Friday, January 14, 2022

Arab Racism and the 'Jewish State' - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

It is worth considering the extreme hypocrisy of this situation: the Arabs (and the Palestinians) continue their long-held policy of defining their countries as "Arab" and "Islamic," while they deny Israel the right to refer to itself what it always has been -- the Jewish state.

  • First, Mansour Abbas did not "call" on the Palestinian people to recognize Israel. He simply stated the fact that Israel was "born as a Jewish state" and that "it will remain a Jewish state."

  • Second, there is no connection between accepting Israel's Jewish identity and the Islamic holy sites, including the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Since 1967, in fact, Israel has allowed the Islamic religious authorities to have exclusive control over the mosque and other Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem.

  • Remarkably, since the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, the city has become a haven for coexistence and revitalized religious and cultural expression for all faiths. Freedom of worship at all holy sites is guaranteed for the faithful of all three monotheistic religions.

  • Ironically, the Palestinian leadership's false claim that Israel is seeking to "harm" the al-Aqsa Mosque came as Palestinians made two attempts to set fire to Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, only because it is frequented by Jewish worshippers. The attempts, according to reports in the Palestinian media, were foiled at the last minute by the Palestinian security forces.

  • Third, the Palestinian leadership's claim that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state "contradicts religion and history" should be seen in the context of the Palestinians' denial of any traces of Judaism in Jerusalem.

  • Notably, while the PA says that it is strongly opposed to the idea of Israel being a Jewish state, it has no problem defining itself as "Arab" and "Islamic."

  • There are 56 countries in which Islam plays a significant role. Many of them are countries with Islam as the state religion.

  • The constitutions of several Arab countries, including Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Oman and Yemen, define them as Arab states where Islam is the religion of the state.

  • It is worth considering the extreme hypocrisy of this situation: the Arabs (and the Palestinians) continue their long-held policy of defining their countries as "Arab" and "Islamic," while they deny Israel the right to refer to itself what it always has been -- the Jewish state.

  • This does not bode well for any peace process that the Biden administration is hoping to revive between the Palestinians and Israel.

  • Those who refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state are actually admitting that they do not believe in Israel's right to exist.

Palestinians and other Arabs are furious because Mansour Abbas -- an Arab member of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, and head of the United List Party -- announced that he recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. Abbas is being denounced as a "traitor" and "Zionist" by many Palestinians and Arabs who define their countries and political systems as "Arab" or "Islamic." Pictured: Abbas in the Knesset on September 2, 2021. (Photo by Ahmad Gharabli/AFP via Getty Images)

Palestinians and other Arabs are furious because Mansour Abbas -- an Arab member of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, and head of the United List Party -- announced that he recognizes Israel as a Jewish state.

Abbas is being denounced as a "traitor" and "Zionist" by many Palestinians and Arabs who define their countries and political systems as "Arab" or "Islamic." They claim that the idea of a Jewish state is "racist" but seem not to feel the same way about openly Islamic states: The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania

If the Palestinians, as well as Arab and Islamic countries, are labelling Israel as racist because it wants to define itself as a Jewish state, then they too are racists because they insist on defining themselves as "Arabs" and "Muslims."

Mansour Abbas should receive commendation for his public recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; instead, he has received threats. These are coming from the many Palestinians and Arabs who will never accept Israel's existence or its classification as a Jewish state.

"Israel was born as a Jewish state, that was the decision of the people, and it will remain a Jewish state," Abbas said.

The Palestinians argue that one of the reasons they are opposed to the idea of Israel being a Jewish state is because it would deprive millions of Palestinian refugees from achieving a "right of return."

A Palestinian "right of return" means flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians, turning it into a Palestinian state in which Jews would live as a minority under "Arab" and "Islamic" rule.

This result would mean that the Palestinians would end up with two states: one in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, and another that would replace Israel. The Palestinians, however, already have two separate mini-states: one in the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority (PA) and a second in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

The PA was among the first to come out against the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. Notably, this is the same PA whose leaders signed the Oslo Accords with Israel beginning in 1993, and continue to argue that they already have recognized Israel's right to exist. This is also the same PA whose leaders continue to talk about their desire to establish a Palestinian state next to Israel.

"The Palestinian [Authority] Presidency expressed its strong rejection and indignation at the statements of the head of the United List, Mansour Abbas, in which he calls on the Palestinian people to recognize the Jewish state," the PA said in a statement.

"These irresponsible statements are consistent with the calls of extremists in Israel to displace the Palestinians and harm the status of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the history of the Palestinian people. Mansour Abbas, with such statements, represents only himself, and does not represent the Palestinian people. Such statements contradict religion, history and Palestinian heritage."

The Palestinian leadership's statement is misleading and contains a number of inaccuracies and falsehoods.

First, Mansour Abbas did not "call" on the Palestinian people to recognize Israel. He simply stated the fact that Israel was "born as a Jewish state" and that "it will remain a Jewish state."

Second, there is no connection between accepting Israel's Jewish identity and the Islamic holy sites, including the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Since 1967, in fact, Israel has allowed the Islamic religious authorities to have exclusive control over the mosque and other Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem.

Remarkably, since the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, the city has become a haven for coexistence and revitalized religious and cultural expression for all faiths. Freedom of worship at all holy sites is guaranteed for the faithful of all three monotheistic religions.

According to the Palestinians themselves, 50,000 Muslim worshippers attended the Friday prayers at the al-Aqsa Mosque on December 31. How, one might ask, does that fit with their claim that accepting Israel as a Jewish state would "harm the status of the blessed mosque?" No one in Israel has ever said that he or she wants Arabs and Muslims to recognize Israel as a Jewish state because such a step would deny them access to the mosque.

Ironically, the Palestinian leadership's false claim that Israel is seeking to "harm" the al-Aqsa Mosque came as Palestinians made two attempts to set fire to Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, only because it is frequented by Jewish worshippers. The attempts, according to reports in the Palestinian media, were foiled at the last minute by the Palestinian security forces.

It was not the first time Palestinians had attacked and vandalized the site. On several occasions, the Palestinians have also attacked the Jewish worshippers and the soldiers guarding them.

Third, the Palestinian leadership's claim that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state "contradicts religion and history" should be seen in the context of the Palestinians' denial of any traces of Judaism in Jerusalem. Just recently, this claim was again parroted by Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, who said:

"We are on the outskirts of the eternal capital [Jerusalem], the jewel in the crown, the point where heaven and earth meet. Jerusalem has Canaanite, Roman, Islamic, and Christian antiquities and is theirs alone, and no one else has any traces in it."

Interestingly, while the PA says that it is strongly opposed to the idea of Israel being a Jewish state, it has no problem defining itself as "Arab" and "Islamic."

Article 1 of the Palestinian Basic Law (constitution) states: "Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation."

Article 4 of the law states: "Islam is the official religion in Palestine. The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be a principal source of legislation."

The Palestinians, in short, are saying that while Israel has no right to call itself a Jewish state, they have every right to label the Palestinian Authority as "Arab" and "Islamic."

Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that does not recognize Israel's right to exist, has also denounced Mansour Abbas for recognizing Israel as a Jewish state:

"The statements of the Israeli Knesset member [Mansour Abbas], in which he expressed his recognition of the so-called Jewish state, is nothing but a flagrant bias to the Zionist narrative, and a clear violation of the position of the Palestinian national consensus rejecting and denouncing it."

This is the same Hamas whose covenant is rife with overt antisemitism and a commitment to the destruction of Israel through jihad (holy war). Like the Palestinian Authority, Hamas too wants to establish a Palestinian state where Shari'a law is the source of legislation.

Article 11 of the Hamas charter states:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered; it, or any part of it, should not be given up... this is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Shari'a and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of [Islamic] conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations until the Day of Judgement."

Article 36 of the Hamas charter states:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement adopts Islam as its way of life. Islam is at its creed and religion. Whoever takes Islam as his way of life, be it an organization, a grouping, a country or any other body, the Islamic Resistance movement considers itself as their soldiers and nothing more."

It is not only the Palestinians who consider Islam to be their "way of life." There are 56 countries in which Islam plays a significant role. Many of them are countries with Islam as the state religion.

The constitutions of several Arab countries, including Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Oman and Yemen, define them as Arab states where Islam is the religion of the state.

Yet this has not prevented the 22 members of the Arab League from endorsing the Palestinians' rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.

It is worth considering the extreme hypocrisy of this situation: the Arabs (and the Palestinians) continue their long-held policy of defining their countries as "Arab" and "Islamic," while they deny Israel the right to refer to itself what it always has been -- the Jewish state.

This does not bode well for any peace process that the Biden administration is hoping to revive between the Palestinians and Israel.

Those who refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state are actually admitting that they do not believe in Israel's right to exist.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

 

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18098/arabs-racism-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Mitch McConnell gives a floor speech flogging Biden - Andrea Widburg

 

​ by Andrea Widburg

The senator from Kentucky never takes a stand unless he's first assured that the wind is at his back. That's why his attack on his former colleague matters.

Although Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell entered the Senate 12 years after Joe Biden did, their joint service still goes back 37 years, to 1985.  McConnell has therefore known Biden a long time, and both men are dedicated to the idea of Senate collegiality.  Additionally, McConnell is an exceptionally wily guy who never takes a stand unless he's first assured that the wind is at his back.  That's why it matters a great deal that, on Wednesday, McConnell launched a brutal attack against Biden based on Biden's shrill demagoguery in Atlanta the day before.

There's no doubt that Biden's was a most peculiar speech.  In the flat, haranguing tones that have become his norm during his first year in the White House, Biden called 52 senators hate-filled racists and insurrectionists by likening them to famous and disreputable Democrats of the past.

It was probably the most inflammatory speech ever given by someone in the White House.  Even in the lead-up to the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) always tried to speak in conciliatory tones.  But not Joe Biden.  His speech was truly ugly.

For the past year, McConnell has given Biden a pass.  He's also made nice with his Democrat colleagues, whether it was allowing the filibuster to be up for grabs based on promises from Senators Manchin and Sinema that they would not vote to dispose of the filibuster (a promise each is currently keeping, thank God) or going along with the Democrats' vile narrative about January 6, including attacking Trump.

Regarding that last, it's not clear whether McConnell, showing the same cowardice as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, really thought he'd be raped or killed, or whether he's afraid that the Democrats will try to oust him from office as an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Whatever his motive, he did not endear himself to the vast pro-Trump wing of the Republican Party.


Image: Mitch McConnell lambastes Biden (edited in befunky).  Twitter screen grab.

On Wednesday, though, McConnell changed his tune and went from attacking Trump to attacking Biden.  And I must say, even though I dislike and distrust the man (although I will be forever grateful that he kept Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court), it was a well deserved, well stated, and entirely accurate throw-down:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ripped into President Biden's Georgia speech on the Democratic push for voting rights legislation, calling it "profoundly unpresidential."

In a scathing address on the Senate floor, the Kentucky Republican accused Biden of calling millions of Americans "domestic enemies" while comparing "a bipartisan majority of senators to literal traitors."

"How profoundly, profoundly unpresidential," McConnell said. "Look, I've known, liked, and personally respected Joe Biden for many years. I did not recognize the man at that podium yesterday."

McConnell said Biden's speech was a "rant," "incoherent," "incorrect," "beneath his office" and "unbecoming of a president of the United States." He pointed to Biden's inaugural address last January in which the newly sworn-in president said "every disagreement doesn't have to be a cause for total war."

"That was just 12 months ago. But yesterday, he poured a giant can of gasoline on the fire," the senator said, later adding that Biden said "anyone who opposes smashing the Senate and letting Democrats rewrite election law is a domestic 'enemy' and a traitor like Jefferson Davis."

Because McConnell is a canny man who never gets too far over his skis, his full frontal attack on Biden means that McConnell is reasonably certain that Biden's presidency has nowhere to go but down.  And by making that statement on the Senate floor, McConnell is reminding Chuck Schumer that the latter's wagon is hitched to a fading, falling star.  All the momentum behind the Democrats is gone.  This was a "kick 'em when they're down" speech, and a good one, too.


Andrea Widburg

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/mitch_mcconnell_gives_a_floor_speech_flogging_biden.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Dark Thoughts from the Wife of Dr. Doom - Lloyd Billingsley

 

​ by Lloyd Billingsley

The NIH bioethics boss, a specialist in “human subjects” research, explains it all for you.

 


“This book was written by the author in her private capacity. Opinions expressed are her own. No official support or endorsement by the NINR [National Institute of Nursing Research] the NIH [National Institutes of Health] or other agencies is intended or should be inferred regarding the views presented here.”

Those are the first words a reader encounters in The Search for an AIDS Vaccine: Ethical Issues in the Development and Testing of a Preventative HIV Vaccine, by Christine Grady, from Indiana University Press back in 1995. In the acknowledgments, doubts begin to rise.

The author thanks “my mentor,” Georgetown professor Leroy Walters, along with several academics and medical doctors. Also mentioned are two officials at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a division of the NIH, and Mary Ropka and others at the Clinical Therapeutics Laboratory at the NINR.

On the book’s final page, readers learn that “Christine Grady is Acting Clinical Director and Research Associate at the National Institute of Nursing Research, the National Institutes of Health,” the very agency that that supposedly offers no support or endorsement for Grady’s book, which is “dedicated to my family.”

How strange, then, that the author includes no acknowledgement for her husband, Dr. Anthony Fauci, whom she married ten years earlier in 1985. Dr. Fauci shows up on page 55, his only named appearance, as the “director of NIAID,” conveniently enough, “the branch of the NIH primarily responsible for vaccine development.” His wife finds limited success in the development of vaccines against retroviral infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and acknowledges that “HIV is an STD.”

HIV is also “associated with social deviance,” but no reference to works such as How to Have Sex in an Epidemic, from 1983, or And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic, by Randy Shilts and first published in 1987. Both works outline bathhouse culture and the widespread use of amyl and butyl nitