Israel’s Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?

Israel’s Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?

The March to War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon…

In the Middle East, it is widely believed that the war against Gaza is an extension of the 2006 war against Lebanon. Without question, the war in the Gaza Strip is a part of the same conflict.

Moreover, since the Israeli defeat in 2006, Tel Aviv and Washington have not abandoned their design to turn Lebanon into a client state.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, in so many words, during his visit to Tel Aviv in early January that today Israel was attacking Hamas in the Gaza Strip and that tomorrow it would be fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon.[1]


Ehud Olmert and Nicolas Sarkozy

Lebanon is still in the cross-hairs. Israel is searching for a justification or a pretext to launch another war against Lebanon.

Washington and Tel Aviv had initially hoped to control Beirut through client political forces in the March 14 Alliance. When it became apparent that these political forces could not dominate Lebanon politically the Israeli military was unleashed on Lebanon with a goal of bringing about the ultimate downfall of Hezbollah and its political allies. [2] Areas where support for Hezbollah and its political allies were strongest saw the harshest Israeli attacks in 2006 as part of an attempt to reduce, if not remove, popular support for them.

After the 2006 war, the second Israeli defeat in Lebanon, Washington and Tel Aviv with the help of Jordan, the U.A.E., Egypt, and Saudi Arabia started arming their clients in Lebanon to wield an internal armed option against Hezbollah and its allies. In the wake of both the short-lived internal violence between the Lebanese National Opposition and the March 14 Alliance and the Doha Accord, which was reached in Qatar on May 21, 2008 as a result of the failure of this internal armed option against Hezbollah and its allies, the Israeli-U.S. objective to subdue Lebanon has been dramatically impaired.

A “national unity government” was formed in which the Lebanese National Opposition — not just Hezbollah — hold veto power through one-third of the cabinet chairs, including that of the post of deputy-prime minister.

The objective in Lebanon is “regime change” and to repress all forms of political opposition. But how to bring it about? The forecast of the 2009 general-elections in Lebanon does not look favourable for the March 14 Alliance. Without an internal political or armed option in Lebanon, which could result in the installation of a U.S.-sponsored “democracy,” Washington and its indefictible Israeli ally have chosen the only avenue available: a military solution, another war on Lebanon. [3]

Crossing Arms III: Israel Simulates a Two-Front War against Lebanon and Syria

This war is already in the advanced planning stage. In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III).[4]

The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon. Several months before the Israeli invasion drills, Tel Aviv had also warned Beirut that it would declare war on the whole of Lebanon and not just Hezbollah.[5]

Israel’s justification for these war preparations was that Hezbollah has grown stronger and become a partner in the Lebanese government since the Doha Accord. The latter was signed in Qatar between the March 14 Alliance and the Lebanese National Opposition. It is worth noting that Hezbollah was a member of the Lebanese coaltion government prior to the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon.

No doubt, Tel Aviv will also point to Hezbollah’s support of Hamas in Gaza as another pretext to wage under the banner of combating Islamic terrorism a pre-emptive war on Lebanon. In this context, Dell Lee Dailey the head of the counter-terrorism section of the U.S. State Department, had told Al-Hayat in an interview that an Israeli attack on Lebanon was “imminent” as part of the fight against terrorism. [6]

Blitzkrieg in the Making

Tel Aviv has been mapping a large-scale blitzkrieg against Lebanon as a whole, which includes an immediate land invasion. [7] Just before the Israeli massacre in the Gaza Strip started, Israeli officials and generals had promised that no Lebanese village would be immune from the wrath of Israeli aerial bombardments, regardless of religion, sect, and/or political orientation. [8]

In substance, Tel Aviv has promised to totally destroy Lebanon. Israel has also confirmed that in any future war against Lebanon, the entire country rather than Hezbollah will be the target. In practice, this was already the case in 2006’s Israeli aerial attacks on Lebanon. [9]

The Jerusalem Post quotes Brigadier-General Michael Ben-Baruch, one of the individuals who oversaw the invasion drills, as saying, “In the last war, we fired to disrupt Hezbollah activity,” and, “The next time we will fire to destroy.” [10]

In the wake of Israel’s 2006 defeat, the Israeli government admitted that its “big mistake” was it exercised restraint rather than attacking Lebanon with the full strength of its military. Israeli officials have intimated that in the case of a future war against the Lebanese that all civilian and state infrastructure will be targeted.

