Reagan’s insight is as applicable to Donald Trump in 2025 as it was to MLK in 1983. The popular image of Trump as an intrepid adversary of the Deep State holds powerful sway over the minds of many Americans but stands in contrast to the reality of him as a shabbos goy, operating primarily on behalf of his billionaire donors, Benjamin Netanyahu and the state of Israel.

I can think of no other political leader who could shut down the US economy, appoint a clown like Tony Fauci to spearhead a national pandemic response, give $500 billion to Sam Altman and Larry Ellison to produce AI-generated mRNA vaccines, and still receive historic levels of support from conservative Americans.

Again, as that other great paragon of conservatism Ronald Reagan said, “the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality.” Few would know better than the former Hollywood actor-turned-politician who, as the 40th president of the United States, granted amnesty to over 3 million illegal aliens without suffering even the slightest damage to his stellar legacy.

https://t.me/AlgoraPublishing/772

Excerpt

. . . Disraeli’s Russophobia, to which he converted Queen Victoria, and his defense of the Turks, whose massacres of the Serbs and Bulgarians were well known, gave rise to theories of a Jewish conspiracy. William Ewart Gladstone, a longtime opponent to Disraeli and himself prime minister several times (1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886, and 1892–1894), declared that Disraeli “was holding British foreign policy hostage to his Jewish sympathies, and that he was more interested in relieving the anguish of Jews in Russia and Turkey than in any British interests.” The newspaper The Truth of November 22, 1877, alluding to the intimacy of Disraeli with the Rothschilds suspected “a tacit conspiracy … on the part of a considerable number of Anglo-Hebrews, to drag us into a war on behalf of the Turks.” It was remembered, moreover, that in a speech to the House of Commons in 1847, Disraeli had demanded the admission of Jews to eligible functions, on the grounds that “the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe.”[9]

The Queen, like much of the British aristocracy, was already under the spell of a fashionable theory assigning an Israelite origin to the Anglo-Saxons. This theory had first appeared around Oliver Cromwell’s time, was revamped in 1840 by Pastor John Wilson with his Lectures on Ancient Israel and the Israelitish Origin of the Modern Nations of Europe, and again in 1870 by Edward Hine in The English Nation Identified with the Lost Israel, in which we learn that the word “Saxon” is derived from “Isaac’s sons.” This ludicrous theory offered cheap biblical justification to British colonialism, and even to the genocide of colonized peoples (new Canaanites) by the British Empire (new Israel).[10] Queen Victoria was happy to believe that her noble lineage descended from King David, and had her sons circumcised, a custom that has continued to this day. There may be some truth in the British elite’s sense of their Jewishness, for during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many marriages had united rich Jewish families with the old destitute landed aristocracy, to the extent that, according to Hilaire Belloc’s estimate, “with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception.”[11] But the Queen’s infatuation with Jewishness had also much to do with the influence of Disraeli, who once bragged about it to a friend in these terms: “Everyone likes flattery, and when it comes to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.”[12]

The Disraeli case is illuminating because the question it raises is the same as the question that divides geopolitical analysts today on the relationship between the United States and Israel: which one wags the other? Is Israel the bridgehead of the United States in the Middle East, or is the United States, as Zbigniew Brzezinski once said, the “stupid mule” of Israel? Answering this question for the century preceding the Second World War (when “Israel” meant International Jewry), helps answer the same question today, when the symbiotic relationship between Israel and the empire has grown considerably.

Disraeli’s Russophobia, to which he converted Queen Victoria, and his defense of the Turks, whose massacres of the Serbs and Bulgarians were well known, gave rise to theories of a Jewish conspiracy. William Ewart Gladstone, a longtime opponent to Disraeli and himself prime minister several times (1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886, and 1892–1894), declared that Disraeli “was holding British foreign policy hostage to his Jewish sympathies, and that he was more interested in relieving the anguish of Jews in Russia and Turkey than in any British interests.” The newspaper The Truth of November 22, 1877, alluding to the intimacy of Disraeli with the Rothschilds suspected “a tacit conspiracy … on the part of a considerable number of Anglo-Hebrews, to drag us into a war on behalf of the Turks.” It was remembered, moreover, that in a speech to the House of Commons in 1847, Disraeli had demanded the admission of Jews to eligible functions, on the grounds that “the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe.”[9]

The Queen, like much of the British aristocracy, was already under the spell of a fashionable theory assigning an Israelite origin to the Anglo-Saxons. This theory had first appeared around Oliver Cromwell’s time, was revamped in 1840 by Pastor John Wilson with his Lectures on Ancient Israel and the Israelitish Origin of the Modern Nations of Europe, and again in 1870 by Edward Hine in The English Nation Identified with the Lost Israel, in which we learn that the word “Saxon” is derived from “Isaac’s sons.” This ludicrous theory offered cheap biblical justification to British colonialism, and even to the genocide of colonized peoples (new Canaanites) by the British Empire (new Israel).[10] Queen Victoria was happy to believe that her noble lineage descended from King David, and had her sons circumcised, a custom that has continued to this day. There may be some truth in the British elite’s sense of their Jewishness, for during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many marriages had united rich Jewish families with the old destitute landed aristocracy, to the extent that, according to Hilaire Belloc’s estimate, “with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception.”[11] But the Queen’s infatuation with Jewishness had also much to do with the influence of Disraeli, who once bragged about it to a friend in these terms: “Everyone likes flattery, and when it comes to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.”[12]

The Disraeli case is illuminating because the question it raises is the same as the question that divides geopolitical analysts today on the relationship between the United States and Israel: which one wags the other? Is Israel the bridgehead of the United States in the Middle East, or is the United States, as Zbigniew Brzezinski once said, the “stupid mule” of Israel? Answering this question for the century preceding the Second World War (when “Israel” meant International Jewry), helps answer the same question today, when the symbiotic relationship between Israel and the empire has grown considerably.

The answer depends on one’s point of view. The Zionists naturally have an interest in promoting the view that Israel serves Anglo-American interests, rather than the reverse. Disraeli argued in front of the British Parliament that a Jewish Palestine would be in the interest of British colonialism. But Jewish Zionists have always seen things from the other end of the telescope, and one can hardly believe that Disraeli did not secretly share their view. When the hero of his novel Tancred (1847), a Jew who has been promoted Lord just like Disraeli, glorifies the British Empire in these words: “We wish to conquer the world, led by angels, in order to bring man to happiness, under divine sovereignty,” who lies behind this ambiguous “we”? Is it the same double-meaning “we” as PNAC neocons used for drawing America into wars for the benefit of Israel?

When a British Jew such as Disraeli said “we” to the British, there was a strategic ambiguity. He stroke a patriotic chord with the Anglo-Saxon elite, who shared a common belief in the British Empire’s mission to civilize the world — people like Lord Salisbury, member of Cecil Rhodes’s Round Table that worked for a world government by the “British race.”[13] British imperialism and Zionist nationalism were born around the same time, as the twins Esau and Jacob, and have been intimately intertwined from their birth. But two considerations help understand their true relationship. First, the ideological roots of the British Empire do not go back beyond the seventeenth century, whereas those of Zionism go back more than two millennia. Secondly, the British Empire died after WWI, whereas Zionism took off. For these two reasons, the theory that Zionism is a by-product of British imperialism (let’s call it the Chomsky-theory) is unsustainable.

Understanding the true relationship between Zion and Albion in Disraeli’s time requires a correct appraisal of the power of the Rothschild dynasty over British policy. Without the Rothschilds, Great Britain would never have gained control of the Suez Canal, which was the cornerstone of the British Empire in the Middle East. The Rothschilds didn’t run for political office themselves, although they sometimes married into it: Lord Archibald Primrose, secretary of state for foreign affairs in 1886 and from 1892 to 1894, and prime minister in 1894-1895, was Mayer Amschel de Rothschild’s son-in-law.

It is noteworthy that Theodor Herzl envisioned the future Jewish state as an “aristocratic republic” with, at its head, “the first Prince Rothschild.” In a long tirade in his diary he exhorted the Rothschilds to redeem their evil souls by financing Zionism instead of wars:

I don’t know whether all governments already realize what an international menace your World House constitutes. Without you no wars can be waged, and if peace is to be concluded, people are all the more dependent on you. For the year 1895 the military expenses of the five Great Powers have been estimated at four billion francs, and their actual peacetime military strength at 2,800,000 men. And these military forces, which are unparalleled in history, you command financially, regardless of the conflicting desires of the nations. … And your accursed wealth is still growing. … But if you do go with us, … we shall take our first elected ruler from your House. That is the shining beacon which we shall place atop the finished Eiffel Tower of your fortune. In history it will seem as though that had been the object of the entire edifice.[14]

However, as Richard Wagner once said (Judaism in Music, 1850), the Rothschilds preferred to remain “the Jews of the Kings” rather than “the Kings of the Jews.”

If the time was not yet ripe for the creation of the Jewish state in Disraeli’s day, it was mostly because the Jews of Russia were no more attracted to Palestine than the Jews of Europe; they hardly knew where it was. Just recently emancipated by Tsar Alexander II, they aspired only to emigrate to Europe or the United States. It was only after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 (one month before Disraeli’s death) that the pogroms made some of them sensitive to Leon Pinsker’s proto-Zionist appeal, published in 1882: “We must reconcile ourselves once and for all to the idea that the other nations, by reason of their inherent natural antagonIsm will forever reject us.”[15] It was also in 1881 that Baron Edmond de Rothschild, of the Paris branch, began buying land in Palestine and financing the installation of Jewish settlers, notably in Tel Aviv, under the auspices of his Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA). But most existing international Jewish organizations, such as B’nai B’rith (founded in New York in 1843) or the Alliance Israélite Universelle (founded in Paris in 1860), felt that Israel was doing just fine as a dispersed nation, and had no designs on Palestine.

This changed during the First World War, when an extremely efficient network was set up linking both sides of the Atlantic.[16] Theodor Herlz first concentrated his diplomatic efforts on Germany, but it was in England that things started to look promising (“The center of gravity has shifted to England,” he wrote in his diary in 1895), thanks in part to the recruiting of Israel Zangwill, who, according to Benzion Netanyahu, “was the first to speak in a direct manner about Zionism to the upper circles of British politics,” and to Lloyd George in particular, “a close acquaintance of Zangwill’s from the start of his Zionist activity to the end of his days.”[17] Recall that Zangwill was the successful author of The Melting Pot, a play extolling mixed marriages for Americans. No contradiction here, for “the mixed persecuting races disappear, the pure persecuted race remains”, as said Sidonia.

Notes:

[10] André Pichot, Aux origines des théories raciales, de la Bible à Darwin, Flammarion, 2008, pp. 124–143, 319.

[11] Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, Constable & Co., 1922 (archive.org), p. 223.

[12] Stanley Weintraub, Disraeli: A Biography, Hamish Hamilton, 1993, pp. 579, 547.

[13] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden (1949), Books In Focus, 1981.

[14] The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by Raphael Patai, Herzl Press & Thomas Yoseloff, 1960, vol. 1 , pp. 163–170.

[15] Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism, Balfour Books, 2012 ,kindle l. 761-775.

[16] Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, 2014, kindle l. 387-475.

[17] Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism, l. 2536-59.

Read more; Unz Review

by Mike Whitney via Unz Review

No one is more responsible for the attacks of October 7 than Donald Trump. It was Trump who initiated the Abraham Accords that were designed to “disappear” the Palestinian issue and drive a stake into the heart of the two-state solution. By seducing Arab leaders into bilateral agreements that shrugged off earlier commitments to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, Trump moved to crush Palestinian aspirations and eliminate the issue forever. Facing deepening isolation and irrelevance, Hamas lashed out hoping that the international community would take notice and come to its aid. In short, the primary cause of October 7 was Trump’s Abraham Accords, the fake peace initiative that paved the way for genocide.

It’s worth noting, that Joe Biden confirmed much of this analysis when he opined on October 25:

“I’m convinced one of the reasons Hamas attacked when they did… is because of the progress we were making towards regional integration for Israel and regional integration overall… ”

By “regional integration”, Biden is referring to the Abraham Accords which were promoted as a way for Arab countries to “normalize” relations with Israel and “to advance the peace process in the Middle East”. But don’t be fooled by the hype. The Accords were merely Phase 2 of Trump’s lopsided giveaway to Israel. As some readers might recall, Phase 1 of Trump’s so called Middle East Peace Plan “provided for a unified Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the principal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, amounting to annexation of roughly 30% of the territory. The Palestinians were given some desert areas near the Egyptian border, limited sovereignty, and a non-contiguous state with numerous Israeli enclaves…. ”

So, with a wave of his hand, Trump broke with all of his presidential predecessors, all the applicable UN Resolutions, and with traditional US foreign policy dating back five decades. And this was just the beginning because—as we know now—the Abraham Accords set the dominoes in motion leading inexorably to the flattening of Gaza and the displacement of two million civilians. As author of the Accords, Trump is largely responsible for the unfolding catastrophe.

Keep in mind, the Accords really had nothing to do with peace or normalization. As senior fellow at the Arab Center Dana El Kurd said, “to frame the Abraham Accords as a “peace”(agreement) that increased stability between signatories is deliberately misleading….To be sure, Arab-Israeli normalization cannot be considered “peace,” but should rather be understood as authoritarian conflict management. Through this lens, it is possible to understand more clearly how the accords have changed the landscape of the region, and why pursuing such a policy makes for an unsustainable future…

“Authoritarian conflict management”?? What does that mean?

It means that the inducements for participation in the Accords had more to do with strengthening domestic repression than promoting regional peace. Here’s more:

For example, the UAE has expanded the scope of its engagement with Israeli companies specializing in repressive technologies and has invested in the Israeli defense industry. The Moroccan government has similarly taken advantage of normalization to acquire similar capacities. The impact was felt very directly in some cases, with journalists, activists, and intellectuals targeted and often imprisoned.This is a win-win for Israel and the signatory countries. Arab regimes can crack down on any remaining vestiges of dissent in the region and Israel can facilitate investment in its defense and cybersecurity industries while helping to minimize spaces critical of its role in the region and its ongoing oppression of the Palestinians.

To be clear…. Israel is not the only source of surveillance or other repressive technologies, and Arab governments have certainly sought out other sources. Nevertheless, Arab-Israeli normalization exacerbates these dynamics and increases the capacities of these regimes by diversifying their sources of support….Assessing the Abraham Accords, Three Years On, The Arab Center

So, the Abraham Accords are not an attempt to “advance the peace process in the Middle East” but a plan to reinforce the tyrannical dictatorships the US and Israel need to promote their regional agenda, which means that the only normalization that is going on, is the normalizing of the 75-year-long occupation and the ongoing slaughter of Palestinian women and children. Here’s more:

Labeling Arab-Israeli normalization as a form of “peace” is therefore inaccurate. Rather, it is a process that rejects genuine negotiations and deeper reflections on the reasons for conflict, instead using state-level coercion and power to achieve various aims. In other words, the Abraham Accords and everything that has followed since can only be seen as authoritarian conflict management….(because) any normalization of ties with Israel entails repression, as regimes begin to proactively crack down on those who would oppose this development… Assessing the Abraham Accords, Three Years On, The Arab Center

And who would oppose the normalization of relations with Israel?

Just about every Arab in the Middle East, that’s who.

And that brings us to our next point…

As everyone who has followed developments in the region knows, Israel never had any intention of implementing UN Resolution 242 or allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Abraham Accords were conjured up by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who wanted to sidestep UN resolutions while vanishing the Palestinian issue once and for all This was Trump’s basic strategy and it forced Hamas to take drastic action to disrupt the normalization process while refocusing attention on Palestine.

We’ve already mentioned that Trump’s cynically named “The Deal of the Century” convinced Hamas that the Palestinian people faced an existential crisis that could only be averted by launching a massive attack that would force other countries to get directly involved. That was the rationale that drove the October 7 attacks. Even so, few analysts have seen through the ruse and revealed the truth of what has actually transpired. Branko Marcetic is one such journalist who revealed the details of Trump’s fraud in a riveting article at Responsible Statecraft. Here’s an excerpt from his piece:

… the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Donald Trump warned in October 2020 that terrorist violence was set to be imminently inflamed…. (DHS) pointed to the Abraham Accords: the U.S.-led effort to normalize relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors… The resulting Abraham Accords were, at least in the neoconservative world, considered a stroke of “genius.” Rather than finding a solution to the seemingly intractable question of Palestinian statehood, it simply sidelined it….

The signers dropped this long-standing precondition as they re-established diplomatic relations and deepened security and economic cooperation with Israel, while Trump lavished them with rewards, like an arms deal for the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and U.S. recognition of the annexation of West Sahara for Morocco. It effectively supplanted the Saudi government’s Arab Peace Initiative, which since its 2002 introduction had been the foundation of the Arab world’s program for resolving the conflict, placing the Palestinians front and center.

The new normalization agreements’ foundational and cynical assumption was that the plight of the Palestinians could and would be safely ignored and forgotten about by both the region’s governments and the broader international community… As Arab states began gradually deepening ties with Israel, they increasingly backed away from their historic positions…

the normalization process continued despite what would earlier have been viewed as an unacceptable provocation against both Palestinians and Islam itself was celebrated by the accords’ supporters, as proof that ongoing repression of Palestinians could indeed be safely ignored. But the Palestinian issue could not simply be wished away, and the signing of the pacts created a set of contradictions that fueled the tensions that erupted October 7.

Palestinians themselves, across opinion surveys, with both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas calling it a “betrayal,” a “treacherous stab,” and “grave harm.” Hamas also called for “an integrated plan to bring down normalization.” …….

while Hamas had reportedly planned this operation for two years, and claimed it was motivated by years of violence at Al-Aqsa, its attack also can’t be understood without the bipartisan push for Israeli-Arab normalization at the Palestinians’ expense, and the outrage, anger, and despair it has inspired.

What is clear — from Hamas’s extraordinary violence, the wider regional war it threatens to spark, as well as the major pro-Palestinian protests across Arab countries in response to Israel’s bombing campaign — is that almost every assumption that undergirded the Abraham Accords was disastrously wrong, not least the idea that dismissing the Palestinians would make for a more peaceful Middle East. Forget ‘peace,’ did Abraham Accords set stage for Israel-Gaza conflict?, Responsible Statecraft

Excellent summary, but let’s recap:

1. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security warned Trump that trouble was brewing because the Abraham Accords were inciting “terrorist violence”. (So, October 7 was not unexpected. It was predicted.)
2. Homeland Security expressed their concerns that instead of “finding a solution to the… question of Palestinian statehood, (the Accords) simply sidelined it…. (Once again, the proximate cause of October 7 was identified but ignored.)
3. Instead of dealing with the Palestinian issue fairly and rationally, “Trump lavished the (Arab leaders) with rewards” with the clear intention of coercing their support. (Sounds like bribery)
4. “As Arab states began gradually deepening ties with Israel, they increasingly backed away from their historic positions,” which refers to the Arab Peace Proposal of 2002 that required all Arab states to oppose normalization with Israel until Israel agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state on land occupied since 1967.
5. Hamas also called for “an integrated plan to bring down normalization.” (Very important.) Hamas identified “normalization” (The Abraham Accords) as an existential threat that had to be countered.
6. Hamas’s “attack also can’t be understood without the bipartisan push for Israeli-Arab normalization at the Palestinians’ expense, and the outrage, anger, and despair it has inspired.” In short, the Abraham Accords precipitated the October 7 attacks.

One Last Thought:

There is another intriguing aspect of the October attacks that has been largely ignored by mainstream pundits, and it is linked to this one short question: What was the strategic objective of the October 7 attacks?

What was Hamas trying to achieve?

The media would like us to believe that Hamas had no strategic objective at all, that they simply wanted to “kill or capture Jews” to satisfy some deeply racist urge. But that’s nonsense. We’ve already shown that Trump had approved the seizure of more Palestinian land while—at the same time—he was actively sabotaging Palestinian relations with its Arab neighbors. What that proves is that it was Hamas’s ‘back that was against the wall’, not Israel’s. Palestinian statehood faced certain obliteration if steps were not taken to reverse the course of events and prevent the Palestinians from being further isolated, marginalized and “disappeared”.

But how could a small, poorly-armed militia do anything that could significantly change the outcome sought by both Israel and its superpower friend?

That was the conundrum Hamas faced, and that is why they settled on a desperate strategy that involved goading Israel into an overreaction that would allow the rest of the world to see the inhumanity and viciousness of the Zionist state. That was the goal, and we know it was the goal because the plan was presented in great detail by Hamas’s political and military leader, Yahya Sinwar, who released the following statement in a short video on Twitter. Here’s what he said:

“Within a limited period of months—which I estimate will not exceed one year—we will force the occupation to face two options: Either we force it to implement international law, respect international resolutions, withdraw from the West Bank and Jerusalem, dismantle the settlements, release the prisoners, and ensure the return of refugees, achieving the establishment of a Palestinian state on the lands occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem; or we place this occupation in a state of contradiction and collision with the entire international order, isolate it in an extreme and powerful manner, and end its integration in the region and the entire world, addressing the state of collapse that has occurred on all fronts of resistance over the past years.” SuppressedNews

The statement above lays out Sinwar’s strategy in lucid, unambiguous prose. October 7 was a clear provocation aimed at taking advantage of Israel’s insatiable appetite for violence and bloodshed. Sinwar not only knew that Israel would overreact; he was counting on it. He expected that they would do precisely what they have been doing for the last 15 months; destroying everything in their path, killing tens of thousands of civilians, and reducing the entire Gaza Strip to rubble. Israel’s overreaction was the only way that Hamas could breathe new life into the Palestinian cause, because it was the only way they could attract the sympathy and support of the international community. That was Sinwar’s strategy in a nutshell; provoke Israel and hope that other nations would feel a moral obligation to intervene and stop the slaughter. It was a risky gambit, but it was the only option available.

