in the world, who advocate the one-state solution, the news was greeted with great joy. They pour scorn on the Israeli peace camp (leftists enjoy nothing more than deriding other leftists) and heap praise on the Israeli Right. What magnanimity! What readiness to break out of the box and adopt their opponents’ ideals! Only the Right will make peace!

But if these good people would read the texts, they would discover that it ain’t necessarily so. To be precise, it’s the very opposite.

All of the six rightists quoted in the article are united on a number of points which deserve consideration.

First: all of them exclude the Gaza Strip from the proposed solution. Gaza will no longer be a part of the country. Thus, the number of Palestinians will be reduced by 1.5 million, improving the menacing demographic balance. (True, in the Oslo agreement, Israel recognized the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one integral territory, but the rightists consider the Oslo agreement anyhow as the tainted product of leftist traitors.)

Second: the one state will, of course, be a Jewish state.

Third: the annexation of the West Bank will take place at once, so that the building of settlements can go on undisturbed. In a Greater Israel, the settlement enterprise cannot be limited.

Fourth: There is no way to grant citizenship to all Palestinians forthwith.

The author of the article summarizes their positions thus: “a process that will take from about a decade to a generation, and at its conclusion the Palestinians will enjoy full personal rights, but the state will remain, in its symbols and spirit, Jewish…This is not a vision of ‘a state belonging to all its citizens’ and not ‘Isratine’ with a flag combining the crescent and the Star of David. The one state still means Jewish sovereignty.”

It is worthwhile to listen well to the explanations provided by the initiators themselves:

Uri Elitsur, former director general of Israel's Judea and Samaria Council (the leadership of the West Bank settlers, known as Yesha): “I speak of a Jewish state which is the state of the Jewish people, and in which there will exist an Arab minority.”

Hanan Porat, a founder of Gush Emunim (the religious settlers’ leadership, and the man who called upon the Jews to rejoice after the Baruch Goldstein massacre in Hebron): “I am against the automatic citizenship proposed by Uri Elitsur, which is naïve and could lead to grievous consequences. I propose the application of Israeli law to the territories in stages, first in the areas in which there is (already) a Jewish majority, and within a time-span of a decade to a generation in all the territories.”

Porat proposes dividing the Palestinians into three categories:
(a) Those who want an Arab state and are ready to realize this by terrorism and struggle against the state – they have no place in Eretz Israel. Meaning: they will be expelled.
(b) Those resigned to their place and to Jewish sovereignty, but not ready to take part in the state and fulfill all their obligations towards it – they will have full human rights, but no political representation in the institutions of the state.
(c) Those who declare that they will be loyal to the state and swear allegiance to it – they will be granted full citizenship. (They will, of course, be a small minority.)

Tzipi Hutubeli, a Knesset member on the extreme fringe of Likud: “On the political horizon there must be citizenship for the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria…That will happen gradually …This process must take place over a long time, perhaps even a generation, in the course of which the situation on the ground will be stabilized and the symbols of the Jewish state and its character will be anchored in law…

"The question mark hovering over Judea and Samaria will be removed…First comes my deep belief in our right over Eretz Israel. Shiloh and Bet-El (in the West Bank) are for me the land of our ancestors in the full meaning of the term…At this moment we speak about conferring citizenship in Judea and Samaria, not in Gaza. Let it be clear: I do not recognize political rights of Palestinians over Eretz Israel…Between the sea and the Jordan there is room for one state, a Jewish state.”

Arens writes: “The integration of the Arab population (inside Israel) into Israeli society is a prior condition, and only afterward can one speak about citizenship for Palestinians in the territories.” Meaning: Arens proposes focusing on the integration of the Arab citizens of Israel – something that has not happened in the last 62 years – and only afterward thinking about the question of citizenship for the West Bank population.

Emily Amrussi, a settler who organizes meetings between the settlers and the Palestinians of the neighboring villages: “Don’t describe me as one pushing for the 'one state.' In the end we may arrive there, but we are still very far from there. Let’s talk first about one country…We don’t talk about citizenship, but in terms like relations between neighbors… First let them become my good neighbors, and then we shall give them rights…In the far future, it will be necessary to move towards citizenship for everybody.”

Reuven Rivlin, Knesset Speaker adds: “The country cannot be divided…I oppose the idea of a state belonging to all its citizens or a bi-national state and am thinking about arrangements of joint sovereignty in Judea and Samaria under the Jewish state, even a regime of two parliaments, Jewish and Arab…Judea and Samaria will be a co-dominion, held jointly…But these are things that take time…Stop waving demography in my face.”

The regime described here is not an apartheid state, but something much worse: a Jewish state in which the Jewish majority will decide if at all, and when, to confer citizenship on some of the Arabs. The words that come up again and again - “perhaps within a generation” - are by nature very imprecise, and not by accident.