Beirut’s New Defence Doctrine: A Threat to Israeli Interests and Objectives to Control Lebanon

Why is Lebanon in the cross-hairs again?

The answer is geo-political and strategic. It is also related to the political consensus process and the upcoming 2009 general-elections in Lebanon. Following the formation of a unity government in Beirut under a new president, Michel Suleiman (Sleiman), a new proactive defence doctrine for the country was contemplated. The objective of this defence doctrine is to keep Israel at bay and bring political stability and security to the country.


President Michel Suleiman

At the “National Defence Strategy” dialogue, held by the 14 Lebanese signatories of the Doha Accord, all sides have agreed that Israel is a threat to Lebanon.

In the months prior to the Israeli military campaign against Gaza, important diplomatic and political steps were taken by Beirut. President Michel Suleiman accompanied by several cabinet ministers visited Damascus (his first bilateral state visit; August 13-14, 2008) and Tehran (November 24-25, 2008).


President Suleiman and Syrian President Al Assad

In turn, General Jean Qahwaji (Kahwaji) the commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces was also in Damascus (November 29, 2008) for consultations with his Syrian counterpart General Al-Habib. While in Damascus, General Qahwaji also met with General Hassan Tourkmani, the defence minister of Syria, and the Syrian President. [11] His trip followed the visit of Lebanon’s interior minister, Ziad Baroud, to Syria and was within the same framework. [12] Meanwhile, Lebanon’s defence minister, Elias Murr, went on an official visit to Moscow (December 16, 2008).

What started to emerge from these talks was that both Moscow and Tehran would provide weaponry to the Lebanese Armed Forces, which previously had been the recipients of lower-end U.S. made ordinance. The U.S. has always forbidden the Lebanese military from purchasing any heavy weapons that could challenge Israel’s military strength.

It was also revealed that Russia would donate 10 MiG-29 fighter jets to Beirut in line with Lebanon’s new defence strategy. [13] The use of the Russian MiG-29s would also entail the required installation of early warning and radar systems. Russian tanks, anti-tank rockets, armoured vehicles, and military helicopters are also being sought by Lebanon. [14]


Mig29

Iran has offered to supply the Lebanese military with medium-range missiles as part of a five-year Iranian-Lebanese defence agreement. [15] While in Iran, Michel Suleiman held talks with Iranian defence officials and went to an Iranian defence industry exposition.

While the talks with Moscow and Tehran aimed at arming the Lebanese Armed Forces, the talks with the Syrians were geared towards establishing and strengthening a joint security and defence framework directed against Israeli aggression. [16]

Integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese Armed Forces

Moreover, Michel Aoun, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement and the Reform and Change Bloc in the Lebanese Parliament also visited Tehran (October 12-16, 2008; ahead of Michel Suleiman’s official visit), and later Damascus (December 3-7, 2008). [17] Michel Aoun who is a central figure in the “political consensus” has endorsed and reaffirmed his political alliance with Hezbollah.


Michel Aoun

While calling for the peaceful disarmament of Hezbollah within a Lebanese defence strategy, he has accepted that Hezbollah fighters  will eventally integrate into Lebanon’s army. This disarmement process would only occur when the time is right and Israel no longer poses a threat to Lebanon. Hezbollah has broadly agreed to this, if and when there no longer exists an Israeli threat to the country’s security. This position on Hezbollah’s arms is spelled out in clause 10 (The Protection of Lebanon) of the February 6, 2006 memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Hezbollah that Michel Aoun signed on behalf of his political party, the Free Patriotic Movement.

Following his return from Tehran, Aoun also presented his case for the formation of a new Lebanese defence strategy and promised that the outcome of his visit to Iran would materialize in about six months. Aoun has also said that Iran, as the “major regional power between Lebanon and China” is of strategic importance to Lebanese interests. [18]


Hezbollah Paramilitary Forces

Washington’s political cohorts in Lebanon are alarmed at the direction Lebanon is taking under its new defence strategy. They have criticized weapons purchases from Iran and defensive cooperation with Syria. This includes attacks on General Jean Qahwaji’s visit to Syria, which was mandated by the entire Lebanese cabinet. [19] Additionally, within these pro-U.S. forces in Lebanon there has been a push for a “Swiss-like” “neutral defence policy” for Lebanon within the Middle East. Such a “neutral” position would benefit the U.S. and Israel geo-politically and strategically. Needless to say, with the threat of Israeli military aggression looming, this position is proving to be rather unpopular within Lebanon.

