Archive | June 5th, 2015

What really happened in the 1967 Arab-‘Israeli’ war

Israeli generals from 1967 war

“Some Israeli leaders do sometimes tell the truth”

By Alan Hart

Still today, 48 years on, there are relatively few people who know the whole truth about how Israel set the stage for war in June 1967 to grab more Arab land. The single most decisive event that made war inevitable happened on Thursday 1 June, four days before Israel launched its attacks. What was it?

On that day in Israel there was a coup organised and executed by the Israeli army’s top generals and other security chiefs without a shot being fired. They required Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to form a unity government and bring into it as minister of defence Israel’s one-eyed war lord, General Moshe Dayan. Up to this point Eshkol had been both prime minister and minister of defence; and for two years Dayan had been in the political wilderness, devoting his time to archaeology. In effect, Eshkol was stripped of his command of Israel’s war machine.

Premeditated war

The problem with Eshkol for Israel’s military and other security establishments was that he didn’t want Israel to go to war because he knew the assertions of its hawks that the Arabs were about to attack were propaganda nonsense (more on this in a moment). He also understood and accepted the advice given to his foreign minister, Abba Eban, by French President Charles de Gaulle. In a conversation with Eban in Paris de Gaulle said Israel should not go to war because, if it did, it would create Palestinian nationalism which would never go away. (In my opinion that was the best advice anybody ever gave Israel.)

But even more to the point was that Eshkol believed Israel should not take more Arab land and should be prepared to make peace on the basis of the Zionist state’s borders as they were.

And that was the main reason why the hawks, military and political, wanted Dayan as minister of defence (for which read attack) in a unity government. They knew he would take Israel to war to complete Zionism’s unfinished business of 1948 – grabbing more Arab land, including and especially the West Bank.

Another important aspect of the whole truth about how the stage was set for war in June 1967 is that Israel set a trap for Egypt’s President Nasser. And the key to understanding here is the fact that that on 4 November 1966 Egypt and Syria signed a defence agreement, in the hope on Nasser’s part that it would enable him to prevent war.

The problem from then on for Nasser was that if Israel did attack Syria he would have to make a choice: either to be seen to be going to the defence of an Arab state under attack or to do nothing and lose face and his credibility as the leader of the (so-called) revolutionary Arab world.

The trap

It was after the signing of the defence agreement between Egypt and Syria that Israel began to set its trap for Nasser by provoking cross border shootings with Syria. These provocations climaxed on 7 April 1967 when, in the course of a seven-hour battle, Israeli Mirages shot down six Syrian MIG 21s. Two of them were shot down over Damascus with the debris falling on the outskirts of the city. It was a very public humiliation for Syria’s leaders.

After that Israel put extraordinary effort into making the Arab world and the Soviet Union believe that it was going to invade Syria at a time of its choosing. (I tell the full story of this great con in “America Takes Sides, War With Nasser Act II and the Creation of Greater Israel”, Chapter 1 of “Conflict Without End?” – the sub-title of Volume Three of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews).

In reality, the real purpose of Israel’s provocations on the Syrian front and their supporting propaganda was to force Nasser to make a military move which Israel’s hawks could present as proof that the Arabs were intending to attack Israel and that its very existence was in danger.

When Nasser ejected the UN peacekeepers, put two divisions into the Sinai right up to Israel’s border and closed the Straits of Tiran, he had walked into Israel’s trap. But he did so with both eyes open. He knew the Johnson administration knew that neither he nor any other had Arab leader had any intention of attacking Israel, and that the actions he had taken and the deployments he had made were for face-saving reasons; and he invested his hope in the idea that US would cause the growing crisis to be resolved by diplomacy.  But Israel’s hawks were never going to allow that to happen.

Let’s now return to Dayan’s hijacking of Israel’s defence/war policy.

Master of deception

From the moment he became defence minister he demonstrated that he wasthe master (not a master) of deception.

On Friday 2 June, Dayan’s second day as defence minister, the beach and streets of Tel Aviv (where many foreign correspondents were based in two hotels) were suddenly alive with soldiers returned from the front lines. They were swimming, playing on the beach, strolling and drinking in the pavement cafes of Dizzengorf Street. This was evidence – even proof – that Israel was not, after all, going to war. Contrary to expectations, Dayan was standing down the Israeli army. Now that he had the prime responsibility for Israel’s security, he wanted to be seen to be giving diplomacy a chance. The two weeks of waiting since Nasser had closed the Straits of Tiran were ending with an anti-climax. Message: no war. Somehow the dovish Eshkol had finally got his way. Or so it seemed.

Most foreign correspondents were fooled. Some called for their bills and, after filing their “No war” stories, booked the first available flights out of Israel. Other battlefields were calling.

There were two reasons why I believed that the recall of many Israeli soldiers from their frontline positions was a brilliant Dayan deception strategy.

The first was the comment Dayan himself made to me. Because I had a source with highest level access to Israel’s military and other security services I was aware two days before it happened that Dayan was going to be imposed on Eshkol. The day before his appointment I door-stepped him with my ITN camera crew. If I had asked him if war was coming, he would have ignored me and walked on without saying a word. So I settled for “What do you think the future holds?”

He stopped, gave me a big smile and made a gesture with the index finger of his right hand which supported his words. His reply was, “The desert is beckoning.”

I said to myself and then my ITN crew, “That means war is very close.”

That judgement was confirmed in my own mind by what I witnessed when just before midnight on Saturday 3 June I took a stroll through one of central Tel Aviv’s main residential areas. The following is what I saw.