But most important: there is a thunderous silence about the mother of all questions: what will happen when the Palestinians become the majority in the One State? That is not a question of "if," but of "when": there is not the slightest doubt that this will happen, not "within a generation," but long before.

This thunderous silence speaks for itself. People who do not know Israel may believe that the rightists are ready to accept such a situation. Only a very naive person can expect a repetition of what happened in South Africa, when the whites (a small minority) handed power over to the blacks (the large majority) without bloodshed.

We said above that it is impossible to "turn the triangle into a circle." But the truth is that there is one way: ethnic cleansing. The Jewish state can fill all the space between the sea and the Jordan and still be democratic – if there are no Palestinians there.

Ethnic cleansing can be carried out dramatically (as in this country in 1948 and in Kosovo in 1998) or in a quiet and systematic way, by dozens of sophisticated methods, as is happening now in East Jerusalem. But there cannot be the slightest doubt that this is the final stage of the one-state vision of the rightists. The first stage will be an effort to fill the entire country with settlements, and to demolish any chance of implementing the two-state solution, which is the only realistic basis for peace.

In Roman Polanski’s movie Rosemary’s Baby, a nice young woman gives birth to a nice baby, which turns out to be the son of Satan. The attractive leftist vision of the one-state solution may grow up into a rightist monster.

- Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist and writer. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The STL and the Anti-Lebanese Plot. Part 1: “Syria is Guilty!”

Picture source: AFP
26/07/2010 Yusuf Fernandez
July 25, 2010

Al-Manar.com.lb is not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.

Most international experts consider that it is the national jurisdiction of Lebanon, and not the Special Tribunal of Lebanon, that that should have investigated and prosecuted the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005.

They argue that according to the UN Resolution 1664, the bomb attacks are not counted as crimes that needed to be tried by an international tribunal.

In fact, the UN had only previously taken such a measure -to set up a new international tribunal- to prosecute the most serious international crimes, as genocide and ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda. Significantly, the Israeli genocide against Palestinian and Lebanese peoples have never led to the creation of a similar international court.

For example, the July 2006 war caused heavy loss of human life, population displacement and massive destruction in critical infrastructure and properties in Lebanon. Most of them were the result of serious violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocol on the protection of the victims of international armed conflicts. These violations were war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, there was no UN resolution which recognized them as such, or even condemned them. The UN Security Council did not create an international commission, let alone a court, to investigate the violations of the international law committed during the war.

This is in strong contrast with the case of Hariri's assassination. It suggests that the Western powers think that some deaths are more important than others from a political view. This hypocritical stance has damaged the credibility of international law and has persuaded many people that international justice is driven by political considerations.

Therefore, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was the first international court set up exclusively to prosecute less serious crimes that are only international because the UN Security Council decided they should be so. This demonstrates that there was a clear political purpose behind the creation of the tribunal.

There is no doubt either that the enemies of Lebanon, Syria and the Arabism -first of all Israel and the Bush Administration- saw the tribunal as a tool to accomplish their goals – those that they failed to achieve in the battlefield against the Resistance or by killing thousands of Lebanese in Beirut, Qana or many other places of the country.

In this context of manifest international injustice and double standards, who can trust an international tribunal which has set up by those who express day by day their anti-Lebanese views?

 Someone has only to read UN reports about the implementation of the Resolution 1701 to see that Lebanon is always the guilty party. Israeli daily provocations and threats, including violations of the Lebanese air space, are mostly ignored or played down.

FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SYRIA

Shortly after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri on February 14, 2005, the pro-West and anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon launched a campaign to blame Syria for the crime despite the lack of any evidence of Syrian involvement. These forces forgot Syrian efforts to protect Lebanon from the Israeli aggression because they were actually against Arabism and some of them had supported the signature of a “peace treaty” with Israel in 1983, which was only an imposed surrender to the Zionist entity and was later annulled due to the pressure of the Lebanese population.

Amid massive protests from a large number of Lebanese who had been pushed to believe that Syria was undoubtedly guilty of the crime, Damascus put an end to its 29-year military and intelligence presence in Lebanon.

Soon after, the United Nations called for an investigation into al-Hariri's assassination.

Damascus claimed that Washington wanted to use the UN investigation to put an end to Syrian influence in the region.

The Bush Administration considered Syria as one of its main enemies in the Middle East and it explains that the first investigations of the Tribunal were aimed at finding any kind of evidence implicating Syria in the murder. More recently, US neocons believed that the UN probe would undermine the attempts by the Obama administration to engage Syria diplomatically just as it would prevent Damascus from successfully making a case for the Israeli withdrawal from the Syrian Golan Heights, which Israel took over in 1967 and is obliged by the UNSC Resolution 242 to return to Syria in exchange for peace.

In Lebanon, politicians aligned with the March 14 coalition (made up by anti-Syrian and pro-West political parties) insisted once and again that Syria was to blame for the former PM´s death. They also extended their criticism to the Resistance, which supported strong links with Syria and opposed to Western and Israeli influence on the country.

Some experts already then warned that the STL was politicized. Joshua Landis, co-director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, claimed that “a lot of people have their hopes pinned on this, particularly the people from the Bush administration.”

Some senior US diplomats claimed that Syria was being uncooperative and, as a consequence of it, the Security Council might impose sanctions on Syrian officials: the president, the prime minister, the defense minister, the foreign minister and members of Parliament. Under these proposed sanctions, UN member states would have been prohibited from hosting these officials and their assets in those countries would have been frozen.

The first reports from the UN International Independent Investigation Committee (IIIC) appeared to support claims by the US and Lebanon´s 14 March camp that Syria was implicated in the murder.

Detlev Mehlis, the first IIIC Commissioner released in October 2005 an interim report which claimed that there was “converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement” in the assassination.
Mehlis was actually a favorite of the pro-Israeli neocons who served in the Reagan Administration. His investigation of the 1982 La Belle Discotheque bombing attack in West Berlin was used as pretext by the US government to launch a 1986 air attack on Libya.

Mehlis concluded that Libya was behind the Berlin attack conveniently at the same time that neocons in the US administration, including Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Scooter Libby, and others were calling for an attack on Muammar Qaddafi.

The fact that he was appointed as the IIIC Commissioner is a clear evidence of strong Israeli influence on the tribunal.

Key to Mehlis´s assertions were the testimonies of two witnesses, Hussam Hussam and Mohammed Zuhair al-Siddiq, who said that Syrian and Lebanese officials had ordered the attack on al-Hariri´s convoy.

Siddiq claimed that Damascus and former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud had given the order to kill Hariri. He added that four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals and a number of Lebanese and Syrian politicians were also involved.

In October 2005, Mehlis published a report, whose electronic version mentioned the names of some Syrian officials who were allegedly involved in the assassination. Some Western media then claimed that the conclusion of the investigation would show that Syria had played a decisive role in the crime.

However, some weeks after the release of the October 2005 interim report, Hussam and Siddiq's testimonies were found to be unreliable. Hussam started trying to sell his story to several Lebanese media outlets. When his name and role as a witness were leaked by New TV in November, he abruptly left the country for Syria. Days later, he reappeared on Syrian state television and fully changed his testimony, claiming that he fabricated the tale after being tortured, drugged, and offered money by March 14 leaders.

For his part, former Syrian secret intelligence agent Mohammad al-Siddiq also proved to be a false witness. He left France after obtaining a fake Czech passport and fled to the United Arab Emirates, where he was arrested. He told reporters that he had received his passport from the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) in order to escape Lebanese justice. While being in France under the protection of DGSE, the French Police eavesdropped on his telephone calls and found out that Siddiq had lied to the tribunal.

Therefore, the report´s conclusions were proved to be false as well as its anti-Syrian claims. All these scandals undermined the credibility of the tribunal and led to Mehlis´s resignation.

In an apparent acknowledgement that the Bush administration had originally sought to use the al-Hariri case to pressure Damascus, an anonymous US official then told the International Crisis Group that the March 14 coalition could no longer assume that the tribunal will automatically deliver a damning indictment of Syrian complicity in the murder. This new situation sparked outrage among pro-March 14 Lebanese and some Western commentators. Shibli Mallat, a prominent Lebanese law professor, accused Brammertz from the pages of TIME magazine of a “total dereliction of duty” and said that he “single-handedly destroyed" the investigation. Michael Young warned in the Lebanese newspaper Daily Star of “grave damage being done to the UN's credibility.” March 14 leaders implored the UN to give some kind of public indication that Damascus was still involved in the murder, but to no avail.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Mossad Murdered Former Lebanese PM in Carbon Copy of 1979 Assassination

July 27, 2010 by politicaltheatrics

  
This article is from 2005 but it is a must read, especially for those currently watching the political play-making going on between Israel and Lebanon.
We can only conclude that there must be some kind of agreement between world nations that, even when it is patantly obvious, one nation will never expose the activities of anothers’ intelligence agency. What other reason can there be for the fact that Iran and Syria were the only two countries to even hint at Israel as being behind the murder of Rafik Hariri on Valentine’s day 2005?

Indeed, one of the strongest indications of an Israeli involvement in the murder of Hariri is the fact that not ONE mainstream news source is even mentioning the possibility of Israeli involvement, when it is painfully clear that Israel has the most to gain from his death. But then again, we have become accustomed to the severe lack of intestinal fortitude or any real journalistic integrity on the part of the mainstream media. And also to the fact that much of the Western press is dominated by Israeli sympathisers and/or “Zionists”.