As it happens, Sinwar’s strategy has largely succeeded except for the fact that Washington has blocked all efforts by the international community to resolve the crisis, deploy peacekeepers, or implement the relevant UN Resolutions. Even so, Israel remains (as Sinwar predicted) “in a state of contradiction and collision with the entire international order, (and) isolated in an extreme and powerful manner.” Recent surveys indicate a significant decline in global support for Israel…. (A Morning Consult poll showed that favorable views of Israel decreased in 42 out of 43 countries polled since the war.) and the reputational damage (to Israel) gets worse by the day. If there is an attempt to “clean out” Gaza (as Trump put it), then Israel will be branded as a global pariah for decades to come, perhaps, forever. And while that designation may not bother Israelis today, eventually they will see how it undermines their broader interests and their collective sense of self-esteem. Eventually, Israel will either comply with international resolutions and humanitarian law or face a painful future of hardship, isolation and disgrace.

In any event, Sinwar clearly pursued the only strategy that had any chance of succeeding, in fact, he might have pulled it off had Washington withheld its voluminous provision of 2,000 lb. bombs and other lethal weaponry. But now that the US has become a party to the genocide, the struggle for statehood is bound to take longer. It will require the same grit and determination the Palestinian people have shown since the conflict began 76 years ago. Eventually, they will prevail.

by Thierry Meyssan via Voltairnet.

The first consequence of the Israeli massacres in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen is not what we expected. To this day, the criminals in power in Tel Aviv continue their conquest with the weapons they are given. The transformation was first in Israel itself and in the Jewish diaspora, forcing the IDF to accept an unwritten ceasefire in Lebanon, while benefiting from Washington’s help to move the fighting to Syria. The Ukrainian and Lebanese fronts merged and moved to Syria.

WHY DON’T WE SEE THE MASSACRES IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

In recent years, the Israeli peace movement has been dismantled, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have been confused, and the narrative of a clash of civilizations has been spread. These three errors prevent us from seeing and understanding what is happening in the Middle East.

The peace movement of Nahum Goldman, president of the World Zionist Organization, no longer exists. Its goal was to make Israel the spiritual and moral center of all Jews, a neutral state on the model of Switzerland, with international security guarantees, and a permanent symbolic international presence. Goldman, who had denounced the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem and not by an international tribunal (which allowed the revisionist Zionists to mask their relations with him), negotiated a just and lasting peaceful coexistence with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and with that of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, and was even arrested in Israel.

The historian Bernard Lewis, who was an advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu when he was Israeli ambassador to the UN, invented, in 1957, for the National Security Council of the United States of which he was a member, the strategy of the “Clash of Civilizations”. It was a question of presenting as inevitable the confrontation between Western and Islamic civilizations, then Chinese and so on in order to justify the successive Western wars. His assistant, Samuel Huntington, a former collaborator of the South African apartheid secret services, popularized this strategy, in 1993, by giving it the appearance of an academic observation. He was paid by the CIA for this propaganda work. Although his work is an intellectual mishmash that does not stand up to analysis, it has penetrated our minds. This stupid theory is used today by Benjamin Netanyahu to justify his wars on “seven fronts” in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen. Yet the same Netanyahu had himself photographed, in September 2014, at the Ziv Medical Center in Zefat visiting 500 Al-Qaeda officers being treated in Israel [1]. Thus, it is possible to come to an agreement with jihadists when they massacre civilians in Syria, but not to come to an agreement with Palestinians when they demand a state.

Nathan Sharansky [2], who was deputy prime minister under General Ariel Sharon, conceived the narrative according to which it is the Palestinians as a whole and not certain Israeli leaders who refuse peace. Then, he invented that Iranian revolutionaries wanted to throw all Israeli Jews into the sea (while Jews live peacefully in Iran and are represented in Parliament). Finally, he organized international media campaigns to create confusion between “nationalism”, “Zionism” and “revisionist Zionism”, then to equate “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Zionism” (in this game the Israeli daily Haaretz would be anti-Semitic).

In 2004, Sharansky wrote with Ron Dermer, a binary book, The Cause of Democracy, to assure us that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Dermer became Israel’s ambassador to the United States (2013-2021), then Minister of Strategic Affairs (from 2023 to today), a position in which he organizes the fight against the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) in the world.

Nathan Sharansky continues his work discreetly today, both in the United States and in Ukraine where he was born, through the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGASP). This American association is abundantly funded by Ron Dermer’s ministry. It was the organization, for example, that organized the congressional hearings of the rectors of the major universities to force them to repress the manifestations of anti-Semitism on the grounds of anti-Semitism.

It goes without saying that Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, Nathan Sharansky and Ron Dermer are not “Zionists”, but “revisionist Zionists”.

REDISTRIBUTION OF THE CARDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

In this atmosphere of generalized lies, the positions of each community in the Middle East are changing. This is a consequence of Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to conquer the north of the Gaza Strip and the south of Lebanon. Gradually, all political actors, including Israeli Jews, have realized that Israeli military operations have nothing to do with the stated goals: the liberation of Hamas hostages and the return of Israelis from the north of the country to their homes. The Netanyahu coalition is continuing the colonial project of Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940): the creation of an empire in the Levant, from the Nile to the Euphrates.

This project has no connection with the ancient Kingdom of Jerusalem, which included only the holy city and its immediate suburbs, but aims to restore the ancient Assyrian empire as Jabotinsky’s patron, Benito Mussolini, wanted to restore the ancient Roman empire.

Responding to the challenge of a new fascist wave of conquest of the Levant was the meaning of both the words of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, at the joint summit of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, on November 11 in Riyadh, and those of the editor of the Israeli daily Haaretz, Amos Schocken, at the conference Israel After October 7th: Allied or Alone?, on November 27 in London.

All the protagonists agree on this observation, even if most avoid referring to the links of Jabotinsky and his disciples with the fascists and the Nazis. However, Westerners still refuse to open their eyes and treat this conflict as if it were not political, but ethnic, as if it pitted some Jews against Arabs, or even all Jews against all Arabs.

Three elements play a particular role in the change underway:
• The victory of Jacksonian Donald Trump in the United States over the Straussian coalition of Kamala Harris. The former intend to substitute trade wars for military wars, while the latter wish to provoke Armageddon.
• The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which have unquestionable control of their neighbors’ airspace, are incapable of the slightest victory on the ground. They have no discipline and many of their men behave like thugs. In the context of the defeat of the Straussians in the United States, they no longer have as many weapons and are probably running out of many of them. Finally, several of its units, which witnessed the crimes of others, are now on the verge of rebellion.
• The Jewish diaspora, which until now supported Benjamin Netanyahu without flinching, has finally managed to distinguish its support for Israeli Jews from the crimes of their government. Since Netanyahu was indicted by the International Criminal Court on November 21, the solidarity between Jews, acquired during centuries of persecution by the goyim, no longer applies. Many Jewish personalities, who until now had kept quiet, are publicly distancing themselves from the crimes committed on the “seven fronts” and against the UN.

Iran has abandoned General Qassem Soleimani’s strategy of the “Axis of Resistance,” according to which Tehran helps and coordinates all the independent armed groups fighting against the colonization of the region. It refused to help Lebanon during the Israeli invasion, then a faction in power transmitted to Israel the coordinates of the main military leaders of Hezbollah so that they could be assassinated.

Simultaneously, Tehran and Tel Aviv staged their antagonism, both pretending to be ready for a decisive fight. However, the two Iranian attacks (Operation “Honest Promise” of April 13 and October 1) and the two Israeli attacks (of April 19 and October 26) caused almost no human damage, even if the military of both sides took advantage of it to test the defenses of the adversary [3]. A secret agreement between Washington, Tehran and Tel Aviv became evident.

On the other hand, Tehran renewed ties with the Iraqi Kurds. President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Iraq in September to meet not only with the Talabani tribe, but also with the Barzani (pro-Israeli).

In Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, spiritual leader of the Shiite community, spoke out to deliver a confused message showing that he no longer knew what to expect from the Islamic Republic.

n Yemen, Ansar Allah, convinced of the Iranian turnaround, has taken steps to protect its leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, from the fate of Hassan Nasrallah.

In Turkey, as usual, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is exploring the various options available to him, without committing himself here or there. He, who was slowly getting closer to his Syrian counterpart, has authorized arms deliveries to the jihadists of Idlib so that they can resume the fight against the Syrian Arab Republic. At the same time, he has sent emissaries to discuss with Abdullah Öcalan, the founder of the PKK imprisoned since 1999. Whatever the talks, it is unlikely that “Apo” will support NATO and Israel as his movement does today.

Iran’s U-turn and Turkey’s double game suddenly put an end to the euphoria of the BRICS summit in Kazan a month ago [4].

In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad immediately supported the Lebanese and its Hezbollah allies when they were abandoned by Iran. Historically, Lebanon is only a governorate of Syria, and from his point of view, Syria is responsible for the security of the Lebanese. He therefore both gave asylum to hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Israeli bombings and transferred the few weapons he had to Hezbollah.

In response, the IDF destroyed all the roads and bridges providing access to Lebanon, then with NATO, they unleashed the jihadists of Idlib on Aleppo, of which they took and occupied a large part. The city was defended by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who withdrew without fighting.

To everyone’s surprise, the jihadists in Idlib have the latest weapons, financed by Qatar, and a host of drones operated by Ukrainian operators.

THE CONSTANTS OF THE REVISIONIST ZIONISTS

A constant in the behavior of the revisionist Zionists is to destroy the material evidence of their lies. Thus, Benjamin Netanyahu had the schedules of his meeting records changed on October 7, 2023. He hoped that this would make it easier to deny that he had helped carry out the attack on his own citizens.

The Israelis know that he helped Hamas, from his appointment as Prime Minister in 2009 until October 7. He maintained that his strategy was to favor Hamas in order to fight against Yasser Arafat’s PLO. His first official decision was to cancel the extradition request for Moussa Abu Marzouk, at the time the highest leader of Hamas, who was detained in the United States. Other events have shown that his goal was not to destroy the PLO, but to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. So in 2018, when the Palestinian Authority stopped paying civil servants in Gaza, he made a deal with Yahyah Sinwar, the Hamas military leader in Gaza who was then imprisoned in Israel. He gave money first secretly, then officially through Qatar. Over four years, he paid Hamas $2.5 billion so that it could build its tunnel network and arm itself.

Audrey Azoulay, former French Minister of Culture and current Director-General of UNESCO, delayed the meeting of the Committee for the Preservation of Historic Sites to allow the IDF to destroy Lebanese archaeological sites.

In doing so, Netanyahu and Hamas obtained the support of the Anglo-Saxon secret services, faithful to the strategy set out in 1916 by Lord Herbert Samuel, whose son Edwin was a companion of Jabotinsky: to ensure that neither the Jewish State nor the future Palestinian State could ensure their security alone.

Another constant in the behavior of the revisionist Zionists is to destroy the archaeological evidence of their imposture. Thus, still in 2009, the second decision of Netanyahu, who became Prime Minister, was to dig tunnels under the Temple Mount in order to be able to dynamite the Al-Aqsa Mosque. In recent months, he has destroyed all the archaeological remains in southern Lebanon, Crusader or Ottoman, and even tried to destroy the temples of Baalbeck, the greatest sanctuary of the Roman Empire. In doing so, he continued the destruction carried out during the Gulf War on the site of Babylon, or during the Syrian war on the remains of Aleppo and Palmyra. Everything must be done to ensure that the claim to the land, from the Nile to the Euphrates, appears legitimate.

Translation
Roger Lagassé

by Robert Inlakesh via The Cradle

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Despite Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and military aggression against Lebanon, Tel Aviv is preparing to unleash its fanatical Jewish settlers in a coordinated war against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, aiming to ethnically cleanse what remains of the territory and pave the way for further annexation.

Adding fuel to the fire, billionaire Miriam Adelson, the wealthiest Israeli in the world, bankrolledDonald Trump’s “huge victory” in his successful presidential campaign with one clear condition: support for annexing the West Bank.

Last month The Times of Israel noted that the wealthy widow “is carrying on a legacy she built with her late husband, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson,” and that “The Adelson family has long been one of the largest sources of campaign money for Republican candidates and has backed Trump during each of the last three general elections.”

The complete consolidation of the West Bank

Speaking to The Cradle, Ubai al-Aboudi, executive director of Palestinian rights group ‘Bisan Center,’ says that “the Israeli settlers are preparing to carry out a major attack, to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population,” adding that this attack will be particularly focused on completely erasing Palestinians from what is known as Area C, which constitutes roughly 60 percent of the West Bank.

That escalation has already begun. On 4 November, armed settlers launched a brazen assault on the Palestinian city of Al-Bireh, marking a surge in the violence that has gripped the West Bank. In October alone, settlers carried out at least 1,490 attacks against Palestinians, their property, and their land – often under the supervision and protection of occupation soldiers.

In the past, extremist settler attacks against Palestinians were characterized by their spontaneous nature and uncoordinated thuggery, but this has begun to change. During a recent interview with Israel’s Channel 7 News, West Bank Settlement Council leader Israel Gantz commented on a meeting he had with the recently sacked Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant:

“We asked that the West Bank be treated as Jabalia, Rafah, and the villages of southern Lebanon were treated, which means displacing the residents, killing the terrorists in these villages, cleansing the terrorist infrastructure, confiscating the weapons and then returning them to their villages.”

While the statement includes the idea of returning Palestinians to their villages, if such an operation replicated Gaza and southern Lebanon, there would be no village to return to. Gantz also requested that Palestinian villages bordering illegal Jewish settlements be ‘cleansed’ due to the potential security threat posed to Israelis living there – both ideas reportedly opposed by Gallant.

On 5 November, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu replaced Gallant and handed the defense minister position to long-time ally Israel Katz. While serving in his previous role as Israel’s foreign minister, Katz openly called for expelling Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank, unlike his predecessor.

‘Organized militias’

Last November, it was revealed that National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir had ordered the police to stop enforcing the law against West Bank settlers.

This is why the armed settler assault on Al-Bireh was seen as so significant. As Netanyahu reshuffles his cabinet to include a full deck of right-wingers, many of whom are themselves West Bank settlers, these groups are becoming even more brazen.

The assault on Al-Bireh was particularly alarming – a “pogrom-style attack,“ according to Aboudi, as “they feel emboldened by the impunity they enjoy.” Rampaging settlers burned 18 vehicles and two apartments while Israeli soldiers looked on.

One West Bank Palestinian described to The Cradle how settlers showed up outside her home armed with Molotov cocktails, but “were luckily scared off” prior to assaulting family members:

“I had just left my home prior to the attack, but I knew something was wrong because the soldiers were acting very violently at all the checkpoints as I was leaving … you have to understand that these kinds of attacks don’t happen without the soldiers participating in some way.”

“The settlers are acting more and more like organized militias; they are an extension of the Israeli army working towards an agenda of ethnic cleansing,” insists Aboudi, affirming that this year’s attacks have been dramatically increasing. According to statistics, settler violence has been escalating every year since 2021, reaching an unprecedented number of attacks in 2024.

Through the use of state-backed settler ‘defense squads,’ Israel has managed to ethnically cleanse 16 Palestinian communities in the southern hills of Al-Khalil (Hebron). In 2023, it was discovered that the Israeli army had established the ‘Desert Frontier’ unit, comprised of the most extremist Jewish settlers from the notorious ‘Hilltop Youth’ group. Human rights groups have also documented the use of Israeli standard-issue rifles by West Bank settlers attacking Palestinians, all pointing toward state complicity in these attacks.

According to Aboudi, “around 700 [Israeli] roadblocks cut off Palestinian villages from each other.” Set up by occupation forces, the roadblocks provide cover for “attacks from violent settlers who target Palestinians passing by … greatly affecting the ability to even travel safely across the West Bank.” The attackers can rely on unconditional impunity from Tel Aviv, he explains:

“They feel that they have enough resources, weapons, arms, political backing, to commit whatever crime they choose.”

Trump and West Bank annexation

Yossi Dagan, the settler leader of Samaria Regional Council, recently purchased some 500 rifles to arm and prepare “emergency security teams” in anticipation of a war in the West Bank. In September, Israel declared the West Bank a “combat zone,” and created closed military zones as buffers surrounding the illegal Jewish settlements.

Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister who was recently gifted control of settlement affairs for the occupied Palestinian territories, issued a public call for annexation in late October. As a longtime West Bank settler himself, Smotrich openly works on behalf of a 2017 settler movement proposal, outlined in a document entitled ‘Decisive Plan,’ which seeks to double the settler population of the West Bank.

If this is combined with Israel’s decision to begin transferring the Israeli settler population from military to civil control, it becomes clear that the process of annexation is already underway.

With the victory of Donald Trump in the recent US elections, it is more than likely that Netanyahu views annexation of the West Bank to suddenly be a very viable option, despite the historic opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July that declared Israel’s occupation of the territories to be a violation of international law and demanded that Tel Aviv end its occupation, dismantle all settlements, pay reparations for damages to Palestinians, and facilitate the return of all displaced natives.

But Trump’s sweeping electoral victory was aided by uber-Zionist Adelson’s contribution of $100 million to his campaign, with the single request that the Republican leader permit Israeli annexation of the West Bank.

Recall too that the Adelsons financed Trump’s first presidential bid, in 2016, with the quid pro quo that the Republican leader move the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize the Holy City as Israel’s undivided Capital – a promise that Trump implemented in 2018.

Now, Miriam Adelson is pushing for the annexation of the West Bank. Combined with the surge in settler violence, the formation of Jewish militias, military training programs for settler civilians, and the distribution of 120,000 rifles, a calculated strategy is taking shape. This is not just about sporadic attacks – it is a deliberate, state-backed campaign to alter the demographics of the West Bank permanently in line with the expansionist, settler-colonial ideology of the most extremist coalition government in Israel’s history.

by Gerry Nolan via @TheIslanderNews

Trump tried to calm the waters, announcing that Nikki Haley and Mike “Kansas” Pompeo wouldn’t be returning to his team. Smart move, Haley and Kansas, with their cheerleading forever wars and regime change, warmongers and globalist puppets, embody the very swamp Trump claims to drain. But here’s the twist: sitting right beside Trump, grinning like the Cheshire cat, is Peter Thiel, a figure far more insidious than Haley or Pompeo ever were.

Thiel isn’t just another billionaire with influence; he’s a Zionist hawk cloaked in Silicon Valley’s libertarian veneer. For years, his empire, particularly Palantir, has been at the forefront of merging Silicon Valley’s tech prowess with the national security state, feeding both U.S. and Israeli intelligence networks with data-mining capabilities that would make Orwell blush. This isn’t a recent development either, Palantir was designed from its inception as a tool to empower state surveillance, a vision that has seamlessly aligned with the Zionist agenda. In Israel, Thiel’s technology has been used to surveil Palestinian populations, enforcing a brutal occupation under the guise of “security.”

And Thiel’s influence doesn’t stop there. He has deep roots in the U.S. military-industrial complex, aligning closely with the CIA through his early investment from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm. From the beginning, Palantir was woven into the fabric of America’s intelligence infrastructure, sold as a “defense” tool, while it quietly expanded a surveillance apparatus across the world, from the Occupied Territories to inner cities in the United States. The Zionist vision of control and surveillance has found its ultimate tool in Thiel’s empire – a Trojan horse that’s eroding civil liberties under the radar.

Then there’s the paradox – Thiel, publicly a critic of “wokeism,” has quietly funneled money into (woke) initiatives that stir cultural war within the U.S. It’s an ancient imperial strategy: keep the masses distracted with ideological battles while the real agenda, bolstering Israel’s interests and consolidating a digital surveillance state marches on unopposed. By funding divisive causes and watching America tear itself apart, Thiel isn’t just hedging his bets, he’s ensuring that the spotlight never falls on his own agenda.

For Trump to truly align with the idea of American sovereignty, distancing himself from Thiel isn’t a suggestion but a necessity. Thiel doesn’t represent a populist, patriotic agenda; he represents the apex of corporate, Zionist interests, a technocratic elite intent on tightening its grip over policy and control. If Haley and Pompeo were symbols of the neoconservative swamp, Thiel is the lurking shadow, the hidden hand of a corporate-Zionist cabal with a vested interest in manipulating America’s course.

Trump, this is much more than merely draining the swamp, it’s about draining the Zionist infiltration embedded within Silicon Valley and the intelligence community. The art of the deal this time around means ensuring the U.S. doesn’t remain a puppet of Silicon Valley’s Zionist ambitions. If you’re serious about reclaiming sovereignty, you’ll keep Thiel at arm’s length, not in the seat beside you.

by Philip Geraldi via Unz Review

Well, it’s over…or is it? Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States backed by a GOP controlled Senate and possibly even a majority in the House of Representatives. And one should not discount the advantage derived from having a largely conservative Supreme Court, but much depends on who Trump appoints to key cabinet positions, a weakness in the first Trump presidency as he tended to select ideologues rather than candidates with relevant knowledge or experience. One hopes, for example, that neither the usual claque of neocons nor establishment characters like Mike Pompeo or Tom Cotton, who have been mentioned as possible candidates for Secretary of Defense, will appear on anyone’s list for high office.

During the lead-up to the presidential campaign, Trump sometimes referred to himself as the most popular politician in Israel, including a conceit that if he were able to run for office in that country he would be able to get elected to the highest offices without any problem. That was, at least in Donald’s mind, an expression of gratitude for how he had done so much for Israel in 2016-2020, including moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, accepting the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, providing political cover for Israeli actions, and a declaration that the US would not do anything to interfere with military and police actions connected to Israeli settlement expansion on the nominally Palestinian West Bank. Israel also appreciated Trump’s appointment of his lawyer David Friedman as US Ambassador. Friedman proved to be a full time apologist for Israel, not representing or defending American interests. In the recent presidential campaign, Trump spoke frequently to Jewish Republican groups and declared himself to be Israel’s best friend and supporter among US politicians.

The Israeli media has also reported that the present Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu much preferred Trump over Kamala Harris, possibly because the PM has developed what is reported to be a close personal relationship with the Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has apparently served often as a conduit to Donald. Netanyahu in fact was the first foreign head of state to telephone personally to congratulate Trump on his repeat victory at 2 a.m. on Wednesday. Netanyahu declared that Trump’s win was “historic” and said it “offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America. This is a huge victory!”

It is generally believed that Netanyahu also apparently harbors some deep suspicion of the Democratic Party in spite of the Biden Administrations generosity in arms and cash transfers, presumably in part because the Democrats harbor a small but active progressive wing which has been vocal about blocking arms sales to Israel due to its genocide of the Palestinians. The Republicans have no such tendencies apart from a persistent Tom Massie in the House and Rand Paul occasionally saying the right thing from the Senate. And key Republicans like current House speaker Mike Johnson are so in bed with Israel and all its works that he should perhaps consider moving there permanently as the average American gets nothing from the expensive and exceedingly bloody relationship apart from opprobrium from nearly the entire world for complicity in the extermination of the Palestinians. In other words, if one is expecting a return to sanity over what is going on in the Middle East, don’t expect it to come from Donald Trump.

And Netanyahu should be very pleased with the Trump victory for one other important reason, which is how he will be able to deal with an American president. The Wall Street Journal is already reporting from Israeli sources that Netanyahu is definitely expecting a “freer hand” from the new administration to do whatever he wants politically and militarily. Trump’s ego and his personal and spontaneous manner of governing is exactly the kind of relationship Bibi feels most comfortable dealing with. Netanyahu believes he can manipulate Trump and cultivate his personal relationship with the president to include dealing with him directly without worrying about any other players. Netanyahu will be in position to personally flatter, mollify, or confuse Trump even if the president were to surprisingly decide that it would be better if Israel backed off on its aggression. Netanyahu and his allies in the US Congress will be united in convincing Trump that this would be a bad idea.

Bearing in mind that Joe Biden will continue to be president for the next two months and he has demonstrated an infinite capacity to screw things up through his clueless proxies Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin plus the comic interlude provided by State Department spokesman Matt Miller, who cracked a joke and laughed about the clearly demonstrated Israeli attempt to starve the Gazans to death. But possible Biden missteps notwithstanding, Israel should be on balance very pleased with the election result. Trump is, of course, fully supportive of the slaughter of the Palestinians and is quite willing to deal similarly with the Iranians if they should “spill one drop of American blood” by “spilling gallons of theirs.” His advice to the Israeli government has been that they should “finish the job” on dealing with the Pals not for either humane or political reasons but rather because Israel is getting a bad reputation for its openly espoused massacring of civilians, including in excess of 13,000 children. In a phone call with Netanyahu in October, Trump praised escalation of Israeli military actions in Lebanon. Senator Lindsay Graham, who was on the call, described how “He didn’t tell him what to do militarily, but he expressed that he was impressed by the pagers [and] he expressed his awe for their military operations and what they have done. He told them, do what you have to do to defend yourself.”

Trump is also appreciative of the millions of dollars that went his way during the presidential campaign from Israel’s best friends in the US. The reported $100 million that came from a single donor, casino billionaire Israeli Miriam Adelson, was allegedly in exchange for a Trump agreement to permit Israel’s annexation of what remains of the Palestinian West Bank. The multi-ethnic Arab country called Palestine in 1948 would thereby become the Jewish state of Israel de jure as well as de facto. And the expansion and warmaking with Israel’s neighbors as Netanyahu seeks to establish his country’s military dominance over the entire region will go on, with US garrisons illegally based in Syria and Iraq playing supporting roles. Trump could have removed them as well as carrying out a withdrawal from Afghanistan when he was last in office, but for reasons unknown chose not to, possibly due to pressure from the Israelis.

In short, based on the record in 2016-2020 and recent campaign rhetoric, there is no possibility that President Trump will put any pressure on Israel to cease and desist from what it has been doing in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. This is potentially bad news for the Palestinians and Lebanese but it also is not welcomed by the likely majority of Americans who now oppose arming and funding Israeli genocide. It comes on top of Trump’s frequent denunciation of “useless wars” though he most often cites Ukraine in that context, promising to end that conflict “in one day” by virtue of his sheer star power, personal intervention and diplomacy. One hopes that is true, and, of course, Kiev has no powerful domestic lobby apart from the arms industry to object and continue to want to feed the fighting, so it is possible that Russia-Ukraine is actually moving towards some kind of end. Maybe if that fighting ends and sets a good example, someone in Washington will wake up and seek the same type of agreement to calm the Middle East.

by Alastair Crooke via
Strategic-Culture

Excerpt

On Saturday, an Israeli force of some 100 aircraft attacked Iran from a stand-off position in Iraq, some 70 kilometres outside the Iranian border.

A Wall Street Journal author, Walter Russell Meade, Distinguished Fellow at the Hudson Institute, wrote: “Israeli warplanes didn’t only cripple Iran’s air-defence systems and inflict painful blows on its missile-producing facilities. They also sent a message that Israel knows where Tehran’s strategic vulnerabilities are, and it can destroy them any time it wants”.

Russell Mead adduces from this reading his key point: “Military forces that have access to American military technology and intelligence-gathering capabilities can wipe the floor with militaries that rely on Moscow … American technology is the gold standard in the world of defence – even more so for a country such as Israel that has significant intelligence and technological capabilities”.

The western ‘war of imagined, created reality’ thus reaches out beyond Ukraine – to arrive in Iran.

The Narrative – U.S. tech and its Intel as ‘invincible – must be maintained. To heck with the facts. There is too much at stake to forsake it for truthfulness.

A more sober and experienced observer however, notes after four days examination, that, succinctly put:

“The IAF strikes seem to have produced minimal results; it appears however that covert operatives within Iran achieved several [inconsequential] drone hits. The Israelis launched a lot of missiles [some 56] – all from maximum stand-off distance. Iran put up a LOT of air defence missiles. There are no firm reports, nor video evidence (so far) of big ballistic missile strikes on any significant Iranian targets. The Iranians say they intercepted most of the attacking missiles, but admit some got through”.

As usual, the ‘imaginary war narrative’ being broadcast is completely detached from that which can be observed from ground imagery. Russell Meade effectively was demanding the pretence that ‘we not notice’ that Israel’s attack failed – that it did not cripple air defences, nor did it devastate any significant target.

[ . . . ]

So how can we make sense of social change when consequential shifts often arise from chaos? Whilst we search for order and patterns, we perhaps spend less time focused on an obvious but consequential truth:

Unexpected, unexplained events matter. In other words, they have a quality and meaning.

One such event seemingly happened last Saturday, when it appears that the Israeli strike on Iran suffered an unexpected ‘major hitch’ rather early in the SEAD operation (Suppressing Enemy Air Defences) to suppress and destroy Iran’s air defences. Apparently the first wave of attack was intended as the first step – once Iranian airspace had been secured – to pave the way for the subsequent F-35 strike package armed with conventional bombs.

The unexpected event – ‘Israeli media reported that an “unknown air defence system” was used to shoot down targets over Tehran province’. Reportedly, the Israeli operation was scrubbed soon after, and the victory narrative – later to be taken up by the WSJ (among many others) – was loudly proclaimed.

Of course, a victory narrative was too valuable to be foregone. Yet nonetheless, unexplained events matter.

If Israeli (or U.S.) aircraft cannot penetrate secured Iranian airspace – in whole or in part (and no Israel aircraft entered Iranian airspace on Saturday) – the entire paradigm for a U.S. or an Israeli kinetic military attack collapses: Iran has an overwhelming deeply-buried conventional missile arsenal by which to respond.

Similarly, Netanyahu’s ‘Great Victory’ paradigm implodes too – as leading Israeli intelligence commentator Ronen Bergman writes:

“A senior Israeli security official put it this way: ‘Success through failure’. Israel went to war in Gaza to achieve two goals, the release of the hostages and the dismantling of Hamas’ capabilities (not to mention its destruction in absolute and divine victory). After it failed to achieve either of these goals, another goal was added on the northern front – to return the residents safely to their homes. And it is not clear how we will achieve that goal either. Some believe that the southern front can be closed through a victory on the northern front – and now, we are sure that – if only we land a victorious blow on Iran – then it will lead to the closure of the front in the north; and this will close the front in the south, too”.

Iran says it intends to hit Israel a painful blow for last Saturday’s strike. And Israel says that it will try again to strike Iran.

How does Israel continue in this manner? Well, says the senior security official: “Perhaps the answer is “because everything is normalised. What seems to us impossible – that there is no way it will happen – suddenly happens … And everyone gets used to it, [and used] to the lack of strategy. Lack of strategy turns from a bug into a feature … Then no big deal, We’ll try something else””.

by Martin Jay

We see that Israel has no longer term military strategy, only short term excursions which will drain both its resources and the morale of its frontline soldiers.

While the whole world now waits with bated breath as to the result of the U.S. elections in only a matter of days, many are also waiting to see what are the implications for Israel’s recent strike on Iran. Despite being told by Joe Biden that it could not strike military installations it went against the advice of its chief sponsor and did precisely that. Perhaps there has never been a better example of western diplomacy failing than this incident, given that while Israel lies to its own people and the western world via news outlets more than happy to spin a yarn about the reality of the attacks, Iran now has to look at a number of options in how it will respond. But respond it surely will.

Yet this singular act is probably the most reckless to date from Netanyahu. Never before has the Israeli PM gone so far out on a limb and taken such a gambit which not only pushes the U.S. to the brink of a war with Iran but also throws a spotlight on the existential question of Israel itself. The next strike on Israel’s military infrastructure might be the final blow for Israel to function as a military entity forcing the U.S., or the next president, to intervene with Trump’s critics already pointing out that he owes a number of favours to the Zionists which they will certainly call in.

Netanyahu is desperate to keep wars on all fronts alive simply so he can remain relevant. But what is hardly talked about is the state of Israel itself, with an economy in pieces. Just how far will the next U.S. president go in supporting Israel’s new war with Iran, both in terms of military spending and breathing new life into the economy which has seen 40,000 businesses go under since October 7th 2023 and almost a million Israelis leave the country.

Netanyahu now is like a poker player who has used up all his IOUs at the table and is holding two pairs. How can he even believe he can take on Iran when even in Gaza and in Lebanon he is losing soldiers at a rate which should worry him and his generals. Yes, he has struck Hezbollah and reduced its capabilities but by no stretch of the imagination has he taken out the Iranian proxy which is still sending missiles and drones into Israel making the Israelis run to their air raid shelters even to this day.

The decision to strike Iran was surely out of an act of a gross political dilemma. However, the act itself has backfired on a level that neither he nor his entourage could imagine. Most of the targets were not even significantly damaged with a very low percentage of Israel’s missiles getting through Iran’s air defence which is so efficient that even Israel’s air force were too afraid actually fly into Iran’s airspace. Many in the west will be taken in by the spin from Israel’s lobby and impressive PR machine that it was a great victory and many sites were taken out, regardless of the fact that the IDF can’t provide one single shred of video evidence to back up such ludicrous claims, as it did previously in Gaza and Lebanon.

But the real defeat for Israel under Netanyahu is yet to come. Iran now has all the hard evidence it needs to strategize and hit Israel even harder than before. The erroneous strike on Iran by Netanyahu is not so much measured by the minor harm it did to a couple of weapons sites. It is by how now the myth of Israel’s military strength has been debunked once and for all. For decades Israel claimed superiority to everyone else, including Iran, and this was taken for granted by partisan western journalists who kept the dream alive. Remarkably, the strike on Israel by Iran on October 1st showed even Israelis that their air defence systems were hopelessly inadequate against Iran’s hypersonic missiles. That should have been enough to cool down the hot heads which straddle Netanyahu. At this point, the message he delivered at the UN, that there is “no place in Iran which Israel’s missiles cannot reach” should have been taken at face value and interpreted literally. Reaching Iranians sites is one thing. Actually taking them out is another.

Now, as the dust settles and Israel now waits for Iran’s response, the second myth that Israel’s strike capability was highly effective against Iran’s air defences is also blown. It seems like now Netanyahu’s folded as he has no more bluffs to play at the poker table. Unless of course he is deliberately coaxing his own country into a suicide strategy where Iran will completely desecrate Israel’s military leaving the U.S. little choice but to install itself on a grand scale. This so-called suicide strategy can’t be ruled out but seems hard to believe. The truth is that until Israel struck Iran, it didn’t know whether its own missiles and aircraft had the capability to penetrate Iran’s air defence system, supported heavily by Russia which sent it S-400 systems in August.

For the moment the Israeli press, as an act of desperate patriotism one can only assume, has indulged itself in a flurry of fake news stories about Iran’s air defence systems being destroyed as well as missile factories. But the jubilation will not last long. Oddly, the same media are becoming more pragmatic about Israel’s operations in Lebanon which has gone on for well over a month and in just two days managed to send over 80 body bags back to Israel, spurning a narrative which already is beginning to question the decision to cross the Lebanese border. The Jerusalem Post, in an oped, actually is admitting that the campaign is losing its credibility due to the number of lost lives of IDF soldiers. “The number of soldiers being killed in southern Lebanon also appears to be rising instead of falling over time” it opines. “The strikes against Hezbollah, such as the killing of Radwan commanders in September and the elimination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, should have weakened the group’s command and control”.

The article is a remarkable admission of Israel’s strategy being misconceived and poorly planned, just like the 2006 invasion. But getting IDF soldiers out of southern Lebanon will be much harder than sending them there as Netanyahu has pushed his arm into a hornet’s nest. Israel cannot consider a war of attrition against Hezbollah as even Netanyahu knows he cannot win. His only means to scoring points are assassinations and bombing civilians in southern Beirut, a strategy which many would call terrorism. His team of military goons have not learnt the lesson that aerial bombardment is not a deal breaker in a war against a disciplined guerrilla outfit. It failed in Iraq. It even failed in Vietnam. Again, we see that Israel has no longer term military strategy, only short term excursions which will drain both its resources and the morale of its frontline soldiers.

Original article: Strategic Culture Foundation