Silent mobilisation

Away from the lights of the empty, quiet streets, blacked out, single-decker buses were strategically parked. The only sign of life in one was the glow of a driver’s cigarette. Then, as though on cue, and actually following the script Dayan had written, apartment doors opened. The last hugs and kisses had obviously taken place inside. There were no goodbyes in the doorways. Just a quick burst of interior light as each door was opened and quickly shut again. Silently, in ones and twos, like ghosts, the soldiers who had come home on Thursday were returning to their frontline positions. As they neared their assigned buses, the ones and twos became groups. And they spoke not a word to each other. My “Shaloms” drew no response.


For some reasons I can report, for others I cannot, I think the war is going to start tomorrow morning. Alan Hart, ITN, Tel Aviv, on the eve of war.


The following afternoon, Sunday 4 June, I sat at my typewriter in our suite on top of the Dan Hotel and composed a 40-second voice piece for ITN’s main evening bulletin. I had to keep my story short because it was only a reporter’s think-piece, speculation, and the Sunday evening bulletin was less than eight minutes, including opening and closing titles and music. Forty seconds meant that I had only 120 words – three per second – to tell the story. My intro was: “For some reasons I can report, for others I cannot, I think the war is going to start tomorrow morning.” And I signed off: “Alan Hart, ITN, Tel Aviv, on the eve of war.”

I didn’t think the military censor would let me say “Israel is going to war tomorrow morning”, but since I was in Israel, that was my meaning, obviously.

The censor’s office was in a building close to the Ministry of Defence. In the late afternoons for the past two weeks it had been a madhouse as scores of foreign correspondents scrambled to get their copy cleared to beat deadlines around the world. There was never any point in losing one’s cool with Israeli military censors. Even if you thought their decisions were bizarre or stupid. But that didn’t stop many reporters from shouting and screaming at them. On this particular afternoon there were no other reporters around – no war, no reporters – and there was only one censor instead of the usual three or four on duty.

He was a full colonel. He was sitting behind a post-office-like counter checking the Hebrew copy for Monday’s Israeli newspapers. He didn’t acknowledge my arrival or my greeting. He didn’t look up. He merely raised his hand to take my copy. He read it, stamped it, signed it and handed it back to me. Approved. No deletions. I was amazed. I said, “You’re sure I can broadcast this without getting in trouble with your superiors?”

For the first time the colonel looked up. There was an arrogance in his eyes and contempt in his voice. “You ought to know that Israel is a democracy,” he said. “We don’t censor opinion. Your story is opinion. You are free to express it. We censor only matters of a military nature that could be of use to our enemies.”

Shortly after that I sat in a small booth and delivered my text into a microphone for recording by ITN in London. My voice report would be overlaid with a picture of me and some library footage. One of the many good things about ITN was that it trusted the judgement of its reporters in the field. But. later that evening I received the following cable from Hans Verhoven, the duty foreign editor who had really liked my piece. “Regret your good speculative story unused. Stop. Squeezed out by events. Stop.”

“Squeezed out” meant they had intended to run it. They had been prepared to back my judgement even though all other reporters and diplomats in the major capitals of the world were saying “No war”. But two civilian airliners had crashed – one in the English midlands and the other in France. From both locations there had been miles of dramatic film footage (moving pictures in every sense of the word) of the wreckage and distraught relatives of the dead and dying. My speculative story had not had a chance in a short Sunday evening bulletin.

At 07.45 the following morning Israel went to war. Fate had denied me the scoop of a war correspondent’s lifetime.

Post-war Israeli confessions

Israel’s immediate justification for its action was that it had been attacked by Egypt. When it quickly became obvious to all who mattered in the major capitals of the world that Israel was lying, the story changed. Israel had had to take pre-emptive action because the Arabs were going to attack. That, too, was propaganda nonsense.


…it is more than remarkable, I think, that nearly half a century after the events the Western media continue to prefer Zionist mythology to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why.


In conclusion for now I’ll put some flesh on the bone of my headline for this article.

If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that its existence was not in danger was only that of a gentile, it could be dismissed by Zionists as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact, the truth of it has been admitted by some of the key Israeli players.  Here is a short summary of some pertinent, post-war Israeli confessions.

In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this:

I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.

On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordechai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government.

The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.

On 4 April 1972, the Israeli newspaper Maariv contained the following statement by General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff.

We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Day War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.

In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations during the war and a nephew of Chaim Weizmann, was quoted as saying the following.

There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.

In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said:

The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.

And in a radio debate Peled said:

Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel. Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.

In the same programme General Chaim Herzog (a former director of military intelligence, future Israeli ambassador to the UN and president of his state) said:

There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.

On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article he wrote for Le Monde. He said:

All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our “defence” against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.

The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizmann was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel”.

It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword. But it is more than remarkable, I think, that nearly half a century after the events the Western media continue to prefer Zionist mythology to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why. When most reporters and commentators have need today to make reference to the Six Days War, they still tell it like the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was. Obviously, there are still limits to how far the mainstream media are prepared to go in challenging the Zionist account of history, but it could also be that lazy and ignorant journalism is a factor.

For those Western journalists and politicians who might still have doubts about who set up and started the Six Days War, here’s a quote from what Prime Minister Menachem Begin said in an unguarded, public moment in 1982.

In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

Another way of putting it and which is completely true is that what happened in June 1967 was a war of naked Israeli aggression not self-defence.

And it, the Zionist monster state, has still not been called to account for that crime.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on What really happened in the 1967 Arab-‘Israeli’ war

New Anti-Saud Movement Declares Existence


Posted by Jim W. Dean

Can the Royal family fight a two front war, and possibly three if you count Iran?

Visit to Al Murabba Palace and National History Museum.

Visit to Al Murabba Palace and National History Museum… from FARS News Agency,  Tehran

“We hereby declare the start of a Hijazi and Najdi movement to free our territories from the rule of Abdulaziz bin Saud’s sons and the extremist Wahhabi school of thought.”

The Yemeni people may  be materially poor, but are rich in spirit

The Yemeni people may be materially poor, but are rich in spirit

[ Editor’s Note: This story has gone nowhere since it came out. Is that because a small insignificant group is behind it, or has mass media sidelined the story as a favor to the wealthy Royal family? The quote above shows me there is a tribal split that has reached the surface where smoke is turning into fire.

We hear rumbles about how the Yemen war has revealed the Saudis not only as Muslim bullies, but inept ones, thinking their wealth could buy them a victory over an impoverished neighbor, albeit one with 24 million people versus Saudi Arabia’s 30 million.

Yemen does have a 1200-mile coastline that the Saudis would like to have in their pocket, something undiscussed in the geopolitical analysis, where the Saudis have tried to keep the focus on Iran as the driving force in Yemen, as if those 24 million people have no mind of their own.

We will be looking into the oppositional resources of these two tribes more to get a feel for their ability to influence changes in the Saud family’s marriage to the Wahhabi extremists, who formed the team that has been the well-head of the Takfiri terrorist campaign in cahoots with the US, and now we have confirmed… Israel.

On a good note, the Houthis have agreed today, Thursday, to attend the UN-sponsored peace talks in Geneva on June 14th. But the Saudis seem intent on bombing while they talk. Worldwide pressure to get the Saudis to stop has been virtually non-existent, as third world dead and maimed are of little concern to most.

The Saudi Royal family seems to greatly fear having a non-vassal neighbor on its border with a representative government — an example it does not want Saudi Arabian subjects to see. And subjects they are.

But the question that these two rebellious tribes have put on the table is, can the Royal family fight a two-front war, and possibly three if you count Iran? And last, has anyone noticed how quiet things went on the new Arab NATO announcement? What’s up with that? … Jim W. Dean ]

A "lightly defended" checkpoint in Yemen

A “lightly defended” checkpoint in Yemen

– First published  …  June 02, 2015  –

TEHRAN (FNA) – A new anti-Saud movement named ‘Tamarrod (Disobedience)’ declared existence in Saudi Arabia with the aim of “changing the cruel system ruling the Arab country’s oppressed people”. The announcement was made in a statement by the movement and was carried by the Iraqi al-Mesallah news website.

“Given the fact that the fake nature and corruption of the al-Saud (the family ruling Saudi Arabia), the Hijazi and Najdi tribes should adopt a unified stance against the al-Saud,” the statement said.

“We hereby declare the start of a Hijazi and Najdi movement to free our territories from the rule of Abdulaziz bin Saud’s sons and the extremist Wahhabi school of thought,” it added.

“We declare disobedience to this cruel and corrupt family which trifles with our people’s properties and our soldiers’ souls and spirits in an attempt to spread its arrogant and hereditary ruling,” the statement underlined.

The statement came after a terrorist attack on a Shiite mosque in Dammam by ISIL which left 3 people dead and 4 others wounded as a volunteer force tackled the suicide bomber and blocked his path to the mosque compound.

Then after two terrorist attacks on Shiite mosques in Dammam in one week, hundreds of Saudi protestors took to the streets of the Eastern Province.

The Eastern Saudi city of Dammam witnessed on Friday a mass rally held by its locals to condemn the criminal explosion which was carried out by Takfiri terrorists at Imam Hossein’s (AS) mosque.

The participants chanted slogans against ISIL, and accused the Saudi regime of conspiring with Takfiri groups to support terrorist attacks in the Shiite-populated region.

Also in April 2014, the Movement of Freedom and Change had declared existence in Saudi Arabia.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on New Anti-Saud Movement Declares Existence

Right and Left Agree: TPP about Corporate Control


Posted by Sartre

America must become a serf free economy or die!


by Sartre Batr

There is not another issue more emblematic and dastardly that furthers the New World Order agenda than total control over global trade. The Trans Pacific Partnership is so secret that the Pelosi rule takes effect. You must approve it before you find out what is in it.

So why is there so little outrage from the public about negotiations that are fundamentally already approved in a Bilderberg session? All factions of ideological persuasion that oppose worldwide tyranny have a common interest and imminent need to oppose the TPP.

Compare the viewpoint from the genuine right with that of the honest left.

William F. Jasper writes in the New American, ObamaTrade “Fast Track” Still Alive Despite Senate Smack Down, and has been in the forefront and consistent in denouncing the Corporatocracy of the “Free Trade” hoax.

“The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, as we have explained in more detail in previous articles (see here and here), is essential for passage of the TPP and TTIP. Virtually all of the pseudo-free trade agreements have depended on the TPA/Fast Track process to rush the complex agreements through Congress on an up-or-down, high-pressure vote, with very little time to examine or debate the text, and with no amendments or filibusters allowed.

The truly bizarre element in the TPA battle is the fervor of the Republican leadership in Congress demanding that their supposed arch-enemy, President Barack Obama, be given TPA powers to ram through, on the Fast Track, the secret TPP/TTIP agreements that he won’t even allow members of Congress full access to. With ObamaTrade, they would be handing him far more power than they did with ObamaCare.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader who has led this strange and destructive effort, sounded like an Obama White House sock puppet after the vote. “This is not a game,” McConnell said after the vote. “This is about trying to accomplish something important for the country that happens to be the president’s No. 1 domestic priority.”

For clarity, watch the video TPP Hands The Keys To Corporate Foreign Powers where Mr. Jaspers makes the case that the TPP is not really about trade agreements, but is a formula for economic partnerships that supersede national sovereignty.

Now compare the sentiment from Julian Assange from the perspective of the Wikileaks disclosures in a Democracy Now interview, entitled, Julian Assange on the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Secretive Deal Isn’t About Trade, But Corporate Control.

“OK, so it’s a—the largest-ever international economic treaty that has ever been negotiated, very considerably larger than NAFTA. It is mostly not about trade. Only five of the 29 chapters are about traditional trade. The others are about regulating the Internet and what Internet—Internet service providers have to collect information. They have to hand it over to companies under certain circumstances.

It’s about regulating labor, what labor conditions can be applied, regulating, whether you can favor local industry, regulating the hospital healthcare system, privatization of hospitals. So, essentially, every aspect of the modern economy, even banking services, are in the TPP.

And so, that is erecting and embedding new, ultramodern neoliberal structure in U.S. law and in the laws of the other countries that are participating, and is putting it in a treaty form. And by putting it in a treaty form, that means—with 14 countries involved, means it’s very, very hard to overturn.

So if there’s a desire, democratic desire, in the United States to go down a different path—for example, to introduce more public transport—then you can’t easily change the TPP treaty, because you have to go back and get agreement of the other nations involved.”

If you want to view the video, click on the Democracy Now link.

While the emphasis may depart between the conservative and liberal positions, both heartily agree that motivations behind the TPP will drastically promote global consolidation under the guiding hand of monopolists and authoritarians.

The ignorance in the American society about international economics has always been known. What is new-found in an era of induced survival depression is that the productive producers and the social network recipients are so docile in their tolerance for the adoption of total economic tyranny.

Where are the WTO protectors performing their street theater? Or where are the Tea Party activists bombarding their Congressional representatives to forestall another sellout?

The BATR RealPolitik Newsletter, Dems Balk at Trade Deal featured a number of resources on the Fast Track process. National surrender to international governance is a betrayal of all that is worth preserving about our country.

The fight to reject the TPP is a core opportunity to forge an active populist movement against the bipartisan tools who answer to their corporatist masters.

True free enterprise must be able to compete in a practical manner that does not favor crony companies that are part of the NWO cartel of elites.

Living in a media bubble of disinformation requires that a serious national movement against trade agreements that betray our people must be combated with all our energy and commitment.

Approving the TPP will demoralize our will to revitalize an independent and viable domestic economy. The dismal record is clear that previous global trade agreements simply transferred production and wealth to foreign interests.

The barriers between left and right false separations need to be broken down in order to unite to defeat the corporatist plutocrats and globalist fascists from imposing their vision for a neo-feudal system that will reduce the rest of us to serfdom.

Maximum pressure on Congress is the order of the day. Failure to launch a grassroots campaign will result in the demise of America into a third world cesspool. The argument is clear, inaction guarantees perpetual poverty for your prodigy and grandchildren. If you are not willing to fight destructive international trade double-dealing, what exactly is the value of your existence? America must become a serf free economy.

Posted in USAComments Off on Right and Left Agree: TPP about Corporate Control

Euro Surges on Greek Hopes, Inflation


By Arnaldo Rodgers

Proposal by European institutions and the IMF is expected to be presented to Athens soon



The euro shot up against a host of global currencies Tuesday, spurred by prospects of Greece’s international creditors sending a fresh proposal to Athens, coupled with some robust inflation data.

The bloc’s single currency surged more than 2.5% against the dollar midafternoon, taking it to an intraday high of $1.1195—its highest level in almost two weeks, according to CQG. It also rose more than 1% against the British pound, the Swiss franc and Japan’s yen. The euro was recently at $1.1133.

Figures earlier in the session showed that eurozone consumer prices rose for the first time in six months during May, a victory for the European Central Bank in its campaign to avert a slide into deflation.

Posted in GreeceComments Off on Euro Surges on Greek Hopes, Inflation

Leak Reveals George Soros Plan to Make EU Underwrite Ukraine Crisis


By Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor

Leak Reveals George Soros Plan to Make EU Underwrite Ukraine CrisisJim W. Dean…Soros is pitching an old bankster scam here, to go into a war torn situation to buy up key assets at depressed prices but lay off all the risk on the EU taxpayers with loan guarantees.

CIA chief says US can’t destroy ISIL on battlefield

By Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor on June 1, 2015WarZone

CIA chief says US can’t destroy ISIL on battlefieldWe need to declare a year round hunting season for all State sponsored terrorists and their backers, with full diplomatic immunity and rewards for those who bag them, including the ones in suits.

Institutionalized Israeli espionage in US goes unchallenged

By Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor on May 29, 2015Civil Liberties and FreedomCorruptionForeign PolicyGovernmentPolitics

Institutionalized Israeli espionage in US goes unchallengedJim W. Dean…”One of the biggest goals of Israeli espionage is to have its targets not only pay for their offensive operations, but also subsidize the Zionist military budget.”

NEO – Georgians as Expendable as White Rats (Part 2)

By Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor on May 19, 2015,World

NEO – Georgians as Expendable as White Rats (Part 2)Henry Kamens…”The Western human experimentation programmes going on now in the Republic of Georgia would make the notorious Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele marvel.”

Posted in Politics, WorldComments Off on Leak Reveals George Soros Plan to Make EU Underwrite Ukraine Crisis

VT Exclusive: Playtime Over, the War Begins


Posted by Gordon Duff,

The real coalition goes to war, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Russia, revenge is sweet

fff_208This week, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran announced that their support of Syria will be unlimited.  Over the past few weeks Iranian military leaders, both Republican Guard and the Al Quds brigade in particular, have assessed the situation on the ground.  A plan of action has been developed and is being implemented at this time. No other source has this information. Information in the press is fabrication and conjecture.  What is known and what can and will be told is here and will be nowhere else.

  • Reinforcements from both Iran and Iraq have begun arriving in Syria and are being deployed at this time.  Only a small percentage of the initial force is in Syria thus far.


  • Troops are being moved to fight in Idlib, near the Turkish border.  Their task will be to liberate Idlib and Jisr al Shougour.  Rumors about them being used in the defense of Damascus are false.


  • There they are to confront forces of al Nusra and the Fateh Army.


  • The next deployment to Syria will be from Hizbullah Iraq and the Mahdi Army.  They are currently involved in military operations near Ramadi and across Anbar Province in Iraq.  They will take part in a joint Syrian-Iraqi operation that will drive from the Iraqi border to Palmyra. This force is 70,000 strong and highly trained.


  • Russia is supplying Syria with advanced surface-to-surface missiles and other “non export” weaponry.  Russia will not be sending technicians or troops.  Yes, Russia is selling, not giving weapons.


  • Iranian forces are not yet deployed but are scheduled, Republican Guard and Al Quds.  No number has been given or will be given at any time.


  • A third operation (1. Idlib 2. Palmyra) will be against Qalamoun.


  • A fourth operation will sweep south from the suburbs of Damascus to the Jordanian border.  ISIS will be pushed into Jordan where they are expected to attempt to overthrow the government in Amman.  It is a general consensus that King Abdullah will eventually end up looking for a home in the south of France.

A message is passed to the Americans and others that have spent years gloating over the suffering of the Syrian people:

Damascus will fall when Tehran falls.

Syrian Counter-Terrorism conference, Damascus, Dec. 2015...Founding members (center) Mike Harris, Jim Dean, Gordon Duff, Col, Jim Hanke

Syrian Counter-Terrorism conference, Damascus, Dec. 2015…Founding members (center) Mike Harris, Jim Dean, Gordon Duff, Col. Jim Hanke – the “Coalition of the Willing.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on VT Exclusive: Playtime Over, the War Begins

Court Bars “Cult” Rabbi From Teaching Women



ed note (Tony)…Remember, the Rabbinate see it as their duty to condition the minds of the young, to become good Jews. That is how the mental illness known as Judaism continues to this day.

Jerusalem – Three weeks after being arrested on a litany of charges related to his alleged cult run out of a Jerusalem women’s seminary, a Jerusalem District Magistrate’s Court judge on Thursday barred Aaron Ramati from teaching women for 70 days, pending an imminent indictment.

Ramati, an ultra-Orthodox rabbi who heads the Be’er Miriam seminary with his wife, was arrested earlier this month for multiple alleged crimes after concerned parents filed complaints to police over their concern that their daughters’  were lured into a cult doubling as a seminary.

 A subsequent joint investigation determined that Ramati allegedly committed financial fraud, gas theft, and numerous social welfare and health violations. His wife and six students have since been detained for questioning, although none were arrested, police said.

According to the judge’s ruling, Ramati is prohibited from “managing, directly or indirectly, Be’er Miriam seminary, or any other educational institution, including as a teacher, acting as a supervisory rabbi or spiritual counselor, for 70 days, or until an indictment is filed.”

Ramati’s attorney, Itamar Ben Gvir, who contended that his client is innocent and did not derive any profits from the seminary, demanded that he be allowed to continue running the seminary as the investigation continues.

“Education is his guiding principle,” Ben Gvir said in court. “He taught out of love for the Jewish people, not as a livelihood.”

The judge denied the request, but agreed to allow Ramati to instruct male students outside the seminary.

While Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said he could not discuss sensitive details regarding the case, he noted that the ongoing investigation against the seminary has been intensive and far-reaching, bringing together multiple emergency agencies.

“The police were aided by representatives from all the emergency agencies, including municipal officials, the gas authority, income tax investigation representatives and the ministries of Health, Justice and [Welfare and] Social [Services],” he said.

Among the investigation’s findings include members of the gas authority determining that the school illegally pirated its gas line, creating a safety hazard for tenants of the school as well neighboring residents.

Police launched the investigation last month after receiving an initial complaint that five young women were actively recruited to work for free for Ramati and his wife and told to sever ties with their families and friends.

An Army Radio report said the couple had enlisted the women to live and study there. They were put to work at a series of menial jobs and forced to hand over their earnings to fund the seminary.

Only one of the women has since left the school, the report said.

After hearing the testimonies of several of the girls’ parents, MK Aliza Lavie (Yesh Atid), who chairs the Knesset Committee for the Advancement of the Status of Women and Gender Equality, issued a statement that there were justified concerns for the young women’s safety.

Although Lavie did not state that they were being held against their will, she said the parents had informed her that the girls were living in unsanitary conditions.

Last month, the MK said imminent action would be taken in coordination with the municipality’s Child Welfare Services to determine whether the girls were indeed in danger.‎

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Court Bars “Cult” Rabbi From Teaching Women

‘Human Rights’ and Soft Power in Russia


Image result for Human Rights’ LOGO

By Eric Draitser 

The news that Lyudmila Alekseyeva, head of the Russian Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) the Moscow-Helsinki Group, will bereturning to the Presidential Council for Human Rights, has been heralded by many in the liberal establishment in Russia as a victory for their cause. Indeed, as an adversary of President Putin on numerous occasions, Alekseyeva has been held as a symbol of the pro-Western, pro-US orientation of Russian liberals who see in Russia not a power seeking independence and sovereignty from the global hegemon in Washington, but rather a repressive and reactionary country bent on aggression and imperial revanchism.

While this view is not one shared by the vast majority of Russians – Putin’s approval rating continues to hover somewhere in the mid 80s – it is most certainly in line with the political and foreign policy establishment of the US, and the West generally. And this is precisely the reason that Alekseyeva and her fellow liberal colleagues are so close to key figures in Washington whose overriding goal is the return of Western hegemony in Russia, and throughout the Eurasian space broadly. For them, the return of Alekseyeva is the return of a champion of Western interests into the halls of power in Moscow.

Washington and Moscow: Competing Agendas, Divergent Interests

Perhaps one should not overstate the significance of Alekseyeva as an individual. This Russian ‘babushka’ approaching 90 years old is certainly still relevant, though clearly not as active as she once was. Nevertheless, one cannot help but admire her spirit and desire to engage in political issues at the highest levels. However, taking the pragmatic perspective, Alekseyeva is likely more a figurehead, a symbol for the pro-Western liberal class, rather than truly a militant leader of it. Instead, she represents the matriarchal public face of a cohesive, well-constructed, though relatively marginal, liberal intelligentsia in Russia that is both anti-Putin, and pro-Western.

There could be no better illustration of this point than Alekseyeva’s recent meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland while Ms. Nuland was in Moscow for talks with her Russian counterparts. Alekseyeva noted that much of the meeting was focused on anti-US perception and public relations in Russia, as well as the reining in of foreign-sponsored NGOs, explaining that, “[US officials] are also very concerned about the anti-American propaganda. I said we are very concerned about the law on foreign agents, which sharply reduced the effectiveness of the human rights community.”

There are two distinctly different, yet intimately linked issues being addressed here. On the one hand is the fact that Russia has taken a decidedly more aggressive stance to US-NATO machinations throughout its traditional sphere of influence, which has led to demonization of Russia in the West, and the entirely predictable backlash against that in Russia. According to the Levada Center, nearly 60 percent of Russians believe that Russia has reasons to fear the US, with nearly 50 percent saying that the US represents an obstacle to Russia’s development. While US officials and corporate media mouthpieces like to chalk this up to “Russian propaganda,” the reality is that these public opinion numbers reflect Washington and NATO’s actions, not their image, especially since the US-backed coup in Ukraine; Victoria Nuland herself having played the pivotal role in instigating the coup and setting the stage for the current conflict.

So while Nuland meets with Alekseyeva and talks of the anti-US perception, most Russians correctly see Nuland and her clique as anti-Russian. In this way, Alekseyeva, fairly or unfairly, represents a decidedly anti-Russian position in the eyes of her countrymen, cozying up to Russia’s enemies while acting as a bulwark against Putin and the government.

And then of course there is the question of the foreign agents law. The law, enacted in 2012, is designed to make transparent the financial backing of NGOs and other organizations operating in Russia with the financial assistance of foreign states. While critics accuse Moscow of using the law for political persecution, the undeniable fact is that Washington has for years used such organizations as part of its soft power apparatus to be able to project power and exert influence without ever having to be directly involved in the internal affairs of the targeted country.

From the perspective of Alekseyeva, the law is unjust and unfairly targets her organization, the Moscow-Helsinki Group, and many others. Alekseyeva noted that, “We are very concerned about the law on foreign agents, which sharply reduced the effectiveness of the human rights community… [and] the fact the authorities in some localities are trying more than enough on some human rights organizations and declare as foreign agents those who have not received any foreign money or engaged in politics.”

While any abuse of the law should rightly be investigated, there is a critical point that Alekseyeva conveniently leaves out of the narrative: the Moscow-Helsinki Group (MHG) and myriad other so-called “human rights” organizations are directly supported by the US State Department through its National Endowment for Democracy, among other sources. As the NED’s own website noted, the NED provided significant financial grants “To support [MHG’s] networking and public outreach programs. Endowment funds will be used primarily to pay for MHG staff salaries and rental of a building in downtown Moscow. Part of the office space rented will be made available at a reduced rate to NGOs that are closely affiliated with MHG, including other Endowment grantees.” The salient point here is that the salary of MHG staff, the rent for their office space, and other critical operating expenses are directly funded by the US Government. For this reason, one cannot doubt that the term “foreign agent” directly and unequivocally applies to Alekseyeva’s organization.

But of course, the Moscow-Helsinki Group is not alone as more than fifty organizations have now registered as foreign agents, each of which having received significant amounts from the US or other foreign sources. So, an objective analysis would indicate that while there may be abuses of the law, as there are of all laws everywhere, by and large it has been applied across the board to all organizations in receipt of foreign financial backing.

It is clear that the US agenda, under the cover of “democracy promotion” and “NGO strengthening” is to weaken the political establishment in Russia through various soft power means, with Alekseyeva as the symbolic matriarch of the human rights complex in Russia. But what of Putin’s government? Why should they acquiesce to the demands of Russian liberals and allow Alekseyeva onto the Presidential Council for Human Rights?

The Russian Strategy

Moscow is clearly playing politics and the public perception game. The government is very conscious of the fact that part of the Western propaganda campaign is to demonize Putin and his government as “authoritarian” and “violators of human rights.” So by allowing the figurehead of the movement onto the most influential human rights-oriented body, Moscow intends to alleviate some of that pressure, and take away one of the principal pieces of ammunition for the anti-Russia propagandists.

But there is yet another, and far more significant and politically savvy reason for doing this: accountability. Putin is confident in his position and popularity with Russians so he is not at all concerned about what Alekseyeva or her colleagues might say or do on the Council. On the other hand, Putin can now hold Russian liberals accountable for turning a blind eye to the systematic violations of human rights by the Kiev regime, particularly in Donbass.

One of the primary issues taken up by the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights in 2014 was the situation in Ukraine. In October 2014, President Putin, addressing the Council stated:

[The developments in Ukraine] have revealed a large-scale crisis in terms of international law, the basic norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. We see numerous violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of Article 3 of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948. We are witnessing the application of double standards in the assessment of crimes against the civilian population of southeastern Ukraine, violations of the fundamental human rights to life and personal integrity. People are subjected to torture, to cruel and humiliating punishment, discrimination and illegal rulings. Unfortunately, many international human rights organisations close their eyes to what is going on there, hypocritically turning away.

With these and other statements, Putin placed the issue of Ukraine and human rights abuses squarely in the lap of the council and any NGOs and ostensible “human rights” representatives on it. With broader NGO representation, it only makes it all the more apparent. It will now be up to Alekseyeva and Co. to either pursue the issues, or discredit themselves as hypocrites only interested in subjects deemed politically damaging to Moscow, and thus advantageous to Washington. This is a critical point because for years Russians have argued that these Western-funded NGOs only exist to demonize Russia and to serve the Western agenda; the issue of Ukraine could hammer that point home beyond dispute.

And so, the return of Alekseyeva, far from being a victory for the NGO/human rights complex in Russia, might finally force them to take the issue of human rights and justice seriously, rather than using it as a convenient political club to bash Russians over the head with. Perhaps Russian speakers in Donetsk and Lugansk might actually get some of the humanitarian attention they so rightfully deserve from the liberals who, despite their rhetoric, have shown nothing but contempt for the bleeding of Donbass, seeing it as not a humanitarian catastrophe, but a political opportunity. Needless to say, with Putin and the Russian government in control, the millions invested in these organizations by Washington have turned out to be a bad investment.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on ‘Human Rights’ and Soft Power in Russia

Gazans begin hunger strike until Rafah crossing reopens


Image result for Rafah crossing PHOTO

Scores of people unable to travel because of the closure of Rafah crossing started an open hunger strike yesterday to protest against the closure by the Egyptian authorities, Falesteen newspaper reported.

The hunger strikers set up a tent near the crossing and put up a number of posters including: “People stuck in Gaza call for Egyptian Authorities to open the Rafah crossing in both directions.”

Another poster read: “We call for the UN and all human rights organisations to facilitate the travel of Gaza’s patients… Gaza’s patients are awaiting death because of the closure of the crossing. We are humans… Where are President Abbas and the unity government?”

The hunger strikers said that they would continue their strike until the crossing is reopened, calling for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian unity government to take actions to make this happen.

The group’s spokesman, Majdi Abu-Kareem, said that around 15,000 Palestinians need to travel urgently and they are “just waiting for the crossing to open”.

“Some of the people who are unable to travel are patients, some are university students and some are foreign passport holders facing expiration deadlines,” he said. “The passports of a number of foreign passport holders have expired.”

“The continuous closure of the crossing increases the suffering of the people of Gaza,” Abu-Kareem said. “The closure makes the coastal enclave the biggest prison in the world.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Egypt, GazaComments Off on Gazans begin hunger strike until Rafah crossing reopens

Reformatting Ukraine is on the agenda

Image result for Ukraine CARTOON
By Vitaly LEYBIN

Russia – The latest horrible ceasefire violations in Donbass by the Kiev’s regime are likely intended to demonstrate the “inefficiency” of the OSCE mission to its Western patrons and are evidence of Ukraine’s attempts to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Minsk truce co-brokered by Russia, Germany, and France.

Indeed, Minsk-2 is very inconvenient for Poroshenko, because it documents for the first time the need for direct dialog between Kiev and the Donbass. And they need to discuss more than just war and peace, because in fact there are a whole range of issues that must be resolved politically, such as the format for local elections, as well as constitutional reform and economic recovery in Ukraine. Minsk-2 undermines the power structure in Ukraine, which after Maidan has been built around nationalist and military mobilization and the persecution of political opponents. There’s a good reason why President Poroshenko immediately tried to disavow the agreement as soon as he returned from Minsk. In March 2015 the Verkhovna Rada passed an amendment to the law on the special status of the districts controlled by Donetsk and Luhansk (in violation of the spirit of the Minsk agreement), rather than adopting a new law as Angela Merkel had asked Poroshenko to do. These actions, as well as others that undercut the foundations of the truce, are causing extreme irritation in Berlin and Paris.

It is already clear that Poroshenko’s regime is incapable of negotiating. The two Minsk agreements – dating from Sept. 5 and Feb. 12 – would never have been reached had Kiev not suffered military defeats. As soon as Petro Poroshenko won the election on May 25, 2014, Russia and the EU leaders offered to open a dialog with the Donbass militia. At that time there had been no mass casualties or widespread public acrimony. It seemed that Poroshenko, who had been elected to office (albeit without the voters of the Donbass), was capable of listening to the urgings of the leaders in Europe and Russia and begin a peace process. At least his campaign platform offered some hope of that. However, pressure from US officials forced Poroshenko to embrace a military solution. On May 26, 2014, for the first time since WWII, Donetsk was subjected to an air raid, the Donetsk airport was bombed, civilians were killed, and a real war began.

By late August, Ukraine had suffered a crushing defeat on all fronts and in all directions, and Poroshenko, finding himself trapped in a hopeless situation in which the militia threatened to advance further west, had to hastily sign the Minsk Protocol on Sept. 5, in which the parties agreed to pull back from the zone of engagement. That offered the hope that a political process of reconciliation could begin. But instead Kiev took an extremely harsh stance: a de facto economic blockade of the Donbass began; banks closed; public institutions, schools, and hospitals shut down; the payment of pensions and salaries to state employees was suspended; and later – entry to the Donbass was limited to holders of residential passes, in essence creating an internal border. Unable to win on the battlefield, Kiev declared war on the people of the Donbass in order to deprive the militia of popular support. That culminated in yet another fiasco: Ukraine lost Debaltsevo and other territories.

Autonomy or independence? That depends on Kiev.

The most important step in the establishment of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics was the election in November 2014. That election was not recognized by Kiev or the EU, but played a huge role in establishing a legitimate government in those republics. In spite of Kiev’s economic blockade and the constant threat of renewed hostilities, it resulted in an undeniable improvement in the humanitarian situation. Even as hostilities raged, behind the front lines peaceful civilian life continued, infrastructure was restored, doctors were able to save lives, children attended school, and many businesses reopened. Regular payment of pensions and public subsidies has begun again, but in order to accomplish this, a new system of social support had to be built from scratch. Due to the lack of cash in hryvnia (the Ukrainian currency) a multicurrency system was introduced, and pensions are already being paid in rubles. Direct economic ties between companies in Donetsk and Russia have been revived. Taxes have also been collected from those businesses, and the republics now have actual budgets, and although they have not been formally approved due to the uncertainty of the revenue base, those budgets serve as guidelines for estimating bare-bones expenditures. A clear and transparent system has been put together for distributing humanitarian aid. Humanitarian convoys are arriving from the Russian Ministry of Emergency Management, and community organizations are also doing their bit, including Donbass Fraternity Fund, Dr. Elizaveta Glinka’s Fair Aid Foundation, and many others. Throughout the war some local charities in, such as Compassion (Dobrota), have continued their work in Donetsk. In every town, no matter how tiny, volunteers have been laboring selflessly.

The more Kiev drags its feet on any political resolution or recognition of special rights for the areas under the control of the governments in the republics, the worse its chances to maintain its current borders. Ukraine will never be stable until she agrees to change. If Ukraine continues to insist on the status quo and persists in pursuing a military solution to the conflict, she will continue to lose ground.

A range of emotions are being experienced in the republics. It is clear that neither the militia nor the majority of the population can envision any sort of future life with Kiev: too much blood has been spilled and Kiev has brought too much suffering to the people of the Donbass – in addition to bombings, humiliation, and the economic blockade.

Nevertheless, Ukraine still has the potential to devise a more nuanced policy than just their extremely nationalistic current plan. This was clearly evident during the elections for the Verkhovna Rada on Oct. 26, 2014. The opposition Bloc even won in Dnepropetrovsk (where nationalist patrols are stationed on every street corner and government leverage coupled with street gangs worked to thwart any opposition movement), not to mention the cities of Zaporozhye and Kharkov. Certainly not all the credit for that success was due to Opposition Bloc itself – which barely waged any sort of political campaign at all – but could rather be chalked up to the public, who voted against the government and against the war. The turnout in Odessa (39.5%), the lowest seen since the end of the Soviet Union, was virtually an act of popular sabotage against “the outsiders’ elections.”

Ongoing protests in Kiev against Yatsenyuk government and Ukraine's National Bank are not covered much by the intl media

Ongoing protests in Kiev against Yatsenyuk government and Ukraine’s National Bank are not covered much by the intl media

The potential for protest is huge, because Ukraine has no desire to be the country that the nationalists have envisioned. Every day of peace means new and difficult questions for the Ukrainian government: the population sees the results of the “reforms,” the economy is languishing, social payments are shrinking, prices are rising, political repression is everywhere, political opponents are being murdered, and the bodies of soldiers who died in the Donbass are being shipped home to every district in the country.

The law prohibiting Soviet symbols and the ban on the memory of the Great Patriotic War, the glorification of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army – therein lies the path to the further destruction of their own country. And that’s not coming from Russia, but from the Ukrainian people. Most Ukrainians will not tolerate such a policy or such a government.

The problem lies in the immaturity of the Ukrainian political elite. For over 23 years of the country’s independence, that elite has been fixated on dividing and redividing the country’s resources, in the end always shifting the political blame onto outside factions: sometimes pointing the finger at Moscow, and currently – at the West. They have not yet learned how to be responsible for their own state. Now they follow the lead of the US, crippling their own country.

The big game

A lasting peace in the Donbass is achievable only if Europe and Russia can reach an agreement. It is impossible to imagine Poroshenko – or even less Prime Minister Yatsenyuk – behaving in a constructive manner, if Europe and Russia do not coerce them into working for peace.

With all the problems of the past year, it is clear that France and Germany trust Russia far more than their Ukrainian protégés. They can recognize the issues on which “the Russians cannot be trusted” – and the matters on which they can. But those are fixed, clearly defined questions – because Russia does not change her position minute by minute. But all bets are off when it comes to the politicians in Kiev. They might promise to lay down their arms or adopt a law on special status, and then completely flip-flop after a telephone call with Washington.

Of course Europe has phobias and fears of “Russian expansion,” but those are more common among the talking heads and the press, while the leaders and diplomats understand that “expansion” is the very essence of international politics. The European Union itself pursues an active policy of “partnership,” and in recent decades has also been expanding, while Russia is doing no more than attempting to safeguard her room to maneuver economically. Europeans understand that Russia would not have taken steps to reunify with Crimea and support the Donbass if the West had not provoked the conflict. After many incidents of the most cynical violence aimed at seizing and retaining power over the last year, it is reasonable to assume that the shootings on Maidan were the responsibility of those forces that took power in Ukraine in February 2014. All this is an example of very dirty politics. No matter how indignant the Europeans might be in public, they understand that Russia could not remain on the sidelines.

And that would not be because of any imaginary “imperial ambitions” or in order to merely seize territory. Russia’s most important and closest neighbor had entered into a period of disintegration and civil war after a coup d’etat. Forces had assumed power that did not shy away from overt violence – ideological, cultural, repressive, and military – against their own people. The problem was not Ukraine’s “European” path, but the bluff – the West was never planning to spend its resources on the economic development of a foreign country, much less help her integrate into European organizations. The result of Maidan could mean nothing but chaos in Ukraine. And until this chaos is overcome, Russia will not remain on the sidelines.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Reformatting Ukraine is on the agenda

Shoah’s pages