To his credit, French President Chirac, perhaps going as far as protocol permitted, held off from immediately implicating any particular group in the murder of his close friend and called for “an immediate international investigation to uncover the real culprits”. Coming as it did at the same time as the US government’s attempts to force the blame on Syria, Chirac’s comment perhaps provides the strongest evidence that Syria was NOT involved. Of course, we don’t need the subtle innuendo of any government leader to realise that, while Syria may have stood to gain from the untimely demise of Hariri, it had much more to loose.

This fact however did not stop so-called “journalists” in the mainstream media from sounding off in all directions. An example of the faulty logic used by such pundits is provided by analyst Jean-Pierre Perrin writing in the French daily “Liberation” the day after the assassination of Hariri. Perrin claimed that Chirac’s call for an international enquiry to identify the killers was “a way of casting doubt over any Lebanese-Syrian enquiry” and showed Paris also suspects Damascus. Yet surely if Chirac really suspected Syria, he would have said nothing and allowed Syria’s accusers to prevail, or added his own voice to the chorus already calling for Syrian “blood”. Yet we see that he did exactly the opposite and in doing so made clear his opinion that Syria was NOT to blame.

Most readers will be aware that, over the past few years, the US and Israel have been making loud and repeated claims that Syria is “funding Palestinian and Iraqi terrorism”. There have also been growing signs that, if the US and Israel can fabricate enough “evidence”, Syria may well be the next stop in the “war on terror”. It is also public knowledge that Hariri had resigned as Prime Minister last year over Syrian meddling in Lebanese government affairs and was in favor of a withdrawal of the 14,000 Syrian troops from Lebanon (although he had never openly criticised the Syrian government.) Given these facts, is it really reasonable to believe that Syria would publically assassinate Hariri and, in the process, provide the US and Israel with much needed justification to continue their imperial rampage through the Middle East?

While Hariri might have been quietly pressuring Syria for the ultimate removal of it’s troops, he was also well aware of the reason for those troops – to dissuade Israel from staging another invasion of Lebanese territory. Having manipulated Lebanese and world opinion into believing that Syria killed Hariri and with the withdrawal of Syrian troops already under way, Lebanon and its people will once more be exposed to the predations of the butcher Sharon.

From the moment of its creation by Western diplomats in the aftermath of WW I, the potential for religious and ethnic conflict was seemingly built into the very fabric of Lebanese society.

Under the gerrymandered borders drawn up by the League of Nations in 1920, extremist Maronite Christians made up 54% of the population with Arabs comprising the remainder, giving the Maronites a controlling stake in the newly formed Lebanese government.

Within 40 years however, Arabs had outnumbered Christians and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees had been forced out of Palestine into Lebanon after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the 1967 Israeli-Arab war. In an attempt to maintain control the Lebanese ‘Phalange’ was formed, an extremist political and military force of the Christian Maronites in Lebanon.

The Phalangists’ unbending right-wing policies, their resistance to the introduction of fully democratic institutions and to the very idea of Arab nationalism made them natural allies of Israel.


Almost inevitably, civil war between the Arab Lebanese and the Phalangists finally broke out in 1975, with more than a little help from Israel.

In 1982, under the pretext of curbing attacks on Israeli troops by the Palestinian PLO in Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the Israeli army to invade.

In a weeklong orgy of bloodletting, then Defence Minister and current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered his troops to encircle the Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila giving the Maronite Phalangists free reign to murder at will.

Figures vary, but somewhere between 1,700 and 3,000 Palestinians, most of them innocent civlians, were mercilessly butchered in response to the murder of Israeli-backed Christian Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel.

When a horrified world demanded an explanation of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who himself had committed indiscriminate terror in his youth, he said without a word of regret: “Goyim kill Goyim and they blame the Jew.”

Despite Israel’s denials of responsibility, New York Times correspondent Thomas L. Friedman declared without qualification: “The Israelis knew just what they were doing when they let the Phalangists into those camps.”

Sharon and seven other Israeli officials, including Begin, were found guilty the next year by an Israeli commission of “indirect responsibility” for the massacres. Sharon was also found to have “personal responsibility,” and he was ordered to resign or be removed as defense minister. Sharon resigned, protesting his innocence, but he was allowed to stay in the cabinet as a minister without portfolio.
The union of the Christian Lebanese and the Israelis has indeed been a long and sordid one and it should come as no surprise that current Lebanese Christian politicians have been quick to join the US and Israel in immediately asserting that Syria was to blame for the murder of Hariri.

By all accounts, Hariri was one of the few “men of peace” left in the Middle East. In his two terms as Lebanese PM since 1990he had brought Lebanon out of the carnage wrought by 15 years of civil war and set it well on the way to reclaiming its status as the “Paris of the Middle East.” Hariri willingly expended his personal fortune on Lebanon’s recovery pouring millions into the reconstruction of Beirut. Viewed as a leading Arab-world reformer, he was also credited with restoring Lebanon’s reputation abroad as a liberal, open Middle Eastern country. He paid for the 1989 Christian-Muslim peace conference in Taif, Saudi Arabia, which laid the foundation for the ceasefire that came a year later. During his tenure as Prime Minister, Harari also made it his goal to ensure that the religious divisions (Christian and Islamic) were kept out of politics.

When you think of Israel, what are the first thoughts that come to mind? Belagured? Threatened? Only democracy in the Middle East? A vanguard for Western Democracy in its battle to stem the tide of rampant Arab terrorism? Rightful homeland of all “Jews”? If these thoughts come to mind when you think of the state of Israel, then the IDF and/or the Mossad have an opening you might be interested in. My point is that Israel, in its current incarnation as an illegal and ultimately untenable statelet, far from seeking the eradication of “terrorism”, finds itself in the paradoxical postion of NEEDING a permanent threat to its existence in order for it to continue to exist and expand its borders into Arab lands.
Which is where the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad comes in.

Mossad’s motto is “by way of deception thou shalt wage war” and all of the evidence points to their taking their motto absolutely literally. Over the years, Mossad has worked tirelessly to further the ‘interests’ of Israel and has made extensive use of False Flag operations to create the appearance that Israel is surrounded by terrorist regimes. From the demonisation of Saddam leading up to the first Gulf War, to the 9/11 attacks, nothing, it seems, is a bridge too far for the world’s most ruthless and bloodthirsty intelligence agency.

From ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky’s bookThe Other Side of Deception“:
The Mossad realized that it had to come up with a new threat to the region, a threat of such magnitude that it would justify whatever action the Mossad might see fit to take.
The right-wing elements in the Mossad (and in the whole country, for that matter) had what they regarded as a sound philosophy: They believed (correctly, as it happened) that Israel was the strongest military presence in the Middle East. In fact, they believed that the military might of what had become known as “fortress Israel” was greater than that of all of the Arab armies combined, and was responsible for whatever security Israel possessed. The right wing believed then – and they still believe – that this strength arises from the need to answer the constant threat of war.
The corollary belief was that peace overtures would inevitably start a process of corrosion that would weaken the military and eventually bring about the demise of the state of Israel, since, the philosophy goes, its Arab neighbors are untrustworthy, and no treaty signed by them is worth the paper it’s written on.
Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad’s general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region. And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas (Palestinian fundamentalists) to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then the picture would be complete.
The Mossad regarded Saddam Hussein as their biggest asset in the area, since he was totally irrational as far as international politics was concerned, and was therefore all the more likely to make a stupid move that the Mossad could take advantage of.
What the Mossad really feared was that Iraq’s gigantic army, which had survived the Iran-Iraq war and was being supplied by the West and financed by Saudi Arabia, would fall into the hands of a leader who might be more palatable to the West and still be a threat to Israel.
The first step was taken in November 1988, when the Mossad told the Israeli foreign office to stop all talks with the Iraqis regarding a peace front. At that time, secret negotiations were taking place between Israelis, Jordanians, and Iraqis under the auspices of the Egyptians and with the blessings of the French and the Americans. The Mossad manipulated it so that Iraq looked as if it were the only country unwilling to talk, thereby convincing the Americans that Iraq had a different agenda.
By January 1989, the Mossad LAP machine was busy portraying Saddam as a tyrant and a danger to the world. The Mossad activated every asset it had, in every place possible, from volunteer agents in Amnesty International to fully bought members of the U.S. Congress. Saddam had been killing his own people, the cry went; what could his enemies expect? The gruesome photos of dead Kurdish mothers clutching their dead babies after a gas attack by Saddam’s army were real, and the acts were horrendous. But the Kurds were entangled in an all-out guerrilla war with the regime in Baghdad and had been supported for years by the Mossad, who sent arms and advisers to the mountain camps of the Barazany family; this attack by the Iraqis could hardly be called an attack on their own people. But, as Uri said to me, once the orchestra starts to play, all you can do is hum along.
The media was supplied with inside information and tips from reliable sources on how the crazed leader of Iraq killed people with his bare hands and used missiles to attack Iranian cities. What they neglected to tell the media was that most of the targeting for the missiles was done by the Mossad with the help of American satellites. The Mossad was grooming Saddam for a fall, but not his own. They wanted the Americans to do the work of destroying that gigantic army in the Iraqi desert so that Israel would not have to face it one day on its own border. That in itself was a noble cause for an Israeli, but to endanger the world with the possibility of global war and the deaths of thousands of Americans was sheer madness.
The previous august (1989) a contingent of the Maktal (Mossad reconnaissance unit) and several naval commandos had headed up the Euphrates, their target was an explosives factory located in the city of Al-Iskandariah. Information the Mossad had received from American intelligence revealed that every thursday a small convoy of trucks came to the complex to be loaded with explosives for the purpose of manufacturing cannon shells. The objective was to take position near the base on Wednesday August 23rd and wait until the next day when the trucks would be loaded. At that point, several sharpshooters would fire one round each of an explosive bullet at a designated truck while they were in the process of loading, so that there would be a carry on explosion into the storage facility.
The operation was quite successful and the explosion generated the sort of publicity the Mossad was hoping for in attracting attention to Saddam’s constant efforts at building a gigantic and powerful military arsenal. The Mossad shared its “findings” with the Western intelligence agencies and leaked the story of the explosion to the press.
Since this was a guarded facility Western reporters had minimal access to it. However, at the beginning of September, the Iraqis were inviting Western media people to visit Iraq and see the rebuilding that had taken place after the [Iran-Iraq] war, and the Mossad saw an opportunity to conduct a damage assessment.
A man calling himself Michel Rubiyer saying he was working for the French newspaper “le figaro”, approached Farzad Bazoft, a thirty one year old reporter freelancing for the British newspaper the Observer. Rubiyer was in fact Michel M. a Mossad agent.