Ending Israeli-American pressure on Beirut to Naturalize Palestinian Refugees

The formation of a new proactive defence doctrine implies that Hezbollah fighters would be incorporated in the Lebanese Armed Forces and that the existing paramilitary forces of Hezbollah would be disbanded once certain conditions are met.

Therefore, one of Lebanon’s key political questions would be resolved. With the integration of Hezbollah fighters into the country’s army together with military aid from Russia and Iran, Lebanon would acquire defensive capabilities, which would enable it to confront the threat of Israeli military aggression. These developments, which go against the prevailing pattern of U.S. client regimes in the Middle East modelled on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have sounded an alarm bell in Tel Aviv, Washington, and London.

In response to Lebanon’s rapprochement with Russia and Iran, two senior US State Department officials were rushed to Beirut in December.[20] During this mission, Dell Lee Dailey and David Hale, respectively Coordinator of the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism and Deputy-assistant Secretary responsible for Middle Eastern affairs, renewed the veiled threats of an Israeli attack against Lebanon, while casually placing the blame on Hezbollah.[21] These threats are aimed at Lebanon as a whole. They are intended  to disrupt the creation of Lebanon’s new defence doctrine.

The clock is ticking for Israel, the U.S., and NATO to obstruct the implementation of Beirut’s new national defence doctrine.

Israel would no longer have any justifications for carrying out military incursions into Lebanon if Hezbollah were to become a full political party under a new Lebanese defence strategy. Moreover, if Beirut were able, under a new defence arrangement, to protect its borders against Israeli military threats it would not only end Tel Aviv’s ambitions to politically and economically dominate Lebanon, but it would also end Israeli pressure on Lebanon to naturalize the Palestinian war refugees waiting to return to their ancestoral lands that are occupied by Israel.

Clearly the issue of Palestinian naturalization in Lebanon is also tied to Lebanon’s political consensus process and new defence strategy and was discussed by Michel Suleiman with Iranian officials in Tehran. [22]

The Middle Eastern Powder Keg: A World War III Scenario?

In 2006, when Israel attacked Lebanon, the war was presented to international public opinion as a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. In essence the 2006 war was an Israeli attack on all of Lebanon. The Beirut government failed to take a stance, declared its “neutrality” and Lebanon’s military forces were instructed not to intervene against the Israeli invaders. The reason for this was that the political parties of the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance that dominated the Lebanese government were expecting the war to end quickly and for Hezbollah (their political rival) to be defeated, and eventually excluded from playing a meaningful role on the Lebanese domestic political scene. Exactly the opposite has occurred since 2006.

Moreover, had the Lebanese government declared war on Israel, in response to Israeli aggression, Syria would have been obligated through a Lebanese-Syrian bilateral treaty, signed in 1991, to intervene in support of Lebanon.

In the case of a future Israeli war against Lebanon, the structure of military alliances is crucial. Syria could indeed intervene on the side of Lebanon. If Syria enters into the conflict, Damascus could seek the support of Tehran in the context of a bilateral military cooperation agreement with Iran.

A scenario of escalation is, therefore, possible, which could potentially spin out of control.

If Iran were to enter on the side of Lebanon and Syria in a defensive war against Israel, the U.S. and NATO would also intervene leading us into a broader war.

Both Iran and Syria have military cooperation agreements with Russia. Iran also has bilateral military cooperation agreements with China. Iran is also an observer member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Iran’s allies including Russia, China, the member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) could all be drawn into the broader conflict.


NOTES

[1] ‘We’re fed up with empty gestures’, The Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2009.

[2] The militarization of Lebanon, extinguishing any credible armed resistance in Lebanon to Israel, and targeting Syria were also all factors for the Israeli attacks in 2006.

[3] It should be noted that the fighting between Hamas and Fatah and the Israeli campaign against the Gaza Strip that started on December 27, 2008 has obstructed the Palestinian electoral process.

[4] Amos Harel, IDF concludes large drill simulating double-front war in North, Haaretz, November 6, 2008.

[5] Barak Ravid, Israel: Lebanon is responsable for Hezbollah’s actions, Haaretz, August 8, 2008.

[6] “Hezbollah Terrorist Group; War with Israel Imminent”, Al-Manar, December 17, 2008

[7] Yakkov Katz, Preparing for a possible confrontation with Hizbullah, The Jerusalem Post, December 11, 2008.

[8] Andrew Wander, Top Israeli officer says Hizbullah will be destroyed in five days ‘next time’, The Daily Star (Lebanon), December 17, 2008.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Yakkov Katz, Preparing for a possible, Op. cit.

[11] Ahmed Fathi Zahar et al., President al-Assad Receives General Qahwaji, Underlines Role of Lebanese Army in Defending Lebanon’s Security and Stability, Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), November 29, 2008.

[12] Lebanese army commander pays visit to Syria, Xinhua News Agency, November 30, 2008.

[13] Wang Yan, Russian donation of 10 Mig-29 fighters to Lebanon raises suspicions, Xinhua News Agency, December, 17, 2008; Yoav Stern, Russia to supply Lebanon with 10 MiG-29 fighter jets, Haaretz, December 17, 208; Russia ‘to give’ Lebanon war jets, British Broadcasting Corporation News (BBC News), December 17, 2008.

[14] Lebanon defense minister to talk arms in Moscow, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), December 15, 2008.

[15] Zheng E, Lebanese president requests medium weapons from Iran, Xinhua News Agency, November 26, 2008; Kahwaji stresses LAF role, while politicians bicker some more, The Daily Star (Lebanon), November 27, 2008; Russian donation, Op. cit.

[16] Sun, Lebanese army commander returns from Syria, Xinhua News Agency, November 30, 2008.

[17] Sami Moubayed, Former foe a celebrity in Damascus, Gulf News, December 4, 2008.

[18] Aoun: Iran, most powerful country, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), October 21, 2008.

[19] Lebanese ctiticizes army commander’s visit to Syria [sic.], Xinhua News Agency, December 1, 2008.

[20] More praise for Russia’s promise of ‘free’ MiGs, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and The Daily Star (Lebanon), December 18, 2008.

[21] War with Israel Imminent, Op. cit.; US envoy warns against rearming Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Deutsche Presse-Agentur/German Press Agency (DPA), December 17, 2008.

[22] Kahwaji stresses LAF role, Op. cit.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is in an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Everything you wanted to know about how Zionists control US policy

Everything you wanted to know about how Zionists control US policy

by Malooga

I was recently asked to answer the following question: In the original post there is mention of Israel controlling US policy. How exactly does that work?

“A small, wealthy, highly organized, and unprecedentedly powerful group of people are leading the world – largely against their will – down a very destructive and risky path. Only by understanding the ways and means by which this is being accomplished can we hope to staunch their power and stop their plans.”  (read here)

Pro-Israel Rally Attended by Big-Time NY Dems Descends into Calls for ‘Wiping Out’ Palestinians

Pro-Israel Rally Attended by Big-Time NY Dems Descends into Calls for ‘Wiping Out’ Palestinians

By Max Blumenthal, AlterNet. Posted January 13, 2009.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Pro-Israel Rally Attended by Big-Time…“, posted with vodpod

Attendants of a rally joined by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Gov. David Paterson in support of Israel’s attacks on Gaza went far beyond the pale.

Watch Max Blumenthal’s exlusive video of the rally on the right-hand side of the screen.

On January 11, an estimated 10,000 people rallied in front of the Israeli consulate in midtown New York in support of Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip. The rally, which was organized by UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York in cooperation with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, featured speeches by New York’s most senior lawmakers. While the crowd was riled to righteous anger by speeches about Hamas evildoers, the event was a festive affair that began and ended with singing and joyous dancing.

Sen. Chuck Schumer highlighted Israel’s supposed humanitarian methods of warfare by pointing to its text messaging of certain Gaza Strip residents urging them to vacate their homes before Israeli forces bombed them. “What other country would do that?” Schumer shouted from the podium. Gov. David Paterson appeared on stage wearing one of the red hats distributed to demonstrators as symbols of the red alerts some residents of Israel endure when Palestinian groups fire rockets their way. Paterson cited the many Qasam rockets that have fallen on Israel as a justification for the country’s operations in Gaza, a military assault that has resulted in over 800 casualties and thousands of injuries.

Then Paterson highlighted the anti-Semitism that has followed in the wake of Israel’s attack on Gaza, highlighting the beating of a teen-age girl in France.  “This kind of anger and hatred spreads like a disease,” Paterson said, “and one thing I’ve always pointed out is there’s no place for hate in the Empire State.”

But hatred was plentiful at the rally Paterson addressed. Right in front of the stage, a man held a banner reading, “Islam Is A Death Cult.” Rally attendees described the people of Gaza to me as a “cancer,” called for Israel to “wipe them all out,” insisting, “They are forcing us to kill their children in order to defend our own children.” A young woman told me, “Those who die are suffering God’s wrath.” “They are not distinguishing between civilians and military, so why should we?” said a member of the group of messianic Orthodox Jewish Chabad-Lubavitch group that flocked to the rally.

No one I spoke to could seem to find any circumstance in which they would begin to question Israel’s war. No number of civilian deaths, no displays of extreme suffering — nothing could deter their enthusiasm for attacking one of the most vulnerable populations in the world with the world’s most advanced weaponry. There are no limits, no matter what Israel does, no matter how it does it.

The rally made me think of a passage in “The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes,” a powerful new book by former Israeli Knesset speaker and Jewish National Fund chairman Avraham Burg:

“If you are a bad person, a whining enemy or a strong-arm occupier, you are not my brother, even if you are circumcised, observe the Sabbath, and do mitzvahs. If your scarf covers every hair on your head for modest, you give alms and do charity, but what is under your scarf is dedicated to the sanctity of Jewish land, taking precedence over the sanctity of human life, whosever life that is, then your are not my sister. You might be my enemy. A good Arab or a righteous gentile will be a brother or sister to me. A wicked man, even of Jewish descent, is my adversary, and I would stand on the other side of the barricade and fight him to the end.”

Who writes the rules of reality?

Who writes the rules of reality?

In order to tell this story properly, we will first zoom in for a couple of close-ups. Then we will pull out for the larger picture.

ZOOM IN:

The Israelis lobbed phosphorous at a UN food storage facility. Obviously, this was done in order to starve the Palestinians — just as the entire Gaza operation was ginned up in order to make life there unendurable.

Yet the Israelis try to convince us otherwise. That UN facility wasn’t targeted. The IDF was simply returning fire:

Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said the military fired artillery shells at the UN compound after Hamas militants opened fire from the location, a version of events John Ging, director of Unwra in Gaza, rejected as “nonsense”

Mr Ging said Israeli shells first hit a courtyard filled with refugees, then struck garages and the UN’s main warehouse, sending thousands of tons of food aid up in flames. Later, fuel supplies ignited, sending a thick plume of smoke into the air.

“It’s a total disaster for us,” said Mr Ging, adding that the UN had warned the Israeli its shelling put the compound in danger.

It all comes down to a game of “Who do you trust?” It’s the word of Olmert versus the word of the UN officials on the ground.

ZOOM IN:

The megaphonies (discussed in earlier posts) have invaded No Quarter in a big way. (I hate to admit it, but Johnson’s coverage of the Gaza atrocities has been quite good.) The plants are so obvious that the reader may think that he has entered an arboretum. Example

:

The residents of Gaza are not starving – the Israeli government has consistently allowed food aid. Has the food been getting to the people? That’s another story, because Hamas or whatever Palestinian leadership has been on the ground cuts off food, water and electricity to their own people and blames it on the Israelis, and then distributes it through black market networks and favouritism.

Israel consistently warned civilians well in advance of any bombing near them. They did this by dropping leaflets and making phone calls…

And so forth. Pure crap, all of it. Fortunately, other NQ readers did much to set the record straight.

ZOOM OUT — WIDE SHOT:

I’ve noticed one telling fact about all of the pro-Israel commentary peppering the blogs. No independent evidence is ever cited.

Pro-Israel writers get their “facts” from sources which trace back, ultimately, to the government of Israel itself. None of their facts ever come from the United Nations, from the Red Cross, from Oxfam, from Amnesty, from independent journalists.

Why is that? Why are virtually all reports from independent sources consistently at odds with the “reality” that the Israelis want us to accept?

Anti-Semitism. It’s just that simple.

At least, so the Israelis and their Jewish supporters in America would have us believe.

Any person or organization which tells the world uncomfortable facts about the treatment of the Palestinians (or the Lebanese) stands accused of bigotry. In order to take the Israeli apologists at their word, you have to accept the ultra-paranoid view that every gentile is a Nazi at heart.

For example, when Amnesty published a damning report on the scurrilous invasion of Lebanon, Amnesty was accused of being anti-Jewish:

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director called the Amnesty International report, “bigoted, biased, and borderline anti-Semitic.”

He added that, “Amnesty International has a longstanding pattern of rushing to judgment to stigmatize Israel…”

Let us now turn to the Red Cross, which reports that the IDF has prevented the rescue of starving Palestinian children. How do Israelis and American Zionists (Jewish and Christian) manage to block out this unwelcome information? Simple. They presume that the Red Cross is a steaming nest of Hitler-adoring anti-Semites.

The afore-linked discussion also categorizes Doctors Without Borders as “Jew-Hating.”

Israeli apologists have actually gone so far as to accuse all — I’m not kidding: allnon-governmental humanitarian organizations, including Oxfam and Christian Aid, of being party to the Great Anti-Semitic Conspiracy.

The network of non-governmental organizations that claim to promote human rights and humanitarian agendas, and are centrally involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often use antisemitic themes and images in their campaigns. Some of these reflect classical antisemitism, while other cases involve the singling out of Israel, double standards, obsessive condemnations of responses to terror, campaigns for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions…

We are told that journalist Robert Fisk is an anti-Semite. AP is an anti-Semitic news agency. Former president Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite. Daniel Seaman, the director of the Israeli Government Press Office, believes that every single member of the foreign press is an anti-Semitic liar; in particular, he accuses the BBC of being anti-Semitic.

Norman Finkelstein is an anti-Semitic Jew. So is Mossad tattle-tale Victor Ostrovsky. So is Heinz Galinski. So is any Jew who criticizes Israel. Secular Israelis who annoy the Orthodox are anti-Semitic. Most Israeli journalists are “self-hating anti-Semites.” Pretty much every journalist or writer who says something that the Israeli government does not want you to believe is an anti-Semite.

In other words, in order to avoid the accusation of anti-Semitism, you have to accept the ultra-paranoid worldview that all goys — and no small number of Jews! — are part of a conspiracy.

Suppose Ehud Olmert were to enter your house and shoot a member of your family point blank, in the head, in full view of a security camera and a dozen witnesses. If he then denies the deed, you must believe him and not the masses of counter-evidence. If you insist on acknowledging reality, you are part of the Great Anti-Semitic Conspiracy. Even if the eyewitnesses who say “Olmert pulled the trigger” are Jewish, you must presume that they are anti-Semitic Jews. If you do otherwise, you might as well grow a mustache and call yourself Adolf.

Here’s the problem: The loopy theory that all gentiles are part of an anti-Semitic conspiracy may convince a few Jews, though the majority of them probably don’t buy that shit. But how long can Israeli apologists expect the gentiles themselves to buy that shit?

And yet that conspiracy theory is pretty much the width and breadth of their argument. They have nothing else. # posted by Joseph

Blow-back Strikes England

Military components factory ransacked in Gaza protest

Nine people held after break-in at plant near Brighton allegedly making parts for Isareli missiles

Nine people are being questioned by police following extensive damage at an arms factory where protesters claim military components are being made for Israeli warplanes bombing Gaza.

The group, which calls itself Smash EDO, entered the EDO MBM Technology plant in Moulsecoomb, Brighton, in the early hours of this morning. During the incident computers and furniture were hurled from the windows of the Sussex factory. Police described the damaged as “substantial”.

Demonstrators said they were “decommissioning” the site in protest against the killings of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military. They said equipment made at the plant was being used in Gaza by the Israeli air force.

DCI Graham Pratt of Sussex police said: “Windows had been smashed and offices turned over in what I would describe as wanton vandalism, but with machinery and equipment so targeted that it could have been done with a view of bringing business to a standstill. The damage is significant and the value substantial.”

EDO MBM is the sole British subsidiary of US weapons company EDO Corp. From its Moulescoomb base it manufactures laser-guided missiles that have been used extensively in Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Somalia.

The weapons were reportedly used by Israel against Lebanon in 2005, and have also been allegedly used in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Thousands of people gathered this afternoon for demonstrations across the country in a third weekend of protests against the Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Organisers of a rally in Birmingham said more than 5,000 people had turned up in the city centre. In London, the former Labour cabinet minister Tony Benn was among the speakers due to address crowds in Trafalgar Square.

He said: “It is a moral responsibility for all of us. People are being killed not so far away from here, women and children.”

California Test Drives Hearse Bearing Dead Welfare State

Schwarzenegger set to finish job Reagan started.  Hidden purpose of Reagan Revolution has always been to bankrupt the welfare state with war paranoia and military spending.

California controller to suspend tax refunds,

welfare checks, student grants

John Chiang announces that his office will suspend $3.7 billion in payments owed to Californians starting Feb. 1, because with no budget in place the state lacks sufficient cash to pay its bills.