Saturday, 17 March 2018

The March to Jerusalem

When I was a young Israeli I learned from our leading military leaders that Israel was not afraid of wars.
They said
“we know how to deal with tanks, infantry, airplanes. Even ballistic missiles won’t knock us down.”
But they added,
“if the Palestinians decide one day to march to Jerusalem we won’t be able to offer a military answer.”   
Ynet reported today on two ‘Palestinians Return’ marches due to take place later this March and in May.  The Israelis are in a state of panic and for good reason.
 The following is a translation of the Ynet article:  
“The Great March of Return”: is an initiative in Gaza for a mass march toward the Israeli border.
By Elior Levy
Civil activists in the Gaza Strip have plans for marches toward the Israeli border on Land Day at the end of this month and on Nakba Day. One of the organizers told Ynet that the “Great March of Return” has the support of Hamas (and) “there are no guarantees [on our part] not to cross the border.”
 A new initiative in Gaza is gaining momentum and is beginning to worry the Israeli defense establishment. The campaign is called the “Great March of Return,” during which they expect large crowds to march from Gaza toward the Israeli border to mark the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their land.
The marches are scheduled to take place on the anniversaries of  two significant days: March 30, Land Day and May 15, Nakba Day. On the later date, the opening ceremony of the American embassy in Jerusalem is due to take place.
In the days before Land Day, the organizers plan to set up tens to hundreds of tents near the border to show the refugee existence. This move will also be highly visible and is expected to maximise participation. Once these tent camps are positioned, young Palestinians and organized groups will move in until the marches take place.
In previous years we have seen mass marches heading toward the borders on Nakba Day, but the difference this time may be due to the difficult conditions in the Gaza Strip which have intensified in the last year and caused serious unrest. During rising internal protests within the Strip, Hamas tends to let the demonstrators vent their anger hoping that the sword won’t turn over [on Hamas].
Hamas makes it clear – “we won’t stop the demonstration”
Hamas has announced that it supports the March. Twice last week, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh made clear their support for the campaign. “We will not be able to stop the tens of thousands of citizens who set out north and east to protest the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip,” he said, calling on the Palestinians to participate in the March.
Haniyeh’s statement was aimed primarily at Israel and other countries in the region. His intended to threaten them with the possible ramifications of such marches – it could  get out of control and spark violent confrontations or even a mass attempt to cross the border towards Israel. In any case, Hamas made it clear that it will not stop the demonstrators from reaching the Israeli border.
One of the organizers’ plans is to organize a display using the uniform of Jewish inmates in the Nazi camps during the Holocaust to compare that to the situation in the Gaza Strip. Gaza residents who could provide such clothes were asked to contact the organizers.
 Ahmed Abu Aritha, one of the organizers of the March is an activist from the Gaza Strip. He stressed that this will be a popular march and there are no plans for violence.
“This is a positive initiative not only for us, but also for Israel, because Palestinians who participate in this rally will hold peaceful protests without rockets or tunnels, they just want to cry out loudly and to call for their release from their imprisonment.”
 Regarding the Israeli fear that masses of demonstrators may  try to cross the border, Abu Aritha clarified that at the moment there is no official call, but this does not guarantee that such a scenario won’t take place.
“There is no decision by the organizers to cross the border towards Israel, but we have no guarantees that it will not happen.”
The messages conveyed by the organizers through social networks actually allude to violence, such as posting pictures of demonstrators heading to the border and trying to cross it. The march is widely covered by the Palestinian media as well as by popular Arab media such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, which naturally increases its public resonance as the date approaches.
If they want to burn it , you want to read it..
cover bit small.jpg
Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto  ,  and   here  (

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!


Russian Air Defenses In Hmeimim Airbase Shoot Down UAV Over Sea - Reports
Illustrative image
On March 17, Russian air defense systems in the Hmeimim airbase, near the coastal city of Jableh, targeted an unidentified aerial object northwest of the airbase, over the Mediterranean sea, with at least two missiles, according to Syrian pro-government activists.
The activists said that the aerial object had been shot down and suggested that it might had been an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). However, the Ministry of Defense of Russia has not provided any information about the incident yet.
Experts believe that the Russian Pantsir-S1 short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery system was used to shoot down the aerial object.
According to media reports, the Pantsir-S1 was previously used to shot down a US-made RQ-21A Blackjack UAV near the Russian naval base in Tartus city on May 27, 2017.
Russian Air Defenses In Hmeimim Airbase Shoot Down UAV Over Sea - Reports
Click to see the full-size image
Earlier, the Ministry of Defense of Russia revealed that the US has trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of al-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare. The ministry also warned that the US and its allies might use these provocations as a pretext to attack the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).
It’s unknown if the US was involved in this new incident. However, the recent tensions between Russia and the US in Syria allow to suppose that Washington may use different measures, including its proxies and UAVs, to stage provocations against Moscow.
Related Videos

Related News
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Moscow Shuts British Council, Expels 23 Diplomats in Response to UK Move

The Russian Foreign Ministry said 23 UK diplomats must leave Russia in response to Britain’s “provocative actions and groundless accusations” over ex-double agent Sergei Skripal’s poisoning.
The British Council will also be shut.
In further details, Britain’s ambassador to Russia, Laurie Bristow, was summoned to the Foreign Ministry on Saturday morning, where he was informed of Moscow’s response to London’s claims that Russia is behind the alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former double agent, and his daughter, Yulia, on March 4 in Salisbury, UK.
On Friday, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin had personally ordered the suspected nerve agent attack – a claim Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called “shocking and unforgivable.”
“Sooner or later the British side would have to present some kind of comprehensive evidence [of Russia’s involvement], at least, to their partners [France, the US, Germany], who declared solidarity with London in this situation,” Peskov added.
Moscow has repeatedly offered its full cooperation in investigating the incident, which London claims involved a Soviet-era nerve agent called Novichok. Both nations are members of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW], which means that London is obliged to include Moscow in the investigation.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Moscow Hits back at London, Expels 23 UK Diplomats

March 17, 2018
Russia UK flags
Moscow has found its way to respond to the recent UK move to expel Russian diplomats within the poisoning case of a former Russian agent.
The Russian Foreign Ministry declared on Saturday 23 employees of the UK Embassy in Moscow “personae non gratae” in response to the similar move made by London, the ministry said in a statement.
“A total of 23 diplomatic employees of the UK Embassy in Moscow are declared personae non gratae and must leave [Russia] within a week,” the statement read.
The ministry also revoked its agreement on opening and operation of the UK Consulate General in the Russian city of St. Petersburg, according to the statement.
A source in the ministry told Sputnik that the UK side would get the necessary time for closing the facility.
In addition, according to the statement, the activity of the British Council in Russia had been suspended over the lack of proper regulation, regarding its status.
“Since the legal status of the British Council in Russia has not been determined its operation is ceased,” the statement read.
The Foreign Ministry added that Moscow retained right to respond if the United Kingdom continued to take unfriendly steps against Russia.
The decision comes after earlier in the day the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned UK Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow.
Relations between Russia and the UK deteriorated in two recent weeks after former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter were found unconscious in a shopping center in Salisbury.
Following the incident, UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that it was “highly likely” that Russia was responsible for the incident since the two were poisoned with a Novichok class military-grade nerve agent that was developed in the Soviet Union.
On Wednesday, May went on to announce a package of anti-Russian measures, including the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the country, and the suspension of bilateral contacts between London and Moscow.
Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

مشهد الغوطة

مارس 17, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– شكّل التساؤل عن طبيعة العلاقة بين الدولة السورية وسكان الغوطة القضية الرئيسية في صناعة الحسابات الدبلوماسية والسياسية للقوى الدولية والإقليمية من معارك الغوطة، حيث كان الغرب ومعه كثير من المحلّلين القريبين من محور المقاومة وبعض مناصري الدولة السورية المتحمّسين داخل سورية نفسها، على قناعة مطلقة بأنّ سكان الغوطة ليسوا أكثر من نسخة مدنية عن مسلّحيها وأنهم الحماية السياسية اللازمة لصمود المسلحين، ولذلك فإنّ السلاح الدبلوماسي يجب أن يدخل من هذا الباب.

– تدبير وفبركة استخدام السلاح الكيميائي كانت وظيفتهما تزخيم السلاح الدبلوماسي المستند لرفع شعار حماية المدنيين، إذا تعذّرت ضربة موجعة تحت هذه الذريعة تغيّر التوازنات، انطلاقاً من هذه الثقة بأنّ السكان في الغوطة سيوفّرون أرضية عدائهم للدولة السورية بصورة تجعل أيّ حلّ تحت عنوان حماية المدنيين متوقفاً على وقف إطلاق النار بصورة كلية، بما يحبط كلّ التصوّرات التي تقدّمها سورية وروسيا لصوغ وقف نار جزئي يرتبط بالفصل بين المسلحين والسكان، فاتحاً الباب لأسبقية خروج أيّ من الفريقين، المسلحين بالتفاوض، والأهالي بالنداءات، والتعطيل متاح هنا بسياقين متلازمين، مسلّحون يرفضون التفاوض، وسكان يديرون ظهرهم للنداءات، وتشكل أرقام الضحايا التي يقدّمونها، مع التضخيم الإعلامي سبباً كافياً لخلق مناخين متلازمين معاكسين، مزيد من الصمود العسكري من جهة، ومزيد من الضغوط لفرض وقف النار من جهة أخرى.

– كلما كانت الدولة السورية تعلن عن فتح ممرات آمنة لخروج المدنيين كان الغرب والخليج ومعه كثيرون يسخرون من ذلك، باعتبار أنّ أحداً لن يخرج، ليس فقط لأنّ المسلحين سيتكفّلون بالمنع. وهو أمر لن يبقى بالفعالية ذاتها كلما ضاق الخناق وارتفع منسوب الخطر، فالرهان الرئيس هو أنّ الناس سيفضلون ربط مصيرهم بمصير المسلحين على الخروج إلى مناطق سيطرة الدولة السورية، خصوصاً أنّ الانطباع عن طبيعة علاقة أغلبية السكان بالجماعات المسلحة التي ينتمي أغلبها لتشكيلات من أبناء المنطقة قادة وكوادر، وخشية هذه الأغلبية ومعها مَن ليسوا مع الجماعات المسلحة من معاملة تنتظرهم عندما يقرّرون الخروج، ساهمت الجماعات المسلحة بجعلها صورة مرعبة أكثر من البقاء تحت الخطر. ومع خروج الدفعة الأولى من المدنيين، خرج قادة الائتلاف وهيئة التفاوض وقادة المسلحين يقولون علناً إنّ الذين خرجوا قد تمّ اعتقالهم وقتل بعضهم. وتبرّعوا بالقول إنهم عائلات لمسلحين يقاتلون في الداخل وسيعاقبون حتماً، في ما بدا تحريضاً للبيئة المؤيّدة للدولة لرفض كلّ دعوة لمعاملة سكان الغوطة الخارجين إليهم بروح انتقامية.

– أهمّ ما في معارك الغوطة هو أنّ الدولة السورية نجحت في كيفية تلقيها خروج المئات الأولى من سكان الغوطة بالرعاية الصحية والسكنية والغذائية، وتقديمهم مثالاً لباقي السكان إذا قرّروا الخروج، إضافة لحملة دعوات تشجيعية مفصّلة عما ينتظر هؤلاء من حُسن رعاية واهتمام. وقامت مؤسسات إعلامية سورية بحملات على الهواء مع مواطنين سوريين في كلّ مناطق سورية يعلنون التبرّع بأجزاء من منازلهم لاستضافة نازحي الغوطة. وها هو العدد يفوق الخمسين ألفاً ويتحوّل مساراً سيتكفّل بإسقاط الاستثمار الخبيث لعنوان المدنيين في الغوطة مع الحلقات الأخيرة من المعارك. فكرةُ الثلج تكبر يومياً، ما سيوصل الأوضاع لمرحلة يكون فيها على الجماعات المسلحة أن تواجه حلقات الحرب القاسية من دون غطاء المدنيين، وعلى داعميهم أن يعترفوا بإفلاس حملاتهم لوقف النار وحماية المسلحين بغطاء مدني، أو سيكون عليهم معاً البحث بتسوية ترضاها الدولة السورية وتشبه ما جرى في الأحياء الشرقية في حلب.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Poisoning the British Public's minds

Poisoning the British Public

Poisoning the British Public

Every morning a BBC web page carries images of the front pages of Britain’s newspapers.  These are good indicators of what most of the papers want to persuade readers to believe, because with two exceptions they are crudely prejudiced in the nationalistic style that has become so rife in the UK in recent years The Financial Times and the Guardian, alone, maintain dignity and objectivity while such publications as the Daily Mail and the Sun (both selling over a million copies a day) are intent on disparaging people who are not true-born English folks.
The paper is poisonously racist, not only concerning those who don’t look “English” but those who don’t think in the same bigoted way that the Mail presents its opinions. As noted by the Editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop, “the Mail is owned by the Rothermere family… The current Lord Rothermere’s father loved Great Britain so much he went to live in France as a tax exile.  He then passed on the nom-domicile status to his son who doesn’t actually pay the normal amount of tax despite owning a newspaper that’s owned through various tax companies in Bermuda.”  How patriotic.
One reason the Daily Mail loathes Europe is that in 2016 it was named by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), along with The Sun, as being racist and intolerant. The ECRI is not an agency of the European Union, but the rabidly anti-EU Daily Mail managed to conjure up the excited allegation that “European human rights chiefs have told the British press it must not report when terrorists are Muslim,” which was garbage, because the Commission observed simply and correctly that “fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety”.
An independent inquiry into UK press standards concluded that “there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.” But this had no effect whatever, as governments of any political persuasion are afraid to upset any newspapers because they would then face a campaign that could adversely affect their voting base.
Research by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees showed that the Daily Mail and the Sun demonstrated hostility towards migrants that was “unique” among the newspapers they examined in five European countries. And the truly disgusting aspect of this venomous extremism is that so many of the British (well, perhaps English) public appear to endorse it enthusiastically.
Three years ago the United Nations News reported the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as saying that an offensive article in the Sun “was simply one of the more extreme examples of thousands of anti-foreigner articles that have appeared in UK tabloids over the past two decades. Asylum seekers and migrants have been linked to rape, murder, disease, theft, and almost every conceivable crime and misdemeanour in front-page articles and two-page spreads, in cartoons, editorials, even on the sports pages of almost all the UK’s national tabloid newspapers.”
Given that so many of the UK’s papers are dedicated to spreading xenophobic poison it was not surprising that they verged on the hysterical about a recent incident in England in which a retired British spy, formerly of Russian nationality (he was granted UK citizenship — no problem about being a migrant in his case) was apparently poisoned along with his daughter who was visiting him from Moscow. The headlines were astonishing, even for the UK’s newspapers, but as usual there was an unintentional element of humour injected by the Daily Mail which boldly suggested the ultimate punishment: 
It wasn’t a novel proposal, because Britain’s ever-vigilant foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, had already said it was a good idea.  As reported by the Daily Mirror, an equally vulgar clone of the Mail and the Sun, “Boris Johnson says England could pull out of the World Cup if Russia if involvement if it is revealed that Putin’s regime was involved in the ‘poisoning’ of former spy Sergei Skripal.” This was confirmed by the Mail which reported Johnson as saying “If things turn out to be as many members suspect that they are, I think we will have to have a serious conversation about our engagement with Russia. And for my part I think it will be difficult to see how, thinking ahead to the World Cup this summer, I think it would be difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way.
We will certainly have to consider that.”
Things seemed to be getting really serious, but a hasty “clarification” was issued, making it clear that Johnson had meant only that there would have to be reassessment of “diplomatic and political presence” at Cup matches, and no withdrawal of the English team.  And so the happy saga continued, with much huffing and puffing and dramatic front page headlines excoriating Russia without, of course, the smallest shred of evidence that there had been Russian government involvement in the supposed poisoning.
Some of the media attempted to provide objectivity, in that, as reported by the BBC, Skripal “was jailed for 13 years by Russia in 2006. He was convicted of passing the identities of Russian intelligence agents working undercover in Europe to the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6.  In July 2010, he was one of four prisoners released by Moscow in exchange for 10 Russian spies arrested by the FBI as part of a swap. He was later flown to the UK.”  The man was a proven spy who had betrayed his own countrymen, and almost the only person to talk any sense about the matter was a former British Ambassador to Russia, Tony Brenton, who said that “the fact that [Skripal] blew a whole range of Russian agents, there may be personal animosities there. In most Russians’ minds he would be categorised as a traitor. There are people there who would be delighted to see him dead.” 
But balance and objectivity do not sell newspapers, and neither do they provide headlines for dinky politicians who are anxious to jump on publicity bandwagons. Enter the deeply experienced British defence minister Gavin Williamson, known as “the baby-faced assassin,” who on March 6 “warned that the Kremlin had developed a much more aggressive posture towards the UK in the past 12 months and the country should not sit submissively by . . . Mr Williamson told MPs that the country needed to ‘match what Putin is doing with Russian forces’. During defence questions in the Commons, he said: ‘Putin has made it quite clear that he has hostile intent towards this country. We’ve been seeing the build-up of his forces across the Eastern Front and in terms of what they’re doing over many years now – we have to wake up to that threat and we have to respond to it.”
The British press and its political puppets are determined to convince the British public that there is a massive threat from Russia and even that the Kremlin influenced the disastrous referendum vote to quit the European Union, the Brexit debacle. The affair of the spy Skripal has provided much ammunition, and the newspapers have been effective in increasing the level of anti-Russian sentiment and increasing international tension.  It’s poison that sells British newspapers.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Report: Poisoned Russian Spy May Have Worked on Trump Dossier

The mystery of the former Russian agent who was poisoned with a nerve agent in a small English city on Sunday is getting more complex by the day. The Telegraphreported Thursday that Sergei Skripal—who remains in a critical condition in hospital alongside his daughter and a British police officer—was in close contact with a security consultant who worked for Christopher Steele, the former British agent who compiled the infamous Trump dossier.
The newspaper refused to name the consultant, but reported that a LinkedIn page deleted in the past few days stated that he was based in Salisbury—where the attempted murder took place—and had previously done work for Orbis Business Intelligence, which is run by Steele. The Telegraph report states: “If the Kremlin believed that Col. Skripal might have helped with the compilation of the dossier, it could explain the motive for the assassination attempt in Salisbury town center.” On Wednesday, Valery Morozov—a former construction magnate who fled Russia—told Channel 4 News that Skripal was not retired and met with military intelligence officers every month.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

#Skripal The Role of the British Has Never Been Clearer

George W. Bush and Tony Blair shake hands after receiving notification that the Coalition Provisional Authority had returned full sovereignty to Iraq and transferred control of the nation to the Iraqi interim government, June 28, 2004.
First it was Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossier” on Saddam Hussein’s WMD which unleashed the pathetic George W. Bush to turn the entire Mideast (with help from Obama) into a terrorist hell hole. Then came claims of Bashir Assad’s use of chemical weapons, tricking Trump into a missile attack on a Syrian airbase. Then came British Intelligence operative Christopher Steele’s own “dodgy dossier,” launching a regime- change effort against the government of the United States based on fairy tales about Trump and Russia. Now, Prime Minister Theresa May, typically without evidence, declares there is “no alternative conclusion” but that the “Russian state” is responsible for the nerve agent attack in the London district of Salisbury, “an unlawful use of force against the United Kingdom.” We must all unite against the evil Russians, May and her controllers are screaming.
It is all self-evidently nonsense, but there is desperation in the British Empire. For fifty years Lyndon LaRouche has documented the British Empire’s historic hatred of the United States, and the systematic takeover of U.S. government policy through Wall Street and other assets following the death of FDR and the assassination of JFK. Few listened. “The British Empire is dead,” we’d often hear, followed by the insistence that the only empire today is the Russian Empire, or the American Empire, depending on which of the British Empire’s controlled environments one chose to inhabit.
But it is not working so easily this time. The London Guardian yesterday showed the level of panic in the Empire: “Throughout the day,” they editorialize, “the UK worked hard diplomatically in Washington to persuade Trump to set aside his desire for a rapport with Putin, and recognise that Russia was the only country that had the means or the motive to seek to kill Skripal,” the Russian double agent who was hit with a nerve agent last week together with his daughter. But, they whine, “Trump offered only a reluctant acceptance of the British case, but did not directly ascribe responsibility to Russia…. It would be a blow to Anglo-US relations if Trump refused to accept the British intelligence assessment, but since his election he has felt under siege over allegations that he colluded with Russia to win the presidency, and he believes former British intelligence officers have been feeding those allegations.”
Indeed he does, and that effort to use lies concocted by MI6 to bring down his presidency has now been thoroughly discredited. The former Obama intelligence officials who peddled the British lies have been caught red-handed running a treasonous attack on the U.S. Government, and could (and should) soon be in jail.
Prime Minister May is not running free within the UK, either. It is increasingly likely that Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn would win an election if it comes to that, as it may, and the Tories are trailing Corbyn’s Labour Party in the polls for the upcoming local elections. Corbyn directly challenged May’s actions against Russia in the Parliament yesterday, asking if she would follow the rules of the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and provide Russia with samples of the nerve agent and wait the required ten days. May blustered that she had given the Russians enough time, and that there was consensus from all the back benchers, that Corbyn was out of line, and that she was expelling 23 Russian diplomats. In a move that will certainly strike terror in the hearts of the Russians, May also announced that the Royal Family will not attend the World Cup in Russia.
The British oligarchs’ fear is legitimate. The Empire will not survive the coming together of the United States, Russia, China, Africa, Ibero-America — and even the people of Europe and the U.K. — in the new paradigm represented by the spirit of the New Silk Road. They are willing to risk thermonuclear war to prevent that new paradigm, but their time is running out. It is a moment of great potential, if the human race rises to the occasion.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

What is known well by the Americans ما يعلمه الأميركيون جيدا

What is known well by the Americans

ما يعلمه الأميركيون جيدا -كتب ناصر قنديل
مارس 16, 2018
Nasser Kandil wrote:     What is known well by the Americans
  • Some people wonder about what can the axis of resistance do if America strikes Syrian goals, forgetting that America has troops and bases in Syria and Iraq with at least approximately ten equipped thousands soldiers.
  • Thirty-five years ago the American forces were in Beirut and the forces of axis of the resistance did not have capabilities which they have today, and their war with America was not existential as it is today, but when they decided to confront America, the targeting of the Marines headquarters in Beirut was enough reason for their ousting.
  • The Americans know that their bases in Syria and Iraq are besieged by thousands of suicide bombers along with thousands of missiles which are capable of destroying their bases and killing their soldiers and generals, so if they think of a military strike they have to take into consideration what was said by their former Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey that the military involvement in Syria requires to mobilize half a million soldiers and one trillion dollars each year for twenty years without expecting a decisive victory
  • The Americans threaten that they will try not to reach to better negotiations and to stop the progress of the Syrian army and the approach of the moment of their exit from Syria and Iraq, but when they find themselves face to face with the war they will do what their former ambassador to Syria Robert Ford advised them, to pack their bags for departure.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ما يعلمه الأميركيون جيدا

في سابقة منذ خمسة وثلاثين سنة كانت القوات الأميركية في بيروت ولم يكن لقوى محور المقاومة قدرات كالتي لديها اليوم ولا كانت حربها مع أميركا وجودية كما هي اليوم وكانت إنشغالاتها بحروب أخرى أكثر مما هي اليوم وعندما أرادت دخول المواجهة مع الأميركي كان إستهداف مقر المارينز في بيروت بإستشهادي كافيا للرحيل

يعرف الأميركيون أن قواعدهم في سوريا والعراق محاصرة بآلاف الإستشهاديين اليوم ومعها آلاف منصات الصواريخ القادرة على تدمير هذه القواعد وجعل أشلاء جنودها وضباطها ورماد معداتها آخر ما يتبقى منها وعليهم إذا فكروا بضربة عسكرية أن يضعوا في حسابهم ما قاله لهم رئيس أركانهم السابق الجنرال ديمبسي وهو تجهيز نصف مليون رجل وترليون دولار كل عام لحرب تمتد لعشرين عام دون ضمان الخروج بنصر يستحق ما ستكون التكلفة والتضحيات

يهدد الأميركيون ألا بالوصول لتفاهمات أفضل ووقف تقدم الجيش السوري وإقتراب لحظة مطالبتهم بالخروج من سورياو العراق لكنهم عندما يجدون أنفسهم وجها لوجه مع الحرب سيفعلون ما نصحهم به سفيرهم السابق في سوريا روبرت فورد وهو أن يحزموا حقائبهم إستعدادا للرحيل

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

#Skripal- Did the USA do it? They had the motive

biological warfare protective clothing
The Western corporate media has failed to ask one crucial question concerning the Skripal poisoning. What would Russia have to gain from poisoning a defector using a known Russian chemical warfare agent?
It’s such an obvious give-away that it suggests that whoever was responsible for the poisoning wanted Russia to be blamed. It’s tantamount to leaving a signed confession note at the scene of a crime.
As the following points out, Britain main chemical warfare laboratory, Porton Down, is only SEVEN MILES from the scene of the crime in Salisbury. Is that where the Novichok used to poison Skripal originated rather than Russia? Ed.

‘Every Laboratory in the West Has Samples of ‘Novichok’ Nerve Agent’ – Analyst

Sputnik spoke with former Kremlin adviser Alexander Nekrassov to get insight into Sergei Skripal’s poisoning in Salisbury and to clarify the immediate response of British authorities, who appear to be ignoring the simple fact that the Porton Down chemical lab near where the incident happened stores samples of the nerve agent Novichok.
Sputnik: It seems like Theresa May rushed to throw down the gauntlet, in asking Moscow to explain the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, especially after the investigation is not complete…what effect does this have on an already volatile relationship between the UK and Russia?
Alexander Nekrassov: First of all it is very odd that the British authorities haven’t given the police and authorities evidence from their investigation. It’s important to note that investigations into chemical weapon use usually take at least a month. It was very strange to hear Theresa May coming into the commons accusing Russia and using ultimatum language such as ‘you will explain yourselves to us on the deadline on this day. If not you’re guilty’. I’m sorry this not language does not work in a modern diplomacy – this is not even civil.
The Russian government will obviously not reply and why should it. It’s not a matter for the Russian government to be concerned about. The British authorities have a situation on their territory; they are obliged to investigate it, produce some sort of proof and then come out with this proof. What we’re seeing now is a farce and especially a farce concerning the media, which is out of control in Britain.
Sputnik: Lavrov has stated that the UK should abide by the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and provide Russia with access to the samples of the nerve-agent which was allegedly used to poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter… will Lavrov’s words of reason resonate with Theresa May?
Alexander Nekrassov: I think Lavrov had a fair point to make that the British government if it’s already making allegations, should provide proof that this chemical was Russian made. That’s the first point, the second point is that the British government is saying that because the nerve agent is made in Russia and therefore Russia is behind the incident. I’m sorry but every laboratory in the West including Porton Down which is only 7 miles away from Salisbury, has a sample of this so-called ‘Novichok’, Newcomer, as they called it.
They use these samples to produce the antidotes, so why isn’t this Porton Down facility being investigated? Why aren’t the people who work there being investigated and asked if they have lost a sample of this weapons-grade chemical? This is very bizarre for the British government to come up with this ultimate without a single ounce of proof saying its highly like, and I must stress ‘highly likely’ that Russia is behind this… I’m sorry this is childish. This isn’t propaganda is some petty bitterness I would say.
Sputnik: Is there a likely explanation for this attack which isn’t just simply pointing fingers at Russia without any solid evidence?
Alexander Nekrassov: There are so many options. In a civilised manner, the police and the intelligence services should have said they were looking at different options. That is the civilised way. There are rogue agents of a different nation that have gotten access to this particular nerve agent and used it for some sort agenda such as slander and tarnish Russia or cause friction between Britain and Russia.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

What does it mean the Israeli request of deploying the UNDOF? ماذا يعني الطلب الإسرائيلي بنشر الإندوف؟

What does it mean the Israeli request of deploying the UNDOF?

مارس 16, 2018
Written by Nasser Kandil,
The occupation government sent an official request to the United Nations to redeploy the Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on the disengagement line with Syria since the year 1974, after it offered the necessary facilities to Al Nusra Front and the other armed groups to occupy the sites of the UN observers and to take them as hostages, as an announcement of the end of their task and the opening of the borders line to provide the Israeli support to the armed groups, and thus to form a security border belt that is similar to the one set up by the agent Antoine Lahad in the southern of Lebanon before the liberation  in the year 2000. Knowing that Israel announced that publicly at the level of its prime minister or its minister of war, handing over the task to Al Nusra front as an official branch of Al-Qaeda Organization in Syria, and as an entrusted party to the security of the occupying entity. On the other hand, the end of the disengagement agreement was a direct announcement of the start of an open stage of the Israeli military intervention in the Syrian depth to dismantle Syria and to contribute in the US-Saudi project which aims at overthrowing the national state of Syria.
The explanations given to the analysts affiliated to the occupation government about the Israeli request are that the Syrian army is on borders, it has almost practically got rid of most of the armed groups, so it is useless to continue the denial based on refusing the recognition of the facts of the restoration of the equations of power by the Syrian state, whether against the armed groups or against Israel, especially after the dropping of the Israeli aircraft F16 by the Syrian air defense in a way that broke the image of the Israeli deterrence.
It was clear that the decisive reason for refusing the settlement by the Americans in Syria according to the Russian concept which is based on refusing the search in any equations demanded by Israel and related to the future of the Syrian state or the future of the presidency in it or the arrangements of the exit of Syria’s allies to reassure Israel was always associated with considerations that are related to the Israeli demands. And it was clear that since the liberation of Aleppo Israel was linking every military step in Syria with what the Americans and all the allies especially Saudi Arabia can do, as a change in the ruling balances of the military equation in Syria and disrupting the capacity of the Syrian country to restore its geography which is under the control of the armed groups. This means that the Israeli request has not been achieved, but only after the clarification of two facts; the Israeli certainty of the impossibility to get gains related to its requests in Syria, and the impossibility of making changes by America that affect the strong unified Syria.
The Israeli request means the practical recognition of the fall of the Israeli dual project; the bet on the success of the security belt project on one hand, and the bet on the effectiveness of the American and Israeli military interventions to impose concessions on Syria. As the Israeli decision to end the role of the UNDOF and the disengagement agreement signed in 1974 were an announcement of the start of the Israeli-American interventions stage to divide Syria or to impose its sharing or to disrupt the formation of the state’s project in it through structural changes that end its being as an independent resistant country, as the Israeli request of redeploying the UNDOF and the work according to the disengagement agreement means the end of this stage and the recognition of the failure of the Israeli-American project of division and sharing and getting concessions that commensurate with the American-Israeli aspirations.
The premise of US strike on Syria was under an Israeli request which would not have been suggested if the occupation government had any hope in changing the situation of Syria’s victory or the restoration of its geography. Israel is the better party in behaving in accordance with the actual American position away from the propaganda and the naïve maneuvers.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ماذا يعني الطلب الإسرائيلي بنشر الإندوف؟

مارس 15, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– توجّهت حكومة الاحتلال بطلب رسمي للأمم المتحدة لإعادة نشر وحدات الفصل التي تحمل اسم الإندوف على خط فك الاشتباك مع سورية منذ العام 1974، بعدما كانت قد قدمت التسهيلات اللازمة لجبهة النصرة وسواها من الجماعات المسلحة لاحتلال مواقع المراقبين الأمميين وخطفهم، إيذاناً بنهاية مهتمهم وفتح خط الحدود لتقديم الدعم الإسرائيلي للجماعات المسلحة لتشكيل حزام أمني حدودي يشبه ما أقامه العميل أنطوان لحد في جنوب لبنان قبل التحرير عام 2000، من جهة، وهو ما لم تتورع «إسرائيل» عن التصريح به علناً، سواء على مستوى رئيس الحكومة أو وزير الحرب، مسندة المهمة لجبهة النصرة كفرع رسمي لتنظيم القاعدة في سورية، واصفة إياها بالفريق المؤتمن على أمن الكيان المحتل. ومن جهة مقابلة كان نعي اتفاق فك الاشتباك إعلاناً مباشراً ببدء مرحلة مفتوحة من التدخل العسكري الإسرائيلي في العمق السوري كترجمة لمشروع تفكيك سورية، وإسهاماً بالمشروع الأميركي السعودي الهادف لإسقاط مشروع الدولة الوطنية في سورية.

– التفسيرات التي قدّمها المحللون التابعون لحكومة الاحتلال للطلب الإسرائيلي، هو أن الجيش السوري بات على الحدود، وقد أنهى عملياً أغلب الجماعات المسلحة، أو يكاد، وبالتالي لا جدوى من مواصلة حال الإنكار القائمة على رفض الاعتراف بوقائع استعادة الدولة السورية لمعادلات القوة، سواء بوجه الجماعات المسلحة، أو بوجه «إسرائيل» نفسها، خصوصاً بعد إسقاط الدفاعات السورية للطائرة الإسرائيلية الـ «إف16»، بصورة هشمت صورة الردع الإسرائيلي.

– كان واضحاً دائماً أن العامل الحاسم في رفض الأميركيين لمنطق التسوية في سورية، وفقاً للمفهوم الروسي القائم على رفض البحث بأي معادلات تطلبها «إسرائيل» تتصل بمستقبل الدولة السورية، أو بمستقبل الرئاسة فيها، أو بترتيبات تخرج حلفاء سورية لتطمئن «إسرائيل»، كان دائماً محكوماً بحسابات تتصل بالطلبات الإسرائيلية، والواضح أيضاً بالمقابل أن «إسرائيل» كانت تربط منذ تحرير حلب على الأقل، كل خطوة عسكرية في سورية، بحساب ما سيقدر عليه الأميركيون ومعهم سائر الحلفاء، وخصوصاً السعودية، من تغيير في التوازنات الحاكمة للمعادلة العسكرية في سورية، وتعطيل قدرة الدولة السورية على استعادة الجغرافيا الخاضعة لسيطرة الجماعات المسلحة. وهذا يعني أن الطلب الإسرائيلي ما كان ليتمّ، إلا بعد تبلور حقيقتين: الأولى يقين إسرائيلي باستحالة الحصول على مكاسب تتصل بمطالبها في سورية، والثانية استحالة حدوث تغييرات تقف واشنطن وراءها تسمح بالرهان على تبدل المشهد المتصاعد في دلالاته على أفق عودة سورية القوية والموحّدة.

– الطلب الإسرائيلي يعني الإقرار العملي بسقوط مشروع «إسرائيل» المزدوج، بالرهان على نجاح مشروع الحزام الأمني من جهة، والرهان على فعالية التدخلات العسكرية الأميركية والإسرائيلية لفرض تنازلات على سورية تتصل بتركيبة دولتها أو بتحالفاتها، وبمثل ما كان القرار الإسرائيلي بإنهاء دور الإندوف، وإسقاط اتفاق فك الاشتباك الموقع عام 1974 إيذاناً ببدء مرحلة التدخلات الإسرائيلية الأميركية لتقسيم سورية أو فرض تقاسمها واقعياً وتعطيل قيام مشروع الدولة فيها إلا مشروطاً بتغييرات هيكلية تلغي كونها دولة استقلال ومقاومة، فإن العودة الإسرائيلية لطلب انتشار الإندوف والعمل باتفاق فك الاشتباك يعلن نهاية هذه المرحلة والاعتراف بفشل المشروع الإسرائيلي الأميركي للتقسيم والتقاسم، ولانتزاع تنازلات تتناسب مع التطلعات الأميركية الإسرائيلية المنشأ.

– الجواب للمتسائلين عن فرضية ضربة أميركية لسورية، يأتي بالطلب الإسرائيلي الذي ما كان ليتمّ لو كان لدى حكومة الاحتلال أي أمل بتغييرات للوضع المتصاعد نحو انتصار سورية واستعادة جغرافيتها، تحت لواء دولة مستقلة موحّدة في ظل رئيسها وراية جيشها، فـ «إسرائيل» خير من يعمل بحقيقة الموقف الأميركي الفعلي بعيداً عن البروباغندا، ومناورات الضحك على لحى الحلفاء الصغار.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!