Michel told Farzad that he would pay him handsomely and print his story if he would join a group of journalists heading for Baghdad. The reason he gave for not going himself was that he had been black-listed in Iraq. He pointed out the Bazoft could use the money and the break especially with his criminal background. Michel told the stunned reporter that he knew of his arrest in 1981 for armed robbery in Northhampton England. Along with the implied threat he told Bazoft that he would be able to print his story in the Observer as well.
Michel told Bazoft to collect information regarding the explosion ask questions about it get sketches of the area and collect earth samples. He told the worried reporter that Saddam would not dare harm a reporter even if he was unhappy with him. The worst the Saddam would do was kick him out of the country, which would in itself make him famous.
Why this particular reporter? He was of Iranian background and would make punishing him much easier for the Iraqis and he wasn’t a European whom they would probably only hold and then kick out. In fact, Bazoft had been identified in a Mossad search that was triggered by his prying into another Mossad case in search of a story involving an ex-Mossad asset Dr Cyrus Hashemi who was eliminated by mossad in 1986. Since Bazoft had already stumbled on too much information for his own good – or the Mossad’s for that matter – he was the perfect candidate for this job of snooping in forbidden areas.
Bazoft made his way to the location as he was asked and as might be expected was arrested. Tragically, his British girlfriend, a nurse working in a baghdad hospital was arrested as well.
Within a few days of his arrest, a Mossad liaison in the US called the Iraqi representative in Holland and said that Jerusalem was willing to make a deal for the release of their man who had been captured. the Iraqi representative asked for time to contact Baghdad, and the liaison called the next day, at which point he told the Iraqi representative it was all a big mistake and severed contact. Now the Iraqis had no doubt that they had a real spy on their hands, and they were going to see him hang. All the Mossad had to do was sit back and watch as Saddam proved to the world what a monster he really was.
On March 15th 1990 Farzad Bazoft, who had been held in the Abu Gharib prison met briefly with the British Ambassador to Iraq.
A few minutes after the meeting he was hanged.
The world was shocked, but the Mossad was not done yet. To fan the flames generated by the brutal hanging, a Mossad sayan in New York delivered a set of documents to ABC television with a story from a reliable Middle Eastern source telling if a plant Saddam had for the manufacturing of uranium. The information was convincing and the photos and sketches were even more so.
It was time to draw attention to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
Only three months before, on December 5, 1989, the Iraqis had launched the Al-Abid, a three-stage ballistic missile. The Iraqis claimed it was a satellite launcher that Gerald Bull, a Canadian scientist, was helping them develop. Israeli intelligence knew that the launch, although trumpeted as a great success, was in fact a total failure, and that the program would never reach its goals. But that secret was not shared with the media. On the contrary, the missile launch was exaggerated and blown out of proportion.
The message that Israeli intelligence sent out was this: Now all the pieces of the puzzle are fitting together. This maniac is developing a nuclear capability (remember the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981) and pursuing chemical warfare (as seen in his attacks on his own people, the Kurds). What’s more, he despises the Western media, regarding them as Israeli spies. Quite soon, he’s going to have the ability to launch a missile from anywhere in Iraq to anywhere he wants in the Middle East and beyond.
After the arrest of Bazoft, Gerald Bull, who was working on the Iraqi big gun project called Babylon, was visited by Israeli friends from his past. The visitors (two Mossad officers) had come to deliver a warning. They were both known to Bull as members of the Israeli intelligence community. The Mossad psychological department had studied the position Bull was in and analysed what was known about his character. It arrived at the conclusion that, even if threatened, he wouldn’t pull out of the program but would instead carry on his work with very little regard for his personal safety.
Ultimately, Bull’s continuing with the program would play right into the Mossad’s hands. Through the bullet riddled body of Gerald Bull the world would be made to focus on his work: the Iraqi giant gun project. The timing had to be right though; Bull’s well publicised demise had to come right after an act of terror by the Baghdad regime, an act that could not be mistaken for an accident or a provocation. The hanging of the Observer reporter on March 15 was such an act.
After the reporter’s execution in Baghdad, a Kidon (Mossad assassination) team arrived in Brussels and cased the apartment building where Bull lived. It was imperative that the job be done in a place where it would not be mistaken for a robbery or an accident. At the same time, an escape route was prepared for the team and some old contacts in the Belgian police were revived to make sure they were on duty at the time of Bull’s elimination so that, if there was a need to call on a friendly police force, they’d be on call. They weren’t old of the reason for the alert, but would learn later and keep silent.
When Bull reached the building at 8.30pm, the man watching the entrance signaled the man in the empty apartment on the sixth floor (Bull’s floor) to get ready: the target had entered the building. The shooter then left the apartment and hid in an alcove.
Almost immediately after the elevator door closed behind Bull, the shooter fired point blank at the man’s back and head. The shooter then walked over to Bull and pulled out of his tote bag a handful of documents and other papers, which he paced in a paper shopping bag he had with him. He also collected all the casings from the floor and dropped the gun into the shopping bag.
In the following weeks, more and more discoveries were made regarding the big gun and other elements of the Saddam war machine. The Mossad had all but saturated the intelligence field with information regarding the evil intentions of Saddam the Terrible, banking on the fact that before long, he’d have enough rope to hang himself.
It was very clear what the Mossad’s overall goal was. It wanted the West to do its bidding, just as the Americans had in Libya with the bombing of Qadhafi. After all, Israel didn’t possess carriers and ample air power, and although it was capable of bombing a refugee camp in Tunis, that was not the same. The Mossad leaders knew that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he’d been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear. [...]
Hariri was a close friend of French President Chirac and was reportedly planning a come back to Lebanese politics and, as noted above, was credited with “restoring Lebanon’s reputation abroad as a liberal, open Middle Eastern country”.


The fact is, the emergence of ANY open, democratic, liberal and SECULAR Arab nation, particularly on Israel’s border and under the influence of an internationally respected figure like Hariri, would threaten the carefully crafted image of Middle Eastern Arab states as “Islamic terrorist regimes” and undo all of Mossad’s hard work.

It is for this reason that Hariri became an enemy of the state of Israel and of its patron the US, and had to be removed from the picture.

By framing Syria for the murder of Hariri, Israel could also apply pressure on the Syrian government and, as we have seen with the beginning of the withdrawal of Syria troops from Lebanese territory, provide the pro-Israeli Christians in the Lebanese government with a much bigger say in Lebanese politics.

Coming back to the bombing itself; it is interesting to note that the details of the attack bore a stark resemblance to many other Israeli intelligence operations, most notably the killing in Beirut in 1979 of then PLO Chief Ali Hassan Salameh aka “the Red Prince”.
Gordon Thomas writes in his book “Gideon’s Spies”:
Three Mossad agents who could pass for Arabs crossed into Lebanon and entered the city. One rented a car. The second wired a series of bombs into its chasis, roof, and door panels.
The third agent parked the car along the route the “Red Prince” traveled to his office every morning. Using precise timing Rafi Eitan had provided, the car was set to explode as PLO chief Salameh passed. It did, blowing him to pieces.

Hariri’s murder followed a very similar pattern. Approx 300kg of explosives were packed into a car sitting outside a derelict hotel on a Beirut road. As Hariri’s cavalcade of armored Mercedes Benz cars passed, the bomb was remotedly detoned, obliterating several cars – blowing one into the third story of the hotel – killling 14 people injuring 135 others and leaving a 15 foot deep, 40 feet wide, crater in the road.
Of course, no one should be surprised to hear that the the mythical yet ubiquitous al-Qaeda AND the Palestinians were immediately dragged into the fray.> Reuters “informs” us:
The Palestinian who appeared in a video claiming responsibility for the killing of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri … called Hariri a Saudi agent and said the attack was also “in revenge for the pious martyrs killed by security forces of the Saudi regime” and used a religious term for Saudi Arabia often used by al Qaeda militants fighting Riyadh’s U.S.-allied government since 2003.
It is interesting to note that in most other False Flag operations, Mossad and/or the CIA employed one of the many “previously unknown al-Qaeda-linked groups” to claim responsibility for their attacks, yet in this instance the blame had to land squarely at the doorstep of Syria, so hot on the heels of the claim of reponsibility by an “al-Qaeda-linked group”…
‘Qaeda’ Says Jihadists Didn’t Kill Hariri
DUBAI (Reuters) – A statement attributed to al Qaeda and posted on the Internet on Tuesday denied Islamists had killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, saying Lebanese, Syrian or Israeli intelligence were behind the attack.
The statement, signed by a hitherto unknown group calling itself the Al Qaeda Organization in the Levant, was posted on an Islamist Web site often used by al Qaeda a day after another unknown Islamist group said it was behind the huge Beirut blast that killed Hariri.
The authenticity of the statement could not be immediately verified.
“Blaming the Jihadist and Salafist groups for what happened in Beirut is a complete fabrication,” the statement said. “The priorities of the jihadist groups in the Levant are supporting our brethren in Iraq and Palestine, not blowing up cars.”
Clearly, the technology involved in dispatching Hariri was far beyond the capabilities of a group of Afghani cave-dwellers or the fully oppressed and marginalised Palestinian militants. No indeed, this particular operation required the resources of a modern, fully equipped and well organised covert intelligence agency.
As the Economist stated:
Some detect the work of an intelligence service—if not Syria’s, some other foreign power’s—in the method of the attack. Certainly, the size and sophistication of the bomb suggest it was the work of a well-organised and experienced group, or a government. The blast was big enough to leave a huge crater and shatter windows hundreds of metres away. Moreover, it was sophisticated enough to defeat jamming mechanisms, which the billionaire Mr Hariri’s convoy always used while travelling, to forestall such remotely triggered attacks. Mr Hariri, who made his fortune in construction in Saudi Arabia, knew he had many enemies and took what countermeasures he could.
A quick note on the above. While “construction” is certainly part of the equation, the fact that Hariri was a billionaire is unlikely to be the real motivation for his murder, despite the ever so subtle spin from the Economist.

As in the case of Iraq, Israel is determined to do whatever necessary to ensure that it remains all-powerful in the region and prevent any of its Arab neigbours from emerging as solid, unified Muslim democracies that it could not demonise as “terrorist states”. By murdering Hariri and having the blame pinned on Syria, the Mossad have removed a stablising influence on recovering Lebanese society and the Middle East in general, and given the US government an excuse to further ratchet up the war rhetoric towards Damascus.

In this sense, Israel shares a common goal with the US and it is for this reason that Israel has always enjoyed the overwhelming support of successive US administrations. While the US and Israel both make much of their bogus “war on terrorism”, both countries have long since realised that it is by fomenting “terrorism” and “terrorist” groups that their control of the Middle East can be assured. Yet, while both countries share a common goal, the reasons that each desires to achieve that goal are slightly different.

By controlling the extensive oil resources in the Middle East (and the countries that sit upon them), the US can ensure that it continues to top the heap of world superpowers. Israel too wishes to remain as a powerful world player, and its leaders realise that acting as a hired thug for the US in the region is the best way to do so. Yet it is more than mere power lust that is driving Israel’s leaders to deliberately antagonise and provoke the entire Arab world. Israel’s very presence in the Middle East is predicated on the Judaic notion of a “chosen people” and their very own homeland granted to them thousands of years ago by their mythical god, yahweh.

While it may be possible (if unlikely) to make a convincing geopolitical argument for the US government’s Middle East policies over the years, to understand the thinking of people like Sharon (and all those that act on his orders) one would have to first embrace the idea that a group of human beings can constitute a “chosen people”, one of their lives being worth more than 1,000 of the lives of the “lesser” people of the world. One would also have to accept that the “chosen people” are divinely entitled to a piece of land in the Middle East and are permitted therefore to act in any way necessary to achieve their goals of “lebensraum”.

While the Israeli government is careful to distance itself from extreme Judaic beliefs, it is clear that it is just such beliefs that underpin its policies.

To conclude. There are only two nations that had the means, motive and opportunity to carry out the particular type of attack that took the life of Hariri – a man who was one of the very few remaining hopes for a just and lasting peace in Lebanon and the greater Middle East.

Sadly, it seems that peace is the very last thing on the minds of the people who over 80 years ago drew the map of what has become the killing fields of the modern day Middle East. Their decades (or should we say millennia) long agenda is simply too far developed for them to permit anything or anyone to stand in the way of its full and undoubtedly bloody implementation. All of it coming soon to a phony theatre of “war on terrorism” near you.

Update May 2006: In his book Mordakte Hariri. Unterdruckte Spuren im Libanon (The Hariri File: Silenced Evidence in Lebanon) German journalist Jurgen Cain Kulbel makes a strong case for the United States and Israeli link to the Hariri assassination.
The major revelation in the book is that the static emitters of Mr Hariri’s convoy, normally capable of preventing the activation of bombs at a distance, “totally failed”. The journalist affirms, citing a Swiss expert, that the system could only be neutralized by its maker, which happens to be none other than an Israeli company founded by ex-Mossad agents.
Notes/Sources:
The above article was written by Joe Quinn ; entitled: “Mossad Murders Former Lebanese PM in Carbon Copy of 1979 Assassination
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian