Archive for the ‘Lavon Affair’ Category

Columnist Joseph Levine: Reflections on Six-Day War’s 50th anniversary – GazetteNET

With this weeks 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, and celebrations of the reunification of Jerusalem occurring both in Israel and in many Jewish communities in the United States, its important to take a sober look back on the events that led to the war and the subsequent 50-year occupation it set in place

I was in high school at the time, and I remember well the tense weeks that preceded the war and the sense of overwhelming relief and elation at Israels swift and decisive victory over three Arab armies. The Holocaust was only two decades old at that point, and the framing of Nassers Egypt as the reincarnation of Hitlers Germany was extremely potent.

Over the course of the following decade, which included the 1973 Yom Kippur War and then the peace agreement with Egypt, the general frame of Israels security needs and its benign occupation held firm in the minds of most Jewish-Americans like myself.

So was Israel, and in particular, its Jewish population, threatened with annihilation in 1967? And does that justify the occupation, now 50 years on? There are two principal lenses through which we must view the events leading up to the Six-Day War in order to come to a realistic assessment of these issues. First, what did the relevant players know and intend during that period? Second, how did the entire history of the conflict, particularly the events from 1948 to 1967, determine the context in which the tensions that led to the war erupted?

With regard to the first question, its important to note that a number of top Israeli leaders have been quoted showing that they were fully confident that they could easily repel any military threat, and anyway they knew Nasser had no intention of actually attacking Israel. For instance, General Matti Peled, a senior Israel Defense Forces staff officer, said that anyone who claims that Nassers divisions in the Sinai desert were a mortal threat to Israel is insulting your intelligence and insulting the IDF. Also, the CIA analysis at the time was that if the Arab states attacked first, Israel would defeat them all within two weeks, and if Israel attacked first (which they did), they would defeat them all within one week (again, which they did).

More important, however, is to set the events of 1967 in the context of the previous 19 years of Israels history of relations with the Palestinians and the Arab states. With respect to the Palestinians, Israel drove out at least 750,000 Palestinians from the territory they took over, which included much of the area that had been allotted to the Palestinians by the United Nations partition plan of 1947 to be a state of their own. In the years subsequent to the armistice of 1949, Israel confiscated a large portion of Palestinian land, drove out several thousand more Palestinians from their homes, shot thousands of others who tried to return to their homes, and erected an exclusivist Jewish state that kept Palestinians from full political and civil participation while they endured military government until 1966.

With respect to the Arab states, after the war of 1948, in which Israel colluded with Jordan to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state, Israel continued to provoke its Arab neighbors in numerous ways: by constantly violating the terms of the armistice agreement with Syria along the Golan Heights, by raiding villages in Jordan, Lebanon, and Gaza, which killed numerous soldiers and civilians, with the Lavon Affair, in which Israel sent agents into Egypt to attack American and British sites there in order to disrupt relations between those governments and Nassers newly installed government, and finally, with Israels collusion with Britain and France to attack Egypt in the Suez War of 1956. While the Arab states were, of course, not without fault, a strong case can be made that they were the ones who needed extra security, not Israel.

And in the end, could any alleged threat justify 50 years of occupation, during which tens of thousands of Palestinians have been imprisoned at one time or another, a huge percentage of their land confiscated for settlements, thousands of homes demolished, and constant fear of attack both from the settlers and the military is the norm?

Cause for celebration? I say, no way! Let us instead use this anniversary to rededicate ourselves to ending the occupation and bringing real peace to the region.

Joseph Levine, of Leverett, is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace Western Mass.

Read the original:

Columnist Joseph Levine: Reflections on Six-Day War’s 50th anniversary – GazetteNET

Fair Usage Law

June 9, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

A long build-up to a swift strike – Jewish Chronicle


Jewish Chronicle
A long build-up to a swift strike
Jewish Chronicle
Splits within the Labour Zionist movement (primarily over the Lavon Affair of 1954) meant that other key political figures with greater military experience such as Moshe Dayan were not in the government. The performance of Eshkol and Rabin in the first

and more »

More:

A long build-up to a swift strike – Jewish Chronicle

Fair Usage Law

June 6, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

The Assassination of Count Bernadotte

During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan.

Bernadotte, a Swede with family ties to the Swedish King, gained international recognition through his work as head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War II. Bernadotte used his position to negotiate with Heinrich Himmler and save thousands of Jews from concentration camps, although many argue that he could have done more had he been less cautious in negotiations.

A diplomat fluent in six languages, Bernadotte was appointed mediator of the UN General Assembly on May 20, 1948, and was immediately faced with the volatile situation in the Middle East. Arabs and Jews had been fighting over Palestine for decades and the conflict escalated after the adoption of the UN partition resolution on November 29, 1947. When Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab armies invaded Israel.

On June 11, Bernadotte succeeded in arranging a 30-day cease-fire. After visiting Cairo, Beirut, Amman and Tel Aviv, he came to the conclusion that the UN partition plan was an unfortunate resolution and proposed his own plan to unite the two feuding peoples. Instead of establishing individual states, he suggested that Arabs and Jews form a union consisting of a small Jewish entity and an enlarged Transjordan. Haifa and Lydda (Lod) airport would become free zones. Israel would receive the Western Galilee and unlimited immigration for two years, after which the UN would take control of the issue. Between 250,000 and 300,000 Arab refugees would be permitted to return to Arab territory with compensation and Transjordan would control the Negev and, despite Israeli claims, Jerusalem.

The Arab world rejected the Bernadotte plan on the grounds that, as Syrian officer Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib said, Most of these mediators are spies for the Jews anyway. The Israeli government, hating the idea of giving up Jerusalem and bent on military victory, quickly followed suit. Fighting resumed on July 8 and the Israeli army gained strength and succeeded in pushing back the Arabs until a second UN cease-fire was declared on July 18, this time with no time limit and a threat of economic sanctions against any country that broke it.

One organization that saw Bernadottes efforts as a threat was LEHI, a Jewish underground group that, under the leadership of Yitzhak Shamir, Dr. Israel Scheib and Nathan Friedman-Yellin, had waged a campaign of personal terror to force the British out of Palestine. LEHI called Bernadotte a British agent who had cooperated with the Nazis in World War II. The organization considered his plan to be a threat to its goal of Israeli independence on both banks of the Jordan River. Commander Yehoshua Zeitler of the Jerusalem branch of LEHI started training four men to kill Bernadotte, and solicited information from two sympathetic journalists about his schedule. LEHI leaders decided to assassinate Bernadotte while he was on his way to a meeting with Dov Joseph, military governor of Jerusalems New City, which was scheduled for either 4:30 p.m. on September 17 or sometime on September 18 (the exact date is disputed).

On September 16, Bernadotte flew to Beirut and spent the day there. At 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 17, he boarded his UN Dakota plane for the 45 minute flight to Jerusalem. After arriving in Palestine, Bernadottes day started with a shot hitting an armored car in his convoy while he was visiting Ramallah. No one was hurt and, according to army liaison officer Moshe Hillman, Bernadotte was proud of the bullet hole and showed Hillman the UN flag that had saved him.

Bernadottes appointment with Joseph was rescheduled for 6:30 p.m. that day. Bernadotte spent time at the official UN headquarters at the YMCA and at Government House, a potential headquarters for a UN mission. He visited the Jerusalem Agricultural School where he picked up French UN observer Andre Seraut who took the center seat in the UN car, immediately to Bernadottes left. The three car convoy then headed back to the YMCA to pick up a copy of the truce regulations before the meeting with Joseph.

Meanwhile, LEHI terrorists adapted their plans to the new meeting time and an Israeli military jeep carrying a driver named Meshulam Makover and four assassins was dispatched to Palmeh Street in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Old Katamon. At 5:03 p.m., the UN convoy drove up and found the jeep blocking its path. The terrorists, wearing khaki shorts and peaked caps, left their jeep, found Bernadotte in the second car of the convoy and one man, later discovered to be Yehoshua Cohen, fired a Schmeisser automatic pistol into the car, spraying the interior with bullets and killing Seraut and then Bernadotte. The other LEHI members shot the tires of the rest of the convoy and all the terrorists escaped to the religious community of Shaarei Pina where they hid with haredi (ultra-religious) LEHI sympathizers for a few days before fleeing to Tel Aviv in the back of a furniture truck.

Both Seraut and Bernadotte were transported to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, but were found to have died instantly. Bernadotte had been hit six times. On September 18, his body was flown to Haifa and then to Sweden, where he was buried on his wifes birthday. The Israeli government subsequently cracked down on LEHI, arresting many of its members and confiscating their arms. LEHI disbanded, largely due to public condemnation.

While the world mourned for Bernadotte, some in Israel, such as former Tehiya Member of Knesset and former LEHI radio announcer Geula Cohen, saw it as just another death in war, no more immoral than other killings committed during the long Arab-Israeli conflict. Cohen considers the assassination to have been an effective measure because we prevented the internationalization of Jerusalem. Others, however, such as Hebrew University professor Joseph Heller, argue that the killing actually provoked support for the Bernadotte plan by making its author into a martyr. The plan was never implemented, but whether its failure was due to the assassination or simply because of Israeli military strength and other outside factors is pure speculation.

Yitzhak Shamir reputedly played a role in planning the assassination; however, he was never tried and years later was elected as Israel’s eighth Prime Minister.

Sources: Bell, J. Bowyer. Terror Out Of Zion. NJ: Transaction, 1996; A bullet for the count. Jerusalem Post International Edition . October 10, 1998, p. 16-18; Collins, Larry and Dominique Lapierre. O Jerusalem! NY: Simon and Schuster, 1972 (Amazon.com paperback, Distribooks, 1994); Sachar, Howard. A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.

Continue reading here:

The Assassination of Count Bernadotte

Fair Usage Law

June 5, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

1923-1977: A Brief History Of Rise Of Right Wing In Israel – Swarajya

Following the death of Jabotinsky in 1940, his followers in the Betar expressed their opposition to the UN resolution which called for the establishment of a Jewish state since it included giving up Jordan. The Irgun which was the military arm of the revisionist movement repeatedly declared that they would continue their fight to liberate whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan river.

However, two years before Jabotinskys death, an important development took place in the Israeli right-wing movement. The 1938, Betar convention threw up a new leader, Menachem Begin, who took over the reins of the movement. Departing from significant teachings of Jabotinsky, Begin aimed to change the political conception ushering in a new era for Betar. And the new era was kickstarted by a major adjustment to the famed Betar oath which Jabotinsky had worked out.

In place of Jabotinskys I will train to fight in the defence of my people, and I will only use my strength for defence, Begin put forward, I will train to fight in the defence of my people and to conquer the homeland. In addition to replacing the primarily defensive image of the Betar with the idea of offensive action, Begin was more inclined to promote examples from the Torah and the ideas of Jewish particularity in contrast to Jabotinskys Euroliberalism.

The new Betar audience accepted Begins proposals and his ideas, even though Jabotinsky was opposed to them bitterly. But in a twisted case of irony, the democratic nature of Jabotinsky had to bow before the new aggressive Betar followers.

Stagnation In The Beginning

Begin restructured Irgun as a political party which was called the Herut. Like his mentor Jabotinsky, Begin was adamant in his refusal to accept the existence of Jordan, rejecting any proposals for holding negotiations with its ruler King Abdullah; Begin rejected the possibility of peace in part because he saw Jordan as an occupied part of Israel. But unlike his success in the Betar movement, Begin failed to elicit support from the citizens of the new Jewish state. In the first nationwide elections held in 1949, Herut won only 14 seats and was the fourth-largest party in the Knesset. The public did not buy into Heruts promise of the liberation of Jerusalem and all of Eretz Israel.

This served as a lesson to the party which, during the second Knesset elections, focused more on economic demands like free enterprise for the middle class and drastic reduction of the bureaucratic intervention in areas of commerce and trading. This change of strategy didnt work either. Heruts seat share dropped from 14 to eight in the Knesset.

One of the major reasons for the poor electoral performance of Herut in 1950s was the presence of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Gurion, the father of modern Israel, was perceived as a strong, responsible leader, whereas Begin was seen as an adventurous activist still stuck in the days of the Betar movement. The public at that time believed that their homeland had reached a relative state of tranquility after years of struggle and persecution. They were thus less enthusiastic about Begins aggressive vision of creating Eretz Israel. But all that was about to change.

An Affair To Remember

In 1954, Israeli military intelligence carried out a clandestine operation called Susannah in Egypt in which a group of Egyptian Jews were enlisted to carry out bomb attacks against American and British-owned civilian targets in the country without harming any person. The idea was to pin the blame for whole affair on the Muslim Brotherhood or local nationalists. This, they thought, would convince the British to retain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone.

The operation was infamously called the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defence minister Pinhas Lavon who was forced to resign later. Following in Lavons footsteps, Moshe Sharett, the then prime minister, also resigned. David Ben-Gurion returned as PM.

Herut openly backed Lavon, which infuriated Ben-Gurion. But Begin and his party not only earned praise from the public but also from Zionist left parties like Mapam and Ahdut ha-‘Avoda as well as from respected academicians who till then avoided any association with Herut. This event helped change Begins image from a disruptive activist to a credible leader of opposition.

Architect Of Unity

In June 1963, Levi Eshkol succeeded Ben-Gurion as the prime minister. In his new role, Eshkol transformed the country’s political climate by adopting a friendly attitude with Herut. A year after he was elected, Eshkol passed a government resolution for the reinterment of Zeev Jabotinsky’s remains in Israel which till then were kept in New York. The decision enraged Ben-Gurion, who in his time as PM did very little to recognise the former revisionist leaders contributions.

In early 1964, Begin approached the centrists and liberal politicians to create a joint parliamentary bloc to counter Labour’s dominance. After multiple meetings and negotiations, on 25 May 1965, the Liberal Party merged with Herut to form Gahal. But in spite of the alliance, the two parties continued to function as independent factions. The establishment of Gahal was a crucial step not only for Herut but also for Israels entire political spectrum. Until then, there had been no real opposition. The ruling Labour party made and broke alliances as it deemed fit.

In the 1965 elections, Labor Alignment again came up trumps with 45 seats while Gahal won only 26. The principal blame for the coalitions failure fell on Menachem Begin who announced his wish to resign from the Knesset but dodged a bullet and was re-elected Gahals chairman.

Just when many in the Liberal Party leadership were demanding the dismemberment of Gahal, Israel found itself in the throes of an existential crisis which would lead to the Six-Day War. Three days before the war started, Eshkol formed a National Unity Government inviting opposition leaders in his cabinet and Begin got a shot in the arm with a ministership.

The ministerial post was not an act of mercy but a fitting reward as Menachem Begin was the main architect of this government, as it was he who successfully brought in Moshe Dayan as the minister of defence. Dayan and his mentor David Ben-Gurion at that time were not in good terms with Eshkol but Begin managed to bring them together in Israels hour of need. The victory in the 1967 war strengthened Begin’s status. Eshkols successor and Israels first woman Prime Minister Golda Meir formed the government in 1969 with six ministers from Gahal, four of whom held portfolios. This crucial experience helped them in burnishing their governance credentials.

Establishing the Likud

In July 1973, on realising that he was not going to be appointed Chief of General Staff, one of Israels most decorated soldier, Major-General Ariel Sharon left the Israeli Defense Forces and declared his aim to form a new political entity. This entity included Gahal as well as former members of the Labour and Liberal parties. Begin declared that this new party would contain “disciples of Zeev Jabotinsky and of Ben-Gurion. The resultant entity was aptly named Likud which meant The Consolidation.

The Likud was Gahals response to the Labour Alignment, a political entity established in January 1969, unifying the parties on the Zionist Left (Labour and Mapam). When the Likud was formed, Golda Meir and her newly elected administration was so popular that no one realistically thought the Labour was in any trouble. But on 6 October 1973, about a month after it was formed, the Yom Kippur War broke out and changed the course of history.

The eighth Knesset elections took place after the Yom Kippur War concluded. In public debates Begin tore into Golda Meir’s government for its mismanagement before and after the war. But the public again chose to go with the Labour Party, though their romance was coming to an end.

Begins rising popularity among the Mizrahi Jews who formed the majority of the Jewish population in Israel, as well as a discord within the Labour Party resulted in a Likud victory in the 1977 elections. Begin finally formed a government after decades of struggle and became Israels sixth Prime Minister. Since then, Israels right-wing coalition has gone from strength to strength. It has successfully ruled the country for most of the years since 1977.

The children of Jabotinsky, once a footnote in Israeli politics, hold a firm grip today over the imagination of the Israeli populace.

Original post:

1923-1977: A Brief History Of Rise Of Right Wing In Israel – Swarajya

Fair Usage Law

June 5, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Percy Lavon Julian – biography.com

Academic, Civil Rights Activist, Chemist, Scientist, Medical Professional(18991975)

African-American chemist Percy Julian was a pioneer in the chemical synthesis of medicinal drugs such as cortisone, steroids and birth control pills.

Born in Alabama in 1899, pioneering chemist Percy Julian was not allowed to attend high school but went on to earn his Ph.D. His research at academic and corporate institutions led to the chemical synthesis of drugs to treat glaucoma and arthritis, and although his race presented challenges at every turn, he is regarded as one of the most influential chemists in American history.

Percy Lavon Julian was born April 11, 1899, in Montgomery, Alabama, the grandson of former slaves. He attended school through the eighth grade but there were no high schools open to black students. He applied to DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana, where he had to take high school-level classes in the evening to get him up to the academic level of his peers. In spite of this challenging beginning, he graduated first in his class, with Phi Beta Kappa honors.

After college, Julian accepted a position as a chemistry instructor at Fisk University. He left in 1923 when he received a scholarship to attend Harvard University to finish his masters degree, though the university would not allow him to pursue his doctorate. He traveled for several years, teaching at black colleges, before obtaining his Ph.D. at the University of Vienna in Austria in 1931.

With his doctorate in hand, he returned to DePauw to continue his research. In 1935 he earned international acclaim by synthesizing physostigmine from the calabar bean to create a drug treatment for glaucoma, but in spite of his success, the university refused to make him a full professor because of his race.

Desiring to leave academia, Julian applied for jobs at prominent chemical companies, but was repeatedly rejected when hiring managers discovered that he was black. Ultimately, he obtained a position at Glidden Company as the lab director. There he invented Aero-Foam, a product that uses soy protein to put out oil and gas fires and was widely used in World War II, as well as other soybean-based inventions.

Julian continued his biomedical work as well, and discovered how to extract sterols from soybean oil and synthesize the hormones progesterone and testosterone. He was also lauded for his synthesis of cortisone, which became used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Julian left Glidden in 1953 and established his own laboratory, Julian Laboratories, in 1954. He sold the company in 1961, becoming one of the first black millionaires, before founding Julian Research Institute, a nonprofit organization that he ran for the rest of his life.

He died of liver cancer on April 19, 1975.

Julian was the first black chemist elected to the National Academy of the Sciences, in 1973. In 1990 he was elected to the National Inventors Hall of Fame, and in 1999 his synthesis of physostigmine was recognized by the American Chemical Society as one of the top 25 achievements in the history of American chemistry.

Julian met his wife, Anna Roselle, while employed at Howard University, and the two were accused of having an affair while she was married to one of his colleagues. A scandal ensued and Julian was fired, but he and Anna married in 1935 and had two children.

“The right of a people to live where they want to, without fear, is more important than my science.” – Percy Julian

In 1950, Julian and his family moved to Oak Park, Illinois. After they purchased their home but before they moved in, the house was firebombed on Thanksgiving Day. It was attacked again in June, 1951.

Julians life was the subject of a documentary film made for PBSs Nova series, entitled Forgotten Genius.

We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

Percy Julian Biography.com

Biography.com Editors

The Biography.com website

May 31, 2017

A&E Television Networks

December 27, 2016

n/a

The rest is here:

Percy Lavon Julian – biography.com

Fair Usage Law

June 1, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Product Ingredients – Lipo Flavonoid

Each bottle of Lipo-Flavonoid Plus and Lipo-Flavonoid Night meet stringent guidelines for quality, purity and potency:

Only Lipo-Flavonoid products contain the exclusive Tisina Complex, a proprietary blend of high potency ingredients, clinically shown to be important to functionality of the inner ear.

Importantly, the makers of Lipo-Flavonoid do not manufacture store brands. Only the Lipo-Flavonoid brand contains the precise blend of proprietary ingredients used and observed in clinical settings for over 50 years, and continues to be the #1 recommendation of doctors for relief of ringing in the ears* (*Source: April 2016 survey)

Lipo-Flavonoid products each contain:

Lipo-Flavonoid Night also contains melatonin*:

* Always consult with a healthcare professional before taking any new dietary supplement. If you are under medical supervision or using any tranquilizers or sedatives, seek the advice of your healthcare professional prior to using melatonin. Consult your healthcare professional prior to using melatonin if you have an autoimmune condition, depressive disorder or are pregnant or lactating. Do not take melatonin when operating machinery or driving a vehicle. People with allergies to soy, wheat, or corn should consult their healthcare professional before taking melatonin. Keep out of reach of children.

Link:

Product Ingredients – Lipo Flavonoid

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Lavon affair, the attack on the USS Liberty , and 9-11 are …

Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage, AIA, is an architect of 25 years and the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org), a 501(c)3 educational charity representing more than 2,700 degreed/licensed architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling for a new, independent investigation, with full subpoena power, into the destruction of the Twin Towers and the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11. The more than 17,000 non-A/E signatories include many scientists, attorneys, and other responsible, educated citizens in the US and abroad.

Investigative journalistChristopher Bollyn began covering the attacks on the day it occurred. In his words: This deception only has power as long as a majority of the population is deceived. My purpose is to expose the deception and undeceive as many people as possible. When a critical mass of people are undeceived, it is “Game Over” for the evil masterminds behind the war agenda. How much is peace worth?

Link to his blog:http://www.bollyn.com

Dr. Barrett is a Muslim and PhD Islamic Studies scholar. He is one of Americas best-known critics of the “War on Terror.” He has authored and edited several books, including ANOTHER French False Flag (2016) and We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo (2015), and appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets and been widely covered by print media. Dr. Barrett is a former teacher of French, Arabic, Islamic Studies, Humanities at colleges and universities in Paris, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Wisconsin. He currently works as a talk radio host, nonprofit organizer, editor at Veterans Today, and pundit at Press TV, Russia Today, al-Etejah and other international channels. He attended the NOI plenary with Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and also came to the 10.10.15 event in Washington.

His website is http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/barrett/

More:

Lavon affair, the attack on the USS Liberty , and 9-11 are …

Fair Usage Law

May 9, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

April 11 Birthdays Of Famous People – Characteristics And …

Those born on April 11 fall under the sun sign, Aries and they are ruled by Moon and Mars, making them social butterfly, while at times their hot tempered attitude works against their nature. The ruling of Mars and the Moon also make them impatient personalities and they adopt a unique outlook towards life. The intuitive nature of this sign is counter acted by an idealistic temperament making this ram long to be part of a team, while keeping their independence intact. The need for security in their love life will work toward helping them stay loyal to those who matter.

Personality Traits & Characteristics Of Famous People Born On April 11th

Personality People with birthday on April 11th have a strong fiery personality that works in the right direction most of the time, keeping them from spinning their virtual wheels. A capacity of easing sharing and willingness to take on responsibilities will make them a popular person to have around. While most rams have a larger than life ego, this particular ram is more open to the rest of the world and are blessed with confidence. A vast imagination coupled with great empathy make these Arians very special individuals.

Health These individuals enjoy good overall health. Keeping a strong exercise routine will be vital as this sign has an exorbitant love for good food. Making sure to have sufficient rest to maintain their good health is also advisable to people born on this day. Dental issues can bother these Arians if they fail to go for regular dental checkups.

Finance Financial independence is an easy task for people born on this day, as they have extreme control as far their finances are concerned. Resisting a senseless purchase is not difficult, as they hardly fail to keep an eye on their expenditures.

Career Career opportunities are unlimited for these Arians. Their fun loving attitude is evident in everything they choose to do and with a knack for managing money an occupation in the financial sector is to their best interest.

Relationships, Marriage And Children The people born on this particular day generally have right to the point attitude toward romance and pursue a perfect relationship. This individual desire and asks of high standards of loyalty in their relationships, be it mere friendship or a love affair. Seeking emotional stability and security at times can be difficult because of their deep rooted desire to remain totally independent. However, these people are a delight to have in your life as they are fun loving, spontaneous, and devoted to no end. They offer their children certain degree of freedom and try to inculcate a sense of discipline.

Trivia Lucky Colors: Silver & Blue. Lucky Numbers: 2 & 6 Lucky Days (of the Week): Monday & Tuesday Lucky Days (of the Month): 2nd & 6th

More here:

April 11 Birthdays Of Famous People – Characteristics And …

Fair Usage Law

May 1, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Israel and Islamist Militias: A Strange and Recurring Alliance – Center for Research on Globalization

The recent assertion made by Bashar al-Jaafri, Syrias Permanent Representative to the United Nations, accusing Israel of supporting and assisting the so-called Islamic State in his countrys civil war has raised eyebrows in certain sections of the global media.

The Jerusalem Post referred to his comments as a startling accusation while the British Daily Mail thought it an extraordinary claim. A columnist for the International Business Times, an online publication, opined that Jaafris comments were the latest of an oft-repeated conspiracy theory around recent Middle Eastern conflicts wherein Israel is posited as a covert ally of Islamic militants.

The rebuttals and other responses expressing skepticism over accepting this allegation as fact appear to be sound. The Jewish state is after all in the words of the IBT columnist, despised by ISIS which he goes on write has urged its followers to kill Jews around the world.

Many detractors of the Islamic faith who ignore Koranic references which acknowledge Jews to be a legitimate community of believers in the God of Abraham consistently aver to several passages as evidence of its animus towards adherents of Judaism. Among these is that of 5.13 which accuses the Jews of having broken their covenant with God who has cursed them and made hard their hearts. How, given this background, could Israel countenance ever giving support -whether direct or indirect- to those indoctrinated with the values of fundamentalist Islam and enamoured with the cause of jihadism?

The evidence surprisingly does point to a consistent pattern of Israeli state policy aims that has involved facilitating the emergence and the sustenance of militant Islamic organisations. In order to understand this phenomenon, it is important to be aware of the historical policies pursued by the state of Israel which have been predicated on the idea of weakening its opponents in order to reduce external threats to its security. This feeds into an overarching goal of balkanizing Muslim Arab nations and the manipulation of tribal and sectarian rivalries within such polities as a means of achieving this end. It is while bearing this in mind that evidence of Israels support of an Islamist militia during the Soviet-Afghan War, terror groups in Iran, a group of insurrectionists in Yemen and jihadist militias in the ongoing Syrian Civil War becomes a phenomenon that is more readily comprehended. It also explains why Israel supplied weapons to Iran during its war with Iraq and why Israel effectively aided the creation of the Palestinian Islamist organisation Hamas.

Those who dreamed of establishing a state of Israel were aware that a necessary precondition of its coming into being would involve the fracturing and dismembering of the Ottoman Empire which controlled Palestine until the end of the First World War. And since its establishment, leaders of Israel have followed policies based on establishing both military and economic hegemony over other countries in the Middle East. Operating under what have been described as strong survival instincts, this has included the overarching objective of weakening Arab states which were artificial constructs of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

From the Maghreb to the Levant and beyond, the existence of large Arab nations have represented an existential threat to Israel and Israel has actively sought to undermine these states when the opportunity has arisen. This was central to the policies pursued by David Ben Gurion in the 1950s which were geared towards increasing tensions between Christian and Muslim communities in neighbouring Lebanon. The aim was to secure the dismemberment of the country as well as the possible acquisition of additional territory.

The diaries of Moshe Sharett, one of Israels early prime ministers record Moshe Dayan as declaring that Israel needed a Christian military officer to carve out a Christian state in the region south of the River Litani which would then be ceded to Israel. Ben Gurion himself had advocated the Litani as the natural northern border of Israel. Thus, fomenting sectarian strife in order to forestal the development of a unified Arab nation which could threaten it and creating the circumstances in which land could be acquired was at the root of Israels relationship with its northern neighbour. Dayans plan would later be activated via the creation of the South Lebanon Army, which served as a proxy army for the Israelis in its battles with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. Israels policy also informed Ben Gurions vehement objections to French President Charles de Gaulles decision to grant independence to Algeria.

The Israeli strategy of working towards the destabilising and balkanising of Arab Muslim nations is best illustrated by a paper drawn up in the early 1980s by Oded Yinon. The Yinon Plan was predicated on the idea of exploiting the ethnic-sectarian rivalries and the economic maladies within those Arab states possessing strong, nationalist governments. Iraq, for instance, was earmarked as a suitable candidate that would ideally be divided into three mini-states: one Kurdish and the other two respectively Sunni and Shia. Egypt would ideally be splintered into a Coptic Christian state and numerous other Muslim states. Yinons paper also assessed the vulnerabilities of the Syrian state which he felt was no different to that of Lebanon except that it was held together by the strong leadership of Hafez al Assad.

Another paper which gives an idea of Israels enduring interest in engineering the fracturing of neighboring Arab states is one produced in 1996 by a team led by Richard Perle. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm proposed that Israel give up efforts towards achieving a comprehensive peace with the Arab world and instead should work together with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize and roll-back those states which pose as threats to all three. It was a strategy which envisioned the weakening, controlling and even rolling back of Syria.

While Israeli state policy is officially neutral so far as the activities of the anti-Shia Sunni militants who are enemies of Israels foes who comprise the Shia Crescent extending from Iran through to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, there is enough evidence to indicate that Israel has adopted a pragmatic attitude to the usefulness of groups such as Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra.

This is reflected in a paper entitled The Destruction of Islamic State is a Mistake written by Professor Efriam Inbar, a director of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, and published in August of 2016. In it, Inbar argues that while the West should seek to weaken the Islamic State, it should not go as far as destroying it. The Islamic State serves as a useful tool in undermining the strategic interests of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. In other words, radical Islamic insurgents aid Israels long-term strategy of survival using the divide and conquer philosophy.

The use of a divide and conquer strategy by aiding one enemy in its struggle with another enemy forms a common theme in Israels decision to aid Islamist groups. Indeed, it is at the heart of the rise of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, or Hamas, the Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist organisation and its associated paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

Israels support for Hamas was based on the rationale of using it as a counter-weight to Yasser Arafats secular Fatah organisation, the largest component of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. In the words of a former senior CIA official,

this support was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative.

Several officials from the Intelligence Community of the United States have claimed that Israel gave both direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas for a period of years commencing in the later part of the 1970s. These claims have been backed by the research of Professor Anthony H. Cordesman of the Washington DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Arafat, who asserted that Hamas was the creation of Israel, once claimed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had admitted to him in the presence of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Israel had supported Hamas.

For much of the 1980s, most of the Palestinian Islamist groups appear not to have supported resistance to the occupation and instead expended their energies and finances in combating the more Left-wing factions of the PLO on university campuses. Some time after the first Intafada of 1987, a pained Arafat accused Hamas and other Islamist organisations of effectively acting as collaborators with the Israeli occupiers.

US officials reported that Brigadier-General Yitzhak Segev, a military governor of Gaza in the 1980s had told them that he had helped fund Islamic movements as a counterweight to the PLO and communists. David Shipler, a reporter for the New York Times, claimed that Segev had boasted of funding Islamic fundamentalists because of its utility in fomenting conflict between Islamists and secular supporters of the PLO.

The Israeli government gave me a budget, Segev claimed, and the military government gives to the mosques.

The military administrators of the Gaza Strip which was conquered from Egypt after the Six Day War enabled Mujama al-Islamiya, a precursor of the group which was led by Sheik Ahmed Yassin, to register as a charity. This group continued a tradition of Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups in providing Palestinian communities with Dawah, an infrastructure of social, religious, educational and cultural elements which served to ease the hardships of dispossessed peoples eking out an existence in refugee camps.

Supporting Hamas had aims that went further than creating a fractious political climate among the Palestinians. Israel hoped to benefit from disclosures of the organisations links with Ayatollah Khomeinis Iran. For those on the Israeli political Right, Hamas aim to create a theocratic transnational Islamic state rather than a Palestinian nation state would make it less amenable to assenting to a peace agreement in contrast to the PLO which was in principle committed to a two-state solution.

In a 2003 article in Current History entitled Hamas and the Transformation of Political Islam in Palestine, the American scholar Sara Roy wrote,

Some analysts maintain that while Hamas leaders are being targeted, Israel is simultaneously pursuing its old strategy of promoting Hamas over the secular nationalist factions as a way of ensuring the ultimate demise of the (Palestinian Authority), and as an effort to extinguish Palestinian nationalism once and for all.

Israels support of Islamist groups has not been restricted to the Middle East. While most people are aware that the United States and allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were involved in aiding the Mujahideen during the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, few are aware that one faction of the Mujahideen; one which was particularly hardline and anti-Western, was a beneficiary of Israeli support.

Israels involvement in this anti-Soviet alliance was based on an animus towards the Soviet Union which it perceived as a bastion of anti-Semitism because of the policies followed in the post-War period. This began with the anti-cosmopolitical campaign in the twilight years of Stalin who became suspicious of the loyalties of Soviet Jews in the wake of the creation of the state of Israel.

A series of anti-Jewish purges followed. These included those aimed at the membership of the Anti-Fascist Committee of Soviet Jews, the shutting down of the Moscow State Jewish Theater and the infamous Doctors Plot.

While the succeeding administrations of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev officially denounced anti-Semitism, many in the Jewish Diaspora particularly, and importantly, those in the United States remained unconvinced and would claim that the Soviet Union administered a form of state-sponsored anti-Semitism. The undercurrent of anti-Semitism is said to have risen in the build up to the Six Day War of 1967 and Israels subsequent victory led to an increase in Jewish ethnic consciousness which fed into the burgeoning Refusenik Movement. Soviet Jews formed a large segment of these dissidents who were denied permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union.

Although the Soviet Union was the first country to recognise the state of Israel, both countries found themselves effectively functioning as political and military adversaries because of the military aid and assistance given by the Soviets to Israels major Arab enemies, Egypt and Syria. Soviet support for miscellaneous national liberation movements included several Palestinian militant groups, and in 1978, it recognised the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

In Israel, the idea of the Soviet Union being a sponsor of Arab terrorism became widespread so much so that in 1986 Binyamin Netanyahu wrote about the centrality of the Soviet Union and the PLO in fomenting and spreading (international terrorism).

It was thus under the watch of General Ehud Barak, a future prime minister and the creator of the Special Forces unit Seyeret Matkal, that Agaf ha-Modiin (Aman for short), Israels Military Intelligence Directorate, began arming and training Islamist guerrillas of Hezb-i-Islami Mujahideen, which was led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Charlie Wilson, a pro-Israeli congressman acted as an arms broker for the sale of weapons captured from the PLO in Lebanon to Hekmatyars group via Pakistan, then led by General Zia Ul-Haq. Wilsons liaison with Israeli intelligence was Zvi Rafiah, the Mossad station chief in Washington who had full access to Wilsons congressional office.

The connection between Israel and Islamist militias is one which has continued through to the era of the so-called war on terror. The war on terror is itself an Israeli construct with origins in the ideas promoted by the Jonathan Institute, a body founded in 1976 and run by members of the Netanyahu family. The Jerusalem Conference of 1979 which was held under the auspices of the institute and with the full support of the then incumbent Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, sought to fundamentally change perceptions of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Netanyahu also wrote a series of books alongside the papers published by the institute which put forward the idea that acts of terror directed at Israel were based not on the precept of a legitimate struggle by a people dispossessed of their land and denied the right to self determination, but instead was predicated on a clash of values: the values of the Western world as supposedly represented by democratic Israel and values antithetical to the West as represented by Arab authoritarianism and fanaticism.

The argument posited by the institute involved a war being fought on a global scale that would involve the United States taking a lead in ways which included sending its military to fight in the Middle East. The war on terror called for by Ehud Barak from a BBC studio on September the 11th 2001, only a short time after the attack on the World Trade Center complex by soldiers of al-Qaeda, was heeded by President George Bush. It was a war which was declared from the outset to be one of unlimited scope and duration.

In 2002, a website called Mojahedoon dot net was launched. It carried a statement purportedly from a newly established branch of al-Qaeda known as the Islamic al-Qaeda in Palestine which pledged allegiance to Osama Bin Laden. It rejected any peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, adding that it would accept nothing but the full liberation of the Palestinian land.

This development was not one that was out of the ordinary. Analysts of global jihadism were quick to understand that the body founded by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri did not function globally as a centralised corporate body. Instead, it metamorphosed into a decentralized leadership of regional groups using the al-Qaeda brand. This phenomenon has meant that a terror group embracing the ideology of Sunni jihadism can create itself and act independently of an authoritative figure acting under the command of the original entity. This leaves open the possibility that intelligence services may be able to create counterfeit terror units claiming to be al-Qaeda.

The response of the Palestinian Authority to a similar development within its territories explicitly embraced this theory. Officials including Yasser Arafat accused Mossad of setting up a fake al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Gaza. According to Colonel Rashid Abu-Shbak, the head of preventative security, eight Palestinian residents of Gaza had been approached by figures who made offers of money and weapons to work for al-Qaeda. These communications were claimed to have been traced back to Israeli intelligence.

While Israels position was that the Palestinian allegations were sheer nonsense and an attempt to cover up the PLOs collaboration with extremists, Abu-Shbaks position was that while he could not guarantee a presence in the future, al-Qaeda was not operating in Gaza. Setting up a fake al-Qaeda terror cell was, Arafat insisted, an Israeli strategy aimed at justifying attacks on Palestinian areas.

A similar situation transpired in the Arabian Peninsula some years later. When security forces in Yemen arrested a cell of Islamist militants with alleged ties to Israeli intelligence in the later part of 2008, the reaction from around the world was one of incredulity. The Israeli foreign ministry issued a statement rejecting the accusation as far-fetched.

The evidence put forward by the prosecution at a trial of three of its nationals before a state security court early the following year, was that Bassam Abdullah al-Haideri had established contact with the office of Israels former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert via an email in which he offered to work for Mossad. The prosecutors claimed that al-Haideri received a reply from Israeli officials who responded positively to the offer.

According to the court documents, al-Haidari had written,

we are the Organisation of Islamic Jihad and you are Jews, but you are honest, and we are ready to do anything.

In reply, someone purporting to be from Olmerts office, but more likely to have been from Israeli intelligence wrote back informing al-Haidari,

we are ready to support youas an agent.

Israel, the Yemeni prosecutors claimed was prepared to assist a group of Islamist militants who had preparedcar bombs to attack governmental buildings and embassies. The cell was arrested in the month following an attack on the US embassy in the capital city of Sanaa. An organisation referring to themselves as the Islamic Jihad in Yemen, had claimed responsibility for an attack on the embassy which had killed 18 people.

The US State Department had in December of 2007 released a communique describing describing Yemen as an important partner in the global war on terrorism and praised the efforts of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in his countrys counter-terrorism cooperation efforts with the United States, achieving significant results and improving overall security in Yemen.

What motive could Israel have for supporting an Islamic terror cell in a country where the war on terror was supposedly being won? And why support an organisation which would target its preeminent ally, the United States, which was taking the lead in this war? The answer can be found in the aforementioned strategy of weakening Arab and Muslim states which also formed the basis of its involvement in the Iran-Iraq War as well as the ongoing Syrian War. The position favoured by Israel in the former as well as the latter is that of a prolonged war of indefinite duration.

The motive for supporting an al-Qaeda affiliated terror cell in the Yemen was thus likely to be based on the rationale of prolonging the war on terror by undermining what the State Department had described as an improving security situation in the Yemen.

For those who find the episode in Yemen unbelievable or, as the Israeli foreign ministry put it, derived from the proponents of conspiracy theories, a recounting of Operation Susannah, an infamous episode in the annals of Israeli intelligence, is essential.

In 1954, Aman activated a sleeper cell composed of operatives who had been recruited from the Arab Jewish population of Egypt. They were tasked with planting a series of bombs in American and British establishments in the cities of Alexandria and Cairo.

On July 2nd, the unit detonated bombs at a post office in Alexandria. Twelve days later, it bombed the libraries of the US Information Agency in Alexandria and Cairo. The explosions caused little damage and there was no loss of life. On July 23rd, a bomb exploded prematurely while one of the agents was entering the British-owned Rio Theater in Alexandra. He survived the blast and was arrested. Most of the conspirators were rounded up by Egyptian intelligence and put on trial before an Egyptian military tribunal. After deliberations, two were executed by hanging (another two had committed suicide while in custody) while the others were handed lengthy terms of imprisonment.

The official position of the Israeli government at the time was that the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser had framed a group of innocent Jews and convicted them in a show trial after their confessions had been extracted by torture.

The truth was of course different.

The incident, which came to be known as the Lavon Affair, so-called because defence minister Pinhas Lavon had been held responsible for the conception and execution of the operation, had been carried out without the knowledge of Prime Minister Moshe Sharett. Sharett was despised by figures such as Ben Gurion and Moshe Dayan because of policies which they perceived as dovish. He had established back channels of communication between himself and Nasser.

But the idea behind the operation went further than intentionally frustrating Sharett. Susannah was conceived as a false flag operation to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, communists and malcontented Egyptian nationalists in order to discourage Western rapprochement with the Egyptian leader. It also had the objective of encouraging the British not to withdraw from the Suez Canal and may have also been designed to create the circumstances where the United States and Britain would be encouraged to take military action against Egypt.

It would be 51 years after the event before Israel officially admitted it had conducted this covert operation, and in a ceremony presided by Moshe Katzav, its then president, the surviving members of the cell were awarded certificates of appreciation for services rendered to the state.

While the aforementioned Yinon Plan and Clean Break document offer an underpinning geo-political rationale and explanation for Israels present day interest in the fate of the Syrian state, some background as to how the conflict was stimulated is warranted.

The ongoing Syrian War is best understood as being a manufactured conflict. In other words, it is one which involved the pre-planned invasion of a sovereign state by other states seeking the overthrow of the de jure government.

Bashar al-Jaafris recent comments before the United Nations Security Council about what he claimed to be Israels direct support for jihadists made a pointed reference to the origins of the crisis.

This serious aggression, he said, had been plotted long in advance inside the secret rooms of intelligence agencies of Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Doha, Ankara, Amman, Washington, London and Paris.

The phenomenon of social ferment in the Muslim Arab world frequently referred to as the Arab Spring which paved the way for specific episodes of genuine communal demonstrations against the government of Bashar al Assad merely provided cover for the introduction of armed infiltrators from foreign lands indoctrinated with the cause of jihadism.

Al-Jaafris reference to the external source of the Syrian tragedy is corroborated by the admission made by Roland Dumas, a former foreign minister of France, who claimed in 2013 that the insurrection was prepared, conceived and organised at least two years in advance of the insurgency. Dumas had been on a visit to London when he was approached by British officials who informed him about a project that involved infiltrating Syria with rebel fighters.

As to why the intelligence services of the nations mentioned by al-Jaafri would want to overthrow the Assad government, the reasons differ. There are economic reasons which relate to the Assad governments rejection of a gas pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria and Turkey. The advantages to the emirate states and Turkey are apparent, but a pipeline would also serve the strategic interests of the United States which wishes to remove the dependency of it European allies on Russian gas.

Yet, the argument that Israels interests are paramount in this is not without foundation.

In the region (i.e. the Middle East), Dumas related, it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stanceand I have this from the former Israeli prime minister who told me, well try to get on with our neighbours, but those who dont agree with us will be destroyed.

Overseeing this policy of securing the position of Israel in the Middle East is the United States. Writing in the March 2007 edition of the New Yorker magazine, the Pulitzer Prize award-winning author Seymour Hersh related the following:

The Saudi government, with Washingtons approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashar Assad of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations

The foreign policy objectives of the United States as well as its key allies such as France and Britain which all have powerful Israel lobbies are virtually in sync with that of Israel which has over the decades developed a what is in effect a symbiotic relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the conservative Gulf emirates such as Qatar.

The weakening, controlling and even rolling back of Syria, alluded to in the aforementioned Clean Break document has as its end game the destruction of the entities comprising the so-called Shia Crescent of which Syria serves as an important conduit between the government of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Israels interest in destroying a country that has refused to sign a peace treaty and which helps sustain Hezbollah, the only military organisation in the Arab world to frustrate its armed forces in the field of combat, is clear. The destruction of Syria would make it easier for Israel to continue to rebuff the Syrian territorial claim for the occupied and illegally annexed Golan Heights. It would also go a large way in fulfilling the aims of the Yinon Plan given the neutralising of Egypt via a peace treaty, Jordans continuing existence as a de facto Israeli protectorate, the effective partitioning of post-Baathist ruled Iraq and the destruction of Libya.

Syrias dismantling would certainly go a long way in achieving the Israeli interest-promoting neoconservative agendal of destroying Arab governments supposedly hostile to the interests and values of the United States. It is not by sheer coincidence that each of these countries were not compliant to Israels military domination of the Middle East.

The goals of the neoconservative-authored Statement of Principles by the Project for the New American Century were largely synonymous with the Clean Break document and was put into action immediately after the September 11th attacks inaugurated the war on terror. It is clear that while US administrations have changed since that time, the policy revealed by retired General Wesley Clark about how the United States intended to take out seven countries, one of which was Syria, remains unchanged.

The attitude of Israel to the fate of the Assad government was neatly enunciated by its former ambassador to the United States. He was quoted by the Jerusalem Post in September of 2013 as saying the following:

The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone of that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.

How then has Israel provided help to Syrian Islamist groups? It is important to begin by noting that most of the locally sprung anti-Assad fighters -not including the imported global jihadists fighting for the Islamic State and al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra- are Islamist in motivation. While making his presentation to the Herzliya Conference in 2014, Brigadier-General Itai Brun, the head of the IDFs Military Intelligence research and analysis division, declared that over 80 per cent had a clear Islamist agenda.

Yet, given the virulently anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist posturing of many Islamist groups, some have been given to wonder aloud as to why Israel appeared to be immune from attacks by groups such as Islamic State. Between Israel and the jihadists neither bomb nor bullet was exchanged.

For the conspiratorially-minded, it revealed Israels diabolical role in the creation and direction of Islamic State. For others, a more rational explanation prevailed: Israels policy of forceful retribution offered enough deterrence to those who would dare raise their hands to strike at the Jewish state.

Still, some hardcore skeptics point out that the unfearing mind of the fanatic convinced of an awaiting martyrdom would not be deterred by the wrath of a powerful foe. If the alleged executors of the attacks on the United States in 2001 were hell bent on provoking a war with the most powerful nation on earth, why would those committed to an even more extreme strain of fundamentalism shirk from staging attacks?

The answer lies in the goal of Sunni adherents to militant Islamic creeds seeking to purify Islam first before taking on the infidels. Thus the primary aim for groups such as Islamic State is to destroy secular governments in the Muslim world such as that of Bashar Assad and those considered heretical such as the Shia.

They offer justification for this stance by referring to the precedent of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, whose reign was inaugurated by an onslaught against those professed followers of the faith who were nonetheless deemed to be apostates. Another example to which they refer is that of Saladin, who fought the Shiites in Egypt before embarking on his successful campaign to re-establish Islamic control of Jerusalem.

Israeli support for Islamist insurgents operating in Syria has been largely two-fold. One relates to the medical treatment given to Islamist guerillas fighting near Israels Syrian border. Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have dominated the eight-square-kilometer separation zone on the Golan since 2013. The other is realised through Israeli attacks on Syrian government forces.

In late 2014, United Nations observers located in the Golan Heights submitted a report to the United Nations Security Council stating that the IDF had been in regular contact with Syrian rebels including Islamic State militants for a period estimated at 18 months.

Members of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force recorded specific instances where wounded members of the Syrian opposition were taken by armed rebels across the longstanding Israel-Syria ceasefire line and left at locations where they were transferred to a civilian ambulance which was escorted by an IDF vehicle. Those rebels who were mended after treatment at one of several secret military hospitals were sent back to Syria where they presumably returned to fighting.

Reports of such contact which had filtered through some news reports were initially denied by Israel which insisted that it was treating only civilians. However, this position was recanted when activists among Israels minority Druze population protested in November of that year, complaining that fighters from the al-Nusra Front were among those being hospitalised. They accused the Israeli government of supporting radical Sunni factions such as the Islamic State.

The report went further in noting that members of the Israeli army were observed to be interacting with armed rebels and that in one such incident, the IDF soldiers gave boxes to the Syrian armed rebels.

An article of the Jerusalem Post in April 2017 claimed that in approximately four years, Israel has provided medical care to some 3,000 Syrians. What the ratio is between fighters and civilians remains unknown. However, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced that Israel remained committed to treating war wounded. And while the official position is that treatment will be dispensed to anyone who makes it to the demarcation line, the reality is that it does not extend to members of the Syrian Arab Army.

The Syrian Army has been intermittently targeted by airstrikes since the beginning of the conflict. While such strikes have been explained as focusing on intercepting advanced weapon deliveries from the Iranian government to Hezbollah, information is often obscure. According to Al-Jaafri, the Israeli Air Force attack on Syrian Army sites in Palmyra on March 17th, 2017 was designed to give direct support to ISIL and had added fuel to the fire and made things worse. Israels reason for this particular strike as with others was that it was targeting consignments bound for Hezbollah. The problem for the Syrian Army is that such strikes are interpreted as an attempt to degrade its capabilities in fighting the Islamist insurgents.

Israel has gone further than providing medical treatment and conducting anti-government airstrikes. It is clear that it has armed and trained rebels albeit those who are regarded to be part of the nominally secular Free Syrian Army. The Times of Israel revealed in August of 2014 that a Syrian rebel commander who was abducted and tried by a Sharia court set up by the al-Nusra Front in the Daraa region confessed to having collaborated with Israel. He admitted entering Israel five times to meet with officers of the IDF who provided him Soviet-made anti-tank weapons and light arms in return for protecting the Israeli border with Syria.

It is not unreasonable to speculate that for many in Israel, the best case scenario is for the Syrian war to endure for as long as possible without any side necessarily prevailing over the other. The destruction of military resources, the displacement and depopulation of the country and its de facto partitioning would go a long way towards realising the states long-term objectives of weakening its neighbours.

When Islamic State made its initial conquests in Iraq and there was talk about the West intervening, Binyamin Netanyahu in an interview with the American public affairs program Meet the Press advised:

when your enemies are fighting each other, dont strengthen one of them; weaken both.

This idea of weakening both enemies was at the heart of Israeli involvement in the war between Iran and Iraq which began in 1980 and lasted for eight years. Iran has been an explicit enemy of the state of Israel since the Islamic revolution of 1979 overthrew the Shah and installed a Shia theocracy led by Ayatollah Khomeini.

Khomeini had often railed against the United States and Israel as the sources corruption and backwardness in Iran during the Shahs reign. His arrest by the Shahs security police after a particularly inflammatory sermon was followed by violent street protests whose participants held placards and chanted the slogan

Death to the Shah, Death to America and Death to Israel.

The fall of the Shah with whose government Israel had a positive, even influential relationship, created a new enemy for Israel. With the coming of the revolution, Iran broke off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. The new government proceeded to adopt a strongly pro-Palestinian policy and there were frequent denunciations calling for the destruction of Israel and Zionism. It is estimated that around a third of Irans Jews emigrated from the country.

Yet, in separate in-depth researches conducted by writers Ronen Bergman and Trita Parsi, much information has been assembled indicating that Israel sold Iran a huge amount of armaments at various stages of Irans war with Iraq. Codenamed Operation Seashell by the Israelis, the Iranians are claimed to have received weapons from stockpiles of the IDF as well as from Israel Aircraft industries.

An arms dealer working for the Iranians named Ahmad Haidari claimed that around 80% of Iranian weapons purchased during the war emanated from Israel. Most of the payments were made by supplying Israel with oil. Allegations of transactions of this nature were made while the war was ongoing by media outlets such as the New York Times and Panorama, a Milan-based weekly. As was the case with Israeli supplies to Gulbuddin Hekmatyars Hezb-i-Islami Mujahideen during the Islamist anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan, Panorama claimed that a large part of some consignments came from weapons captured from the PLO during Israels invasion of Lebanon the early 1980s.

It has also been a matter of public record for a long period of time that israel facilitated the transfer of arms from the United States to Iran as part of the so-called Iran-Contra Affair.

Excerpt from:

Israel and Islamist Militias: A Strange and Recurring Alliance – Center for Research on Globalization

Fair Usage Law

April 21, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Columnist Joseph Levine: Reflections on Six-Day War’s 50th anniversary – GazetteNET

With this weeks 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, and celebrations of the reunification of Jerusalem occurring both in Israel and in many Jewish communities in the United States, its important to take a sober look back on the events that led to the war and the subsequent 50-year occupation it set in place I was in high school at the time, and I remember well the tense weeks that preceded the war and the sense of overwhelming relief and elation at Israels swift and decisive victory over three Arab armies. The Holocaust was only two decades old at that point, and the framing of Nassers Egypt as the reincarnation of Hitlers Germany was extremely potent. Over the course of the following decade, which included the 1973 Yom Kippur War and then the peace agreement with Egypt, the general frame of Israels security needs and its benign occupation held firm in the minds of most Jewish-Americans like myself. So was Israel, and in particular, its Jewish population, threatened with annihilation in 1967? And does that justify the occupation, now 50 years on? There are two principal lenses through which we must view the events leading up to the Six-Day War in order to come to a realistic assessment of these issues. First, what did the relevant players know and intend during that period? Second, how did the entire history of the conflict, particularly the events from 1948 to 1967, determine the context in which the tensions that led to the war erupted? With regard to the first question, its important to note that a number of top Israeli leaders have been quoted showing that they were fully confident that they could easily repel any military threat, and anyway they knew Nasser had no intention of actually attacking Israel. For instance, General Matti Peled, a senior Israel Defense Forces staff officer, said that anyone who claims that Nassers divisions in the Sinai desert were a mortal threat to Israel is insulting your intelligence and insulting the IDF. Also, the CIA analysis at the time was that if the Arab states attacked first, Israel would defeat them all within two weeks, and if Israel attacked first (which they did), they would defeat them all within one week (again, which they did). More important, however, is to set the events of 1967 in the context of the previous 19 years of Israels history of relations with the Palestinians and the Arab states. With respect to the Palestinians, Israel drove out at least 750,000 Palestinians from the territory they took over, which included much of the area that had been allotted to the Palestinians by the United Nations partition plan of 1947 to be a state of their own. In the years subsequent to the armistice of 1949, Israel confiscated a large portion of Palestinian land, drove out several thousand more Palestinians from their homes, shot thousands of others who tried to return to their homes, and erected an exclusivist Jewish state that kept Palestinians from full political and civil participation while they endured military government until 1966. With respect to the Arab states, after the war of 1948, in which Israel colluded with Jordan to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state, Israel continued to provoke its Arab neighbors in numerous ways: by constantly violating the terms of the armistice agreement with Syria along the Golan Heights, by raiding villages in Jordan, Lebanon, and Gaza, which killed numerous soldiers and civilians, with the Lavon Affair, in which Israel sent agents into Egypt to attack American and British sites there in order to disrupt relations between those governments and Nassers newly installed government, and finally, with Israels collusion with Britain and France to attack Egypt in the Suez War of 1956. While the Arab states were, of course, not without fault, a strong case can be made that they were the ones who needed extra security, not Israel. And in the end, could any alleged threat justify 50 years of occupation, during which tens of thousands of Palestinians have been imprisoned at one time or another, a huge percentage of their land confiscated for settlements, thousands of homes demolished, and constant fear of attack both from the settlers and the military is the norm? Cause for celebration? I say, no way! Let us instead use this anniversary to rededicate ourselves to ending the occupation and bringing real peace to the region. Joseph Levine, of Leverett, is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace Western Mass.

Fair Usage Law

June 9, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

A long build-up to a swift strike – Jewish Chronicle

Jewish Chronicle A long build-up to a swift strike Jewish Chronicle Splits within the Labour Zionist movement (primarily over the Lavon Affair of 1954) meant that other key political figures with greater military experience such as Moshe Dayan were not in the government. The performance of Eshkol and Rabin in the first … and more »

Fair Usage Law

June 6, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

The Assassination of Count Bernadotte

During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan. Bernadotte, a Swede with family ties to the Swedish King, gained international recognition through his work as head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War II. Bernadotte used his position to negotiate with Heinrich Himmler and save thousands of Jews from concentration camps, although many argue that he could have done more had he been less cautious in negotiations. A diplomat fluent in six languages, Bernadotte was appointed mediator of the UN General Assembly on May 20, 1948, and was immediately faced with the volatile situation in the Middle East. Arabs and Jews had been fighting over Palestine for decades and the conflict escalated after the adoption of the UN partition resolution on November 29, 1947. When Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab armies invaded Israel. On June 11, Bernadotte succeeded in arranging a 30-day cease-fire. After visiting Cairo, Beirut, Amman and Tel Aviv, he came to the conclusion that the UN partition plan was an unfortunate resolution and proposed his own plan to unite the two feuding peoples. Instead of establishing individual states, he suggested that Arabs and Jews form a union consisting of a small Jewish entity and an enlarged Transjordan. Haifa and Lydda (Lod) airport would become free zones. Israel would receive the Western Galilee and unlimited immigration for two years, after which the UN would take control of the issue. Between 250,000 and 300,000 Arab refugees would be permitted to return to Arab territory with compensation and Transjordan would control the Negev and, despite Israeli claims, Jerusalem. The Arab world rejected the Bernadotte plan on the grounds that, as Syrian officer Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib said, Most of these mediators are spies for the Jews anyway. The Israeli government, hating the idea of giving up Jerusalem and bent on military victory, quickly followed suit. Fighting resumed on July 8 and the Israeli army gained strength and succeeded in pushing back the Arabs until a second UN cease-fire was declared on July 18, this time with no time limit and a threat of economic sanctions against any country that broke it. One organization that saw Bernadottes efforts as a threat was LEHI, a Jewish underground group that, under the leadership of Yitzhak Shamir, Dr. Israel Scheib and Nathan Friedman-Yellin, had waged a campaign of personal terror to force the British out of Palestine. LEHI called Bernadotte a British agent who had cooperated with the Nazis in World War II. The organization considered his plan to be a threat to its goal of Israeli independence on both banks of the Jordan River. Commander Yehoshua Zeitler of the Jerusalem branch of LEHI started training four men to kill Bernadotte, and solicited information from two sympathetic journalists about his schedule. LEHI leaders decided to assassinate Bernadotte while he was on his way to a meeting with Dov Joseph, military governor of Jerusalems New City, which was scheduled for either 4:30 p.m. on September 17 or sometime on September 18 (the exact date is disputed). On September 16, Bernadotte flew to Beirut and spent the day there. At 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 17, he boarded his UN Dakota plane for the 45 minute flight to Jerusalem. After arriving in Palestine, Bernadottes day started with a shot hitting an armored car in his convoy while he was visiting Ramallah. No one was hurt and, according to army liaison officer Moshe Hillman, Bernadotte was proud of the bullet hole and showed Hillman the UN flag that had saved him. Bernadottes appointment with Joseph was rescheduled for 6:30 p.m. that day. Bernadotte spent time at the official UN headquarters at the YMCA and at Government House, a potential headquarters for a UN mission. He visited the Jerusalem Agricultural School where he picked up French UN observer Andre Seraut who took the center seat in the UN car, immediately to Bernadottes left. The three car convoy then headed back to the YMCA to pick up a copy of the truce regulations before the meeting with Joseph. Meanwhile, LEHI terrorists adapted their plans to the new meeting time and an Israeli military jeep carrying a driver named Meshulam Makover and four assassins was dispatched to Palmeh Street in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Old Katamon. At 5:03 p.m., the UN convoy drove up and found the jeep blocking its path. The terrorists, wearing khaki shorts and peaked caps, left their jeep, found Bernadotte in the second car of the convoy and one man, later discovered to be Yehoshua Cohen, fired a Schmeisser automatic pistol into the car, spraying the interior with bullets and killing Seraut and then Bernadotte. The other LEHI members shot the tires of the rest of the convoy and all the terrorists escaped to the religious community of Shaarei Pina where they hid with haredi (ultra-religious) LEHI sympathizers for a few days before fleeing to Tel Aviv in the back of a furniture truck. Both Seraut and Bernadotte were transported to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, but were found to have died instantly. Bernadotte had been hit six times. On September 18, his body was flown to Haifa and then to Sweden, where he was buried on his wifes birthday. The Israeli government subsequently cracked down on LEHI, arresting many of its members and confiscating their arms. LEHI disbanded, largely due to public condemnation. While the world mourned for Bernadotte, some in Israel, such as former Tehiya Member of Knesset and former LEHI radio announcer Geula Cohen, saw it as just another death in war, no more immoral than other killings committed during the long Arab-Israeli conflict. Cohen considers the assassination to have been an effective measure because we prevented the internationalization of Jerusalem. Others, however, such as Hebrew University professor Joseph Heller, argue that the killing actually provoked support for the Bernadotte plan by making its author into a martyr. The plan was never implemented, but whether its failure was due to the assassination or simply because of Israeli military strength and other outside factors is pure speculation. Yitzhak Shamir reputedly played a role in planning the assassination; however, he was never tried and years later was elected as Israel’s eighth Prime Minister. Sources: Bell, J. Bowyer. Terror Out Of Zion. NJ: Transaction, 1996; A bullet for the count. Jerusalem Post International Edition . October 10, 1998, p. 16-18; Collins, Larry and Dominique Lapierre. O Jerusalem! NY: Simon and Schuster, 1972 (Amazon.com paperback, Distribooks, 1994); Sachar, Howard. A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.

Fair Usage Law

June 5, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

1923-1977: A Brief History Of Rise Of Right Wing In Israel – Swarajya

Following the death of Jabotinsky in 1940, his followers in the Betar expressed their opposition to the UN resolution which called for the establishment of a Jewish state since it included giving up Jordan. The Irgun which was the military arm of the revisionist movement repeatedly declared that they would continue their fight to liberate whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan river. However, two years before Jabotinskys death, an important development took place in the Israeli right-wing movement. The 1938, Betar convention threw up a new leader, Menachem Begin, who took over the reins of the movement. Departing from significant teachings of Jabotinsky, Begin aimed to change the political conception ushering in a new era for Betar. And the new era was kickstarted by a major adjustment to the famed Betar oath which Jabotinsky had worked out. In place of Jabotinskys I will train to fight in the defence of my people, and I will only use my strength for defence, Begin put forward, I will train to fight in the defence of my people and to conquer the homeland. In addition to replacing the primarily defensive image of the Betar with the idea of offensive action, Begin was more inclined to promote examples from the Torah and the ideas of Jewish particularity in contrast to Jabotinskys Euroliberalism. The new Betar audience accepted Begins proposals and his ideas, even though Jabotinsky was opposed to them bitterly. But in a twisted case of irony, the democratic nature of Jabotinsky had to bow before the new aggressive Betar followers. Stagnation In The Beginning Begin restructured Irgun as a political party which was called the Herut. Like his mentor Jabotinsky, Begin was adamant in his refusal to accept the existence of Jordan, rejecting any proposals for holding negotiations with its ruler King Abdullah; Begin rejected the possibility of peace in part because he saw Jordan as an occupied part of Israel. But unlike his success in the Betar movement, Begin failed to elicit support from the citizens of the new Jewish state. In the first nationwide elections held in 1949, Herut won only 14 seats and was the fourth-largest party in the Knesset. The public did not buy into Heruts promise of the liberation of Jerusalem and all of Eretz Israel. This served as a lesson to the party which, during the second Knesset elections, focused more on economic demands like free enterprise for the middle class and drastic reduction of the bureaucratic intervention in areas of commerce and trading. This change of strategy didnt work either. Heruts seat share dropped from 14 to eight in the Knesset. One of the major reasons for the poor electoral performance of Herut in 1950s was the presence of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Gurion, the father of modern Israel, was perceived as a strong, responsible leader, whereas Begin was seen as an adventurous activist still stuck in the days of the Betar movement. The public at that time believed that their homeland had reached a relative state of tranquility after years of struggle and persecution. They were thus less enthusiastic about Begins aggressive vision of creating Eretz Israel. But all that was about to change. An Affair To Remember In 1954, Israeli military intelligence carried out a clandestine operation called Susannah in Egypt in which a group of Egyptian Jews were enlisted to carry out bomb attacks against American and British-owned civilian targets in the country without harming any person. The idea was to pin the blame for whole affair on the Muslim Brotherhood or local nationalists. This, they thought, would convince the British to retain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone. The operation was infamously called the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defence minister Pinhas Lavon who was forced to resign later. Following in Lavons footsteps, Moshe Sharett, the then prime minister, also resigned. David Ben-Gurion returned as PM. Herut openly backed Lavon, which infuriated Ben-Gurion. But Begin and his party not only earned praise from the public but also from Zionist left parties like Mapam and Ahdut ha-‘Avoda as well as from respected academicians who till then avoided any association with Herut. This event helped change Begins image from a disruptive activist to a credible leader of opposition. Architect Of Unity In June 1963, Levi Eshkol succeeded Ben-Gurion as the prime minister. In his new role, Eshkol transformed the country’s political climate by adopting a friendly attitude with Herut. A year after he was elected, Eshkol passed a government resolution for the reinterment of Zeev Jabotinsky’s remains in Israel which till then were kept in New York. The decision enraged Ben-Gurion, who in his time as PM did very little to recognise the former revisionist leaders contributions. In early 1964, Begin approached the centrists and liberal politicians to create a joint parliamentary bloc to counter Labour’s dominance. After multiple meetings and negotiations, on 25 May 1965, the Liberal Party merged with Herut to form Gahal. But in spite of the alliance, the two parties continued to function as independent factions. The establishment of Gahal was a crucial step not only for Herut but also for Israels entire political spectrum. Until then, there had been no real opposition. The ruling Labour party made and broke alliances as it deemed fit. In the 1965 elections, Labor Alignment again came up trumps with 45 seats while Gahal won only 26. The principal blame for the coalitions failure fell on Menachem Begin who announced his wish to resign from the Knesset but dodged a bullet and was re-elected Gahals chairman. Just when many in the Liberal Party leadership were demanding the dismemberment of Gahal, Israel found itself in the throes of an existential crisis which would lead to the Six-Day War. Three days before the war started, Eshkol formed a National Unity Government inviting opposition leaders in his cabinet and Begin got a shot in the arm with a ministership. The ministerial post was not an act of mercy but a fitting reward as Menachem Begin was the main architect of this government, as it was he who successfully brought in Moshe Dayan as the minister of defence. Dayan and his mentor David Ben-Gurion at that time were not in good terms with Eshkol but Begin managed to bring them together in Israels hour of need. The victory in the 1967 war strengthened Begin’s status. Eshkols successor and Israels first woman Prime Minister Golda Meir formed the government in 1969 with six ministers from Gahal, four of whom held portfolios. This crucial experience helped them in burnishing their governance credentials. Establishing the Likud In July 1973, on realising that he was not going to be appointed Chief of General Staff, one of Israels most decorated soldier, Major-General Ariel Sharon left the Israeli Defense Forces and declared his aim to form a new political entity. This entity included Gahal as well as former members of the Labour and Liberal parties. Begin declared that this new party would contain “disciples of Zeev Jabotinsky and of Ben-Gurion. The resultant entity was aptly named Likud which meant The Consolidation. The Likud was Gahals response to the Labour Alignment, a political entity established in January 1969, unifying the parties on the Zionist Left (Labour and Mapam). When the Likud was formed, Golda Meir and her newly elected administration was so popular that no one realistically thought the Labour was in any trouble. But on 6 October 1973, about a month after it was formed, the Yom Kippur War broke out and changed the course of history. The eighth Knesset elections took place after the Yom Kippur War concluded. In public debates Begin tore into Golda Meir’s government for its mismanagement before and after the war. But the public again chose to go with the Labour Party, though their romance was coming to an end. Begins rising popularity among the Mizrahi Jews who formed the majority of the Jewish population in Israel, as well as a discord within the Labour Party resulted in a Likud victory in the 1977 elections. Begin finally formed a government after decades of struggle and became Israels sixth Prime Minister. Since then, Israels right-wing coalition has gone from strength to strength. It has successfully ruled the country for most of the years since 1977. The children of Jabotinsky, once a footnote in Israeli politics, hold a firm grip today over the imagination of the Israeli populace.

Fair Usage Law

June 5, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Percy Lavon Julian – biography.com

Academic, Civil Rights Activist, Chemist, Scientist, Medical Professional(18991975) African-American chemist Percy Julian was a pioneer in the chemical synthesis of medicinal drugs such as cortisone, steroids and birth control pills. Born in Alabama in 1899, pioneering chemist Percy Julian was not allowed to attend high school but went on to earn his Ph.D. His research at academic and corporate institutions led to the chemical synthesis of drugs to treat glaucoma and arthritis, and although his race presented challenges at every turn, he is regarded as one of the most influential chemists in American history. Percy Lavon Julian was born April 11, 1899, in Montgomery, Alabama, the grandson of former slaves. He attended school through the eighth grade but there were no high schools open to black students. He applied to DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana, where he had to take high school-level classes in the evening to get him up to the academic level of his peers. In spite of this challenging beginning, he graduated first in his class, with Phi Beta Kappa honors. After college, Julian accepted a position as a chemistry instructor at Fisk University. He left in 1923 when he received a scholarship to attend Harvard University to finish his masters degree, though the university would not allow him to pursue his doctorate. He traveled for several years, teaching at black colleges, before obtaining his Ph.D. at the University of Vienna in Austria in 1931. With his doctorate in hand, he returned to DePauw to continue his research. In 1935 he earned international acclaim by synthesizing physostigmine from the calabar bean to create a drug treatment for glaucoma, but in spite of his success, the university refused to make him a full professor because of his race. Desiring to leave academia, Julian applied for jobs at prominent chemical companies, but was repeatedly rejected when hiring managers discovered that he was black. Ultimately, he obtained a position at Glidden Company as the lab director. There he invented Aero-Foam, a product that uses soy protein to put out oil and gas fires and was widely used in World War II, as well as other soybean-based inventions. Julian continued his biomedical work as well, and discovered how to extract sterols from soybean oil and synthesize the hormones progesterone and testosterone. He was also lauded for his synthesis of cortisone, which became used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Julian left Glidden in 1953 and established his own laboratory, Julian Laboratories, in 1954. He sold the company in 1961, becoming one of the first black millionaires, before founding Julian Research Institute, a nonprofit organization that he ran for the rest of his life. He died of liver cancer on April 19, 1975. Julian was the first black chemist elected to the National Academy of the Sciences, in 1973. In 1990 he was elected to the National Inventors Hall of Fame, and in 1999 his synthesis of physostigmine was recognized by the American Chemical Society as one of the top 25 achievements in the history of American chemistry. Julian met his wife, Anna Roselle, while employed at Howard University, and the two were accused of having an affair while she was married to one of his colleagues. A scandal ensued and Julian was fired, but he and Anna married in 1935 and had two children. “The right of a people to live where they want to, without fear, is more important than my science.” – Percy Julian In 1950, Julian and his family moved to Oak Park, Illinois. After they purchased their home but before they moved in, the house was firebombed on Thanksgiving Day. It was attacked again in June, 1951. Julians life was the subject of a documentary film made for PBSs Nova series, entitled Forgotten Genius. We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us! Percy Julian Biography.com Biography.com Editors The Biography.com website May 31, 2017 A&E Television Networks December 27, 2016 n/a

Fair Usage Law

June 1, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Product Ingredients – Lipo Flavonoid

Each bottle of Lipo-Flavonoid Plus and Lipo-Flavonoid Night meet stringent guidelines for quality, purity and potency: Only Lipo-Flavonoid products contain the exclusive Tisina Complex, a proprietary blend of high potency ingredients, clinically shown to be important to functionality of the inner ear. Importantly, the makers of Lipo-Flavonoid do not manufacture store brands. Only the Lipo-Flavonoid brand contains the precise blend of proprietary ingredients used and observed in clinical settings for over 50 years, and continues to be the #1 recommendation of doctors for relief of ringing in the ears* (*Source: April 2016 survey) Lipo-Flavonoid products each contain: Lipo-Flavonoid Night also contains melatonin*: * Always consult with a healthcare professional before taking any new dietary supplement. If you are under medical supervision or using any tranquilizers or sedatives, seek the advice of your healthcare professional prior to using melatonin. Consult your healthcare professional prior to using melatonin if you have an autoimmune condition, depressive disorder or are pregnant or lactating. Do not take melatonin when operating machinery or driving a vehicle. People with allergies to soy, wheat, or corn should consult their healthcare professional before taking melatonin. Keep out of reach of children.

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Lavon affair, the attack on the USS Liberty , and 9-11 are …

Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Richard Gage, AIA, is an architect of 25 years and the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org), a 501(c)3 educational charity representing more than 2,700 degreed/licensed architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling for a new, independent investigation, with full subpoena power, into the destruction of the Twin Towers and the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11. The more than 17,000 non-A/E signatories include many scientists, attorneys, and other responsible, educated citizens in the US and abroad. Investigative journalistChristopher Bollyn began covering the attacks on the day it occurred. In his words: This deception only has power as long as a majority of the population is deceived. My purpose is to expose the deception and undeceive as many people as possible. When a critical mass of people are undeceived, it is “Game Over” for the evil masterminds behind the war agenda. How much is peace worth? Link to his blog:http://www.bollyn.com Dr. Barrett is a Muslim and PhD Islamic Studies scholar. He is one of Americas best-known critics of the “War on Terror.” He has authored and edited several books, including ANOTHER French False Flag (2016) and We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo (2015), and appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets and been widely covered by print media. Dr. Barrett is a former teacher of French, Arabic, Islamic Studies, Humanities at colleges and universities in Paris, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Wisconsin. He currently works as a talk radio host, nonprofit organizer, editor at Veterans Today, and pundit at Press TV, Russia Today, al-Etejah and other international channels. He attended the NOI plenary with Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and also came to the 10.10.15 event in Washington. His website is http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/barrett/

Fair Usage Law

May 9, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

April 11 Birthdays Of Famous People – Characteristics And …

Those born on April 11 fall under the sun sign, Aries and they are ruled by Moon and Mars, making them social butterfly, while at times their hot tempered attitude works against their nature. The ruling of Mars and the Moon also make them impatient personalities and they adopt a unique outlook towards life. The intuitive nature of this sign is counter acted by an idealistic temperament making this ram long to be part of a team, while keeping their independence intact. The need for security in their love life will work toward helping them stay loyal to those who matter. Personality Traits & Characteristics Of Famous People Born On April 11th Personality People with birthday on April 11th have a strong fiery personality that works in the right direction most of the time, keeping them from spinning their virtual wheels. A capacity of easing sharing and willingness to take on responsibilities will make them a popular person to have around. While most rams have a larger than life ego, this particular ram is more open to the rest of the world and are blessed with confidence. A vast imagination coupled with great empathy make these Arians very special individuals. Health These individuals enjoy good overall health. Keeping a strong exercise routine will be vital as this sign has an exorbitant love for good food. Making sure to have sufficient rest to maintain their good health is also advisable to people born on this day. Dental issues can bother these Arians if they fail to go for regular dental checkups. Finance Financial independence is an easy task for people born on this day, as they have extreme control as far their finances are concerned. Resisting a senseless purchase is not difficult, as they hardly fail to keep an eye on their expenditures. Career Career opportunities are unlimited for these Arians. Their fun loving attitude is evident in everything they choose to do and with a knack for managing money an occupation in the financial sector is to their best interest. Relationships, Marriage And Children The people born on this particular day generally have right to the point attitude toward romance and pursue a perfect relationship. This individual desire and asks of high standards of loyalty in their relationships, be it mere friendship or a love affair. Seeking emotional stability and security at times can be difficult because of their deep rooted desire to remain totally independent. However, these people are a delight to have in your life as they are fun loving, spontaneous, and devoted to no end. They offer their children certain degree of freedom and try to inculcate a sense of discipline. Trivia Lucky Colors: Silver & Blue. Lucky Numbers: 2 & 6 Lucky Days (of the Week): Monday & Tuesday Lucky Days (of the Month): 2nd & 6th

Fair Usage Law

May 1, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed

Israel and Islamist Militias: A Strange and Recurring Alliance – Center for Research on Globalization

The recent assertion made by Bashar al-Jaafri, Syrias Permanent Representative to the United Nations, accusing Israel of supporting and assisting the so-called Islamic State in his countrys civil war has raised eyebrows in certain sections of the global media. The Jerusalem Post referred to his comments as a startling accusation while the British Daily Mail thought it an extraordinary claim. A columnist for the International Business Times, an online publication, opined that Jaafris comments were the latest of an oft-repeated conspiracy theory around recent Middle Eastern conflicts wherein Israel is posited as a covert ally of Islamic militants. The rebuttals and other responses expressing skepticism over accepting this allegation as fact appear to be sound. The Jewish state is after all in the words of the IBT columnist, despised by ISIS which he goes on write has urged its followers to kill Jews around the world. Many detractors of the Islamic faith who ignore Koranic references which acknowledge Jews to be a legitimate community of believers in the God of Abraham consistently aver to several passages as evidence of its animus towards adherents of Judaism. Among these is that of 5.13 which accuses the Jews of having broken their covenant with God who has cursed them and made hard their hearts. How, given this background, could Israel countenance ever giving support -whether direct or indirect- to those indoctrinated with the values of fundamentalist Islam and enamoured with the cause of jihadism? The evidence surprisingly does point to a consistent pattern of Israeli state policy aims that has involved facilitating the emergence and the sustenance of militant Islamic organisations. In order to understand this phenomenon, it is important to be aware of the historical policies pursued by the state of Israel which have been predicated on the idea of weakening its opponents in order to reduce external threats to its security. This feeds into an overarching goal of balkanizing Muslim Arab nations and the manipulation of tribal and sectarian rivalries within such polities as a means of achieving this end. It is while bearing this in mind that evidence of Israels support of an Islamist militia during the Soviet-Afghan War, terror groups in Iran, a group of insurrectionists in Yemen and jihadist militias in the ongoing Syrian Civil War becomes a phenomenon that is more readily comprehended. It also explains why Israel supplied weapons to Iran during its war with Iraq and why Israel effectively aided the creation of the Palestinian Islamist organisation Hamas. Those who dreamed of establishing a state of Israel were aware that a necessary precondition of its coming into being would involve the fracturing and dismembering of the Ottoman Empire which controlled Palestine until the end of the First World War. And since its establishment, leaders of Israel have followed policies based on establishing both military and economic hegemony over other countries in the Middle East. Operating under what have been described as strong survival instincts, this has included the overarching objective of weakening Arab states which were artificial constructs of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. From the Maghreb to the Levant and beyond, the existence of large Arab nations have represented an existential threat to Israel and Israel has actively sought to undermine these states when the opportunity has arisen. This was central to the policies pursued by David Ben Gurion in the 1950s which were geared towards increasing tensions between Christian and Muslim communities in neighbouring Lebanon. The aim was to secure the dismemberment of the country as well as the possible acquisition of additional territory. The diaries of Moshe Sharett, one of Israels early prime ministers record Moshe Dayan as declaring that Israel needed a Christian military officer to carve out a Christian state in the region south of the River Litani which would then be ceded to Israel. Ben Gurion himself had advocated the Litani as the natural northern border of Israel. Thus, fomenting sectarian strife in order to forestal the development of a unified Arab nation which could threaten it and creating the circumstances in which land could be acquired was at the root of Israels relationship with its northern neighbour. Dayans plan would later be activated via the creation of the South Lebanon Army, which served as a proxy army for the Israelis in its battles with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. Israels policy also informed Ben Gurions vehement objections to French President Charles de Gaulles decision to grant independence to Algeria. The Israeli strategy of working towards the destabilising and balkanising of Arab Muslim nations is best illustrated by a paper drawn up in the early 1980s by Oded Yinon. The Yinon Plan was predicated on the idea of exploiting the ethnic-sectarian rivalries and the economic maladies within those Arab states possessing strong, nationalist governments. Iraq, for instance, was earmarked as a suitable candidate that would ideally be divided into three mini-states: one Kurdish and the other two respectively Sunni and Shia. Egypt would ideally be splintered into a Coptic Christian state and numerous other Muslim states. Yinons paper also assessed the vulnerabilities of the Syrian state which he felt was no different to that of Lebanon except that it was held together by the strong leadership of Hafez al Assad. Another paper which gives an idea of Israels enduring interest in engineering the fracturing of neighboring Arab states is one produced in 1996 by a team led by Richard Perle. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm proposed that Israel give up efforts towards achieving a comprehensive peace with the Arab world and instead should work together with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize and roll-back those states which pose as threats to all three. It was a strategy which envisioned the weakening, controlling and even rolling back of Syria. While Israeli state policy is officially neutral so far as the activities of the anti-Shia Sunni militants who are enemies of Israels foes who comprise the Shia Crescent extending from Iran through to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, there is enough evidence to indicate that Israel has adopted a pragmatic attitude to the usefulness of groups such as Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra. This is reflected in a paper entitled The Destruction of Islamic State is a Mistake written by Professor Efriam Inbar, a director of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, and published in August of 2016. In it, Inbar argues that while the West should seek to weaken the Islamic State, it should not go as far as destroying it. The Islamic State serves as a useful tool in undermining the strategic interests of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. In other words, radical Islamic insurgents aid Israels long-term strategy of survival using the divide and conquer philosophy. The use of a divide and conquer strategy by aiding one enemy in its struggle with another enemy forms a common theme in Israels decision to aid Islamist groups. Indeed, it is at the heart of the rise of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, or Hamas, the Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist organisation and its associated paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Israels support for Hamas was based on the rationale of using it as a counter-weight to Yasser Arafats secular Fatah organisation, the largest component of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. In the words of a former senior CIA official, this support was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative. Several officials from the Intelligence Community of the United States have claimed that Israel gave both direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas for a period of years commencing in the later part of the 1970s. These claims have been backed by the research of Professor Anthony H. Cordesman of the Washington DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Arafat, who asserted that Hamas was the creation of Israel, once claimed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had admitted to him in the presence of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Israel had supported Hamas. For much of the 1980s, most of the Palestinian Islamist groups appear not to have supported resistance to the occupation and instead expended their energies and finances in combating the more Left-wing factions of the PLO on university campuses. Some time after the first Intafada of 1987, a pained Arafat accused Hamas and other Islamist organisations of effectively acting as collaborators with the Israeli occupiers. US officials reported that Brigadier-General Yitzhak Segev, a military governor of Gaza in the 1980s had told them that he had helped fund Islamic movements as a counterweight to the PLO and communists. David Shipler, a reporter for the New York Times, claimed that Segev had boasted of funding Islamic fundamentalists because of its utility in fomenting conflict between Islamists and secular supporters of the PLO. The Israeli government gave me a budget, Segev claimed, and the military government gives to the mosques. The military administrators of the Gaza Strip which was conquered from Egypt after the Six Day War enabled Mujama al-Islamiya, a precursor of the group which was led by Sheik Ahmed Yassin, to register as a charity. This group continued a tradition of Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups in providing Palestinian communities with Dawah, an infrastructure of social, religious, educational and cultural elements which served to ease the hardships of dispossessed peoples eking out an existence in refugee camps. Supporting Hamas had aims that went further than creating a fractious political climate among the Palestinians. Israel hoped to benefit from disclosures of the organisations links with Ayatollah Khomeinis Iran. For those on the Israeli political Right, Hamas aim to create a theocratic transnational Islamic state rather than a Palestinian nation state would make it less amenable to assenting to a peace agreement in contrast to the PLO which was in principle committed to a two-state solution. In a 2003 article in Current History entitled Hamas and the Transformation of Political Islam in Palestine, the American scholar Sara Roy wrote, Some analysts maintain that while Hamas leaders are being targeted, Israel is simultaneously pursuing its old strategy of promoting Hamas over the secular nationalist factions as a way of ensuring the ultimate demise of the (Palestinian Authority), and as an effort to extinguish Palestinian nationalism once and for all. Israels support of Islamist groups has not been restricted to the Middle East. While most people are aware that the United States and allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were involved in aiding the Mujahideen during the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, few are aware that one faction of the Mujahideen; one which was particularly hardline and anti-Western, was a beneficiary of Israeli support. Israels involvement in this anti-Soviet alliance was based on an animus towards the Soviet Union which it perceived as a bastion of anti-Semitism because of the policies followed in the post-War period. This began with the anti-cosmopolitical campaign in the twilight years of Stalin who became suspicious of the loyalties of Soviet Jews in the wake of the creation of the state of Israel. A series of anti-Jewish purges followed. These included those aimed at the membership of the Anti-Fascist Committee of Soviet Jews, the shutting down of the Moscow State Jewish Theater and the infamous Doctors Plot. While the succeeding administrations of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev officially denounced anti-Semitism, many in the Jewish Diaspora particularly, and importantly, those in the United States remained unconvinced and would claim that the Soviet Union administered a form of state-sponsored anti-Semitism. The undercurrent of anti-Semitism is said to have risen in the build up to the Six Day War of 1967 and Israels subsequent victory led to an increase in Jewish ethnic consciousness which fed into the burgeoning Refusenik Movement. Soviet Jews formed a large segment of these dissidents who were denied permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Although the Soviet Union was the first country to recognise the state of Israel, both countries found themselves effectively functioning as political and military adversaries because of the military aid and assistance given by the Soviets to Israels major Arab enemies, Egypt and Syria. Soviet support for miscellaneous national liberation movements included several Palestinian militant groups, and in 1978, it recognised the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In Israel, the idea of the Soviet Union being a sponsor of Arab terrorism became widespread so much so that in 1986 Binyamin Netanyahu wrote about the centrality of the Soviet Union and the PLO in fomenting and spreading (international terrorism). It was thus under the watch of General Ehud Barak, a future prime minister and the creator of the Special Forces unit Seyeret Matkal, that Agaf ha-Modiin (Aman for short), Israels Military Intelligence Directorate, began arming and training Islamist guerrillas of Hezb-i-Islami Mujahideen, which was led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Charlie Wilson, a pro-Israeli congressman acted as an arms broker for the sale of weapons captured from the PLO in Lebanon to Hekmatyars group via Pakistan, then led by General Zia Ul-Haq. Wilsons liaison with Israeli intelligence was Zvi Rafiah, the Mossad station chief in Washington who had full access to Wilsons congressional office. The connection between Israel and Islamist militias is one which has continued through to the era of the so-called war on terror. The war on terror is itself an Israeli construct with origins in the ideas promoted by the Jonathan Institute, a body founded in 1976 and run by members of the Netanyahu family. The Jerusalem Conference of 1979 which was held under the auspices of the institute and with the full support of the then incumbent Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, sought to fundamentally change perceptions of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Netanyahu also wrote a series of books alongside the papers published by the institute which put forward the idea that acts of terror directed at Israel were based not on the precept of a legitimate struggle by a people dispossessed of their land and denied the right to self determination, but instead was predicated on a clash of values: the values of the Western world as supposedly represented by democratic Israel and values antithetical to the West as represented by Arab authoritarianism and fanaticism. The argument posited by the institute involved a war being fought on a global scale that would involve the United States taking a lead in ways which included sending its military to fight in the Middle East. The war on terror called for by Ehud Barak from a BBC studio on September the 11th 2001, only a short time after the attack on the World Trade Center complex by soldiers of al-Qaeda, was heeded by President George Bush. It was a war which was declared from the outset to be one of unlimited scope and duration. In 2002, a website called Mojahedoon dot net was launched. It carried a statement purportedly from a newly established branch of al-Qaeda known as the Islamic al-Qaeda in Palestine which pledged allegiance to Osama Bin Laden. It rejected any peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, adding that it would accept nothing but the full liberation of the Palestinian land. This development was not one that was out of the ordinary. Analysts of global jihadism were quick to understand that the body founded by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri did not function globally as a centralised corporate body. Instead, it metamorphosed into a decentralized leadership of regional groups using the al-Qaeda brand. This phenomenon has meant that a terror group embracing the ideology of Sunni jihadism can create itself and act independently of an authoritative figure acting under the command of the original entity. This leaves open the possibility that intelligence services may be able to create counterfeit terror units claiming to be al-Qaeda. The response of the Palestinian Authority to a similar development within its territories explicitly embraced this theory. Officials including Yasser Arafat accused Mossad of setting up a fake al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Gaza. According to Colonel Rashid Abu-Shbak, the head of preventative security, eight Palestinian residents of Gaza had been approached by figures who made offers of money and weapons to work for al-Qaeda. These communications were claimed to have been traced back to Israeli intelligence. While Israels position was that the Palestinian allegations were sheer nonsense and an attempt to cover up the PLOs collaboration with extremists, Abu-Shbaks position was that while he could not guarantee a presence in the future, al-Qaeda was not operating in Gaza. Setting up a fake al-Qaeda terror cell was, Arafat insisted, an Israeli strategy aimed at justifying attacks on Palestinian areas. A similar situation transpired in the Arabian Peninsula some years later. When security forces in Yemen arrested a cell of Islamist militants with alleged ties to Israeli intelligence in the later part of 2008, the reaction from around the world was one of incredulity. The Israeli foreign ministry issued a statement rejecting the accusation as far-fetched. The evidence put forward by the prosecution at a trial of three of its nationals before a state security court early the following year, was that Bassam Abdullah al-Haideri had established contact with the office of Israels former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert via an email in which he offered to work for Mossad. The prosecutors claimed that al-Haideri received a reply from Israeli officials who responded positively to the offer. According to the court documents, al-Haidari had written, we are the Organisation of Islamic Jihad and you are Jews, but you are honest, and we are ready to do anything. In reply, someone purporting to be from Olmerts office, but more likely to have been from Israeli intelligence wrote back informing al-Haidari, we are ready to support youas an agent. Israel, the Yemeni prosecutors claimed was prepared to assist a group of Islamist militants who had preparedcar bombs to attack governmental buildings and embassies. The cell was arrested in the month following an attack on the US embassy in the capital city of Sanaa. An organisation referring to themselves as the Islamic Jihad in Yemen, had claimed responsibility for an attack on the embassy which had killed 18 people. The US State Department had in December of 2007 released a communique describing describing Yemen as an important partner in the global war on terrorism and praised the efforts of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in his countrys counter-terrorism cooperation efforts with the United States, achieving significant results and improving overall security in Yemen. What motive could Israel have for supporting an Islamic terror cell in a country where the war on terror was supposedly being won? And why support an organisation which would target its preeminent ally, the United States, which was taking the lead in this war? The answer can be found in the aforementioned strategy of weakening Arab and Muslim states which also formed the basis of its involvement in the Iran-Iraq War as well as the ongoing Syrian War. The position favoured by Israel in the former as well as the latter is that of a prolonged war of indefinite duration. The motive for supporting an al-Qaeda affiliated terror cell in the Yemen was thus likely to be based on the rationale of prolonging the war on terror by undermining what the State Department had described as an improving security situation in the Yemen. For those who find the episode in Yemen unbelievable or, as the Israeli foreign ministry put it, derived from the proponents of conspiracy theories, a recounting of Operation Susannah, an infamous episode in the annals of Israeli intelligence, is essential. In 1954, Aman activated a sleeper cell composed of operatives who had been recruited from the Arab Jewish population of Egypt. They were tasked with planting a series of bombs in American and British establishments in the cities of Alexandria and Cairo. On July 2nd, the unit detonated bombs at a post office in Alexandria. Twelve days later, it bombed the libraries of the US Information Agency in Alexandria and Cairo. The explosions caused little damage and there was no loss of life. On July 23rd, a bomb exploded prematurely while one of the agents was entering the British-owned Rio Theater in Alexandra. He survived the blast and was arrested. Most of the conspirators were rounded up by Egyptian intelligence and put on trial before an Egyptian military tribunal. After deliberations, two were executed by hanging (another two had committed suicide while in custody) while the others were handed lengthy terms of imprisonment. The official position of the Israeli government at the time was that the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser had framed a group of innocent Jews and convicted them in a show trial after their confessions had been extracted by torture. The truth was of course different. The incident, which came to be known as the Lavon Affair, so-called because defence minister Pinhas Lavon had been held responsible for the conception and execution of the operation, had been carried out without the knowledge of Prime Minister Moshe Sharett. Sharett was despised by figures such as Ben Gurion and Moshe Dayan because of policies which they perceived as dovish. He had established back channels of communication between himself and Nasser. But the idea behind the operation went further than intentionally frustrating Sharett. Susannah was conceived as a false flag operation to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, communists and malcontented Egyptian nationalists in order to discourage Western rapprochement with the Egyptian leader. It also had the objective of encouraging the British not to withdraw from the Suez Canal and may have also been designed to create the circumstances where the United States and Britain would be encouraged to take military action against Egypt. It would be 51 years after the event before Israel officially admitted it had conducted this covert operation, and in a ceremony presided by Moshe Katzav, its then president, the surviving members of the cell were awarded certificates of appreciation for services rendered to the state. While the aforementioned Yinon Plan and Clean Break document offer an underpinning geo-political rationale and explanation for Israels present day interest in the fate of the Syrian state, some background as to how the conflict was stimulated is warranted. The ongoing Syrian War is best understood as being a manufactured conflict. In other words, it is one which involved the pre-planned invasion of a sovereign state by other states seeking the overthrow of the de jure government. Bashar al-Jaafris recent comments before the United Nations Security Council about what he claimed to be Israels direct support for jihadists made a pointed reference to the origins of the crisis. This serious aggression, he said, had been plotted long in advance inside the secret rooms of intelligence agencies of Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Doha, Ankara, Amman, Washington, London and Paris. The phenomenon of social ferment in the Muslim Arab world frequently referred to as the Arab Spring which paved the way for specific episodes of genuine communal demonstrations against the government of Bashar al Assad merely provided cover for the introduction of armed infiltrators from foreign lands indoctrinated with the cause of jihadism. Al-Jaafris reference to the external source of the Syrian tragedy is corroborated by the admission made by Roland Dumas, a former foreign minister of France, who claimed in 2013 that the insurrection was prepared, conceived and organised at least two years in advance of the insurgency. Dumas had been on a visit to London when he was approached by British officials who informed him about a project that involved infiltrating Syria with rebel fighters. As to why the intelligence services of the nations mentioned by al-Jaafri would want to overthrow the Assad government, the reasons differ. There are economic reasons which relate to the Assad governments rejection of a gas pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria and Turkey. The advantages to the emirate states and Turkey are apparent, but a pipeline would also serve the strategic interests of the United States which wishes to remove the dependency of it European allies on Russian gas. Yet, the argument that Israels interests are paramount in this is not without foundation. In the region (i.e. the Middle East), Dumas related, it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stanceand I have this from the former Israeli prime minister who told me, well try to get on with our neighbours, but those who dont agree with us will be destroyed. Overseeing this policy of securing the position of Israel in the Middle East is the United States. Writing in the March 2007 edition of the New Yorker magazine, the Pulitzer Prize award-winning author Seymour Hersh related the following: The Saudi government, with Washingtons approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashar Assad of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations The foreign policy objectives of the United States as well as its key allies such as France and Britain which all have powerful Israel lobbies are virtually in sync with that of Israel which has over the decades developed a what is in effect a symbiotic relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the conservative Gulf emirates such as Qatar. The weakening, controlling and even rolling back of Syria, alluded to in the aforementioned Clean Break document has as its end game the destruction of the entities comprising the so-called Shia Crescent of which Syria serves as an important conduit between the government of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israels interest in destroying a country that has refused to sign a peace treaty and which helps sustain Hezbollah, the only military organisation in the Arab world to frustrate its armed forces in the field of combat, is clear. The destruction of Syria would make it easier for Israel to continue to rebuff the Syrian territorial claim for the occupied and illegally annexed Golan Heights. It would also go a large way in fulfilling the aims of the Yinon Plan given the neutralising of Egypt via a peace treaty, Jordans continuing existence as a de facto Israeli protectorate, the effective partitioning of post-Baathist ruled Iraq and the destruction of Libya. Syrias dismantling would certainly go a long way in achieving the Israeli interest-promoting neoconservative agendal of destroying Arab governments supposedly hostile to the interests and values of the United States. It is not by sheer coincidence that each of these countries were not compliant to Israels military domination of the Middle East. The goals of the neoconservative-authored Statement of Principles by the Project for the New American Century were largely synonymous with the Clean Break document and was put into action immediately after the September 11th attacks inaugurated the war on terror. It is clear that while US administrations have changed since that time, the policy revealed by retired General Wesley Clark about how the United States intended to take out seven countries, one of which was Syria, remains unchanged. The attitude of Israel to the fate of the Assad government was neatly enunciated by its former ambassador to the United States. He was quoted by the Jerusalem Post in September of 2013 as saying the following: The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone of that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go. How then has Israel provided help to Syrian Islamist groups? It is important to begin by noting that most of the locally sprung anti-Assad fighters -not including the imported global jihadists fighting for the Islamic State and al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra- are Islamist in motivation. While making his presentation to the Herzliya Conference in 2014, Brigadier-General Itai Brun, the head of the IDFs Military Intelligence research and analysis division, declared that over 80 per cent had a clear Islamist agenda. Yet, given the virulently anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist posturing of many Islamist groups, some have been given to wonder aloud as to why Israel appeared to be immune from attacks by groups such as Islamic State. Between Israel and the jihadists neither bomb nor bullet was exchanged. For the conspiratorially-minded, it revealed Israels diabolical role in the creation and direction of Islamic State. For others, a more rational explanation prevailed: Israels policy of forceful retribution offered enough deterrence to those who would dare raise their hands to strike at the Jewish state. Still, some hardcore skeptics point out that the unfearing mind of the fanatic convinced of an awaiting martyrdom would not be deterred by the wrath of a powerful foe. If the alleged executors of the attacks on the United States in 2001 were hell bent on provoking a war with the most powerful nation on earth, why would those committed to an even more extreme strain of fundamentalism shirk from staging attacks? The answer lies in the goal of Sunni adherents to militant Islamic creeds seeking to purify Islam first before taking on the infidels. Thus the primary aim for groups such as Islamic State is to destroy secular governments in the Muslim world such as that of Bashar Assad and those considered heretical such as the Shia. They offer justification for this stance by referring to the precedent of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, whose reign was inaugurated by an onslaught against those professed followers of the faith who were nonetheless deemed to be apostates. Another example to which they refer is that of Saladin, who fought the Shiites in Egypt before embarking on his successful campaign to re-establish Islamic control of Jerusalem. Israeli support for Islamist insurgents operating in Syria has been largely two-fold. One relates to the medical treatment given to Islamist guerillas fighting near Israels Syrian border. Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have dominated the eight-square-kilometer separation zone on the Golan since 2013. The other is realised through Israeli attacks on Syrian government forces. In late 2014, United Nations observers located in the Golan Heights submitted a report to the United Nations Security Council stating that the IDF had been in regular contact with Syrian rebels including Islamic State militants for a period estimated at 18 months. Members of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force recorded specific instances where wounded members of the Syrian opposition were taken by armed rebels across the longstanding Israel-Syria ceasefire line and left at locations where they were transferred to a civilian ambulance which was escorted by an IDF vehicle. Those rebels who were mended after treatment at one of several secret military hospitals were sent back to Syria where they presumably returned to fighting. Reports of such contact which had filtered through some news reports were initially denied by Israel which insisted that it was treating only civilians. However, this position was recanted when activists among Israels minority Druze population protested in November of that year, complaining that fighters from the al-Nusra Front were among those being hospitalised. They accused the Israeli government of supporting radical Sunni factions such as the Islamic State. The report went further in noting that members of the Israeli army were observed to be interacting with armed rebels and that in one such incident, the IDF soldiers gave boxes to the Syrian armed rebels. An article of the Jerusalem Post in April 2017 claimed that in approximately four years, Israel has provided medical care to some 3,000 Syrians. What the ratio is between fighters and civilians remains unknown. However, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced that Israel remained committed to treating war wounded. And while the official position is that treatment will be dispensed to anyone who makes it to the demarcation line, the reality is that it does not extend to members of the Syrian Arab Army. The Syrian Army has been intermittently targeted by airstrikes since the beginning of the conflict. While such strikes have been explained as focusing on intercepting advanced weapon deliveries from the Iranian government to Hezbollah, information is often obscure. According to Al-Jaafri, the Israeli Air Force attack on Syrian Army sites in Palmyra on March 17th, 2017 was designed to give direct support to ISIL and had added fuel to the fire and made things worse. Israels reason for this particular strike as with others was that it was targeting consignments bound for Hezbollah. The problem for the Syrian Army is that such strikes are interpreted as an attempt to degrade its capabilities in fighting the Islamist insurgents. Israel has gone further than providing medical treatment and conducting anti-government airstrikes. It is clear that it has armed and trained rebels albeit those who are regarded to be part of the nominally secular Free Syrian Army. The Times of Israel revealed in August of 2014 that a Syrian rebel commander who was abducted and tried by a Sharia court set up by the al-Nusra Front in the Daraa region confessed to having collaborated with Israel. He admitted entering Israel five times to meet with officers of the IDF who provided him Soviet-made anti-tank weapons and light arms in return for protecting the Israeli border with Syria. It is not unreasonable to speculate that for many in Israel, the best case scenario is for the Syrian war to endure for as long as possible without any side necessarily prevailing over the other. The destruction of military resources, the displacement and depopulation of the country and its de facto partitioning would go a long way towards realising the states long-term objectives of weakening its neighbours. When Islamic State made its initial conquests in Iraq and there was talk about the West intervening, Binyamin Netanyahu in an interview with the American public affairs program Meet the Press advised: when your enemies are fighting each other, dont strengthen one of them; weaken both. This idea of weakening both enemies was at the heart of Israeli involvement in the war between Iran and Iraq which began in 1980 and lasted for eight years. Iran has been an explicit enemy of the state of Israel since the Islamic revolution of 1979 overthrew the Shah and installed a Shia theocracy led by Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini had often railed against the United States and Israel as the sources corruption and backwardness in Iran during the Shahs reign. His arrest by the Shahs security police after a particularly inflammatory sermon was followed by violent street protests whose participants held placards and chanted the slogan Death to the Shah, Death to America and Death to Israel. The fall of the Shah with whose government Israel had a positive, even influential relationship, created a new enemy for Israel. With the coming of the revolution, Iran broke off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. The new government proceeded to adopt a strongly pro-Palestinian policy and there were frequent denunciations calling for the destruction of Israel and Zionism. It is estimated that around a third of Irans Jews emigrated from the country. Yet, in separate in-depth researches conducted by writers Ronen Bergman and Trita Parsi, much information has been assembled indicating that Israel sold Iran a huge amount of armaments at various stages of Irans war with Iraq. Codenamed Operation Seashell by the Israelis, the Iranians are claimed to have received weapons from stockpiles of the IDF as well as from Israel Aircraft industries. An arms dealer working for the Iranians named Ahmad Haidari claimed that around 80% of Iranian weapons purchased during the war emanated from Israel. Most of the payments were made by supplying Israel with oil. Allegations of transactions of this nature were made while the war was ongoing by media outlets such as the New York Times and Panorama, a Milan-based weekly. As was the case with Israeli supplies to Gulbuddin Hekmatyars Hezb-i-Islami Mujahideen during the Islamist anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan, Panorama claimed that a large part of some consignments came from weapons captured from the PLO during Israels invasion of Lebanon the early 1980s. It has also been a matter of public record for a long period of time that israel facilitated the transfer of arms from the United States to Iran as part of the so-called Iran-Contra Affair.

Fair Usage Law

April 21, 2017   Posted in: Lavon Affair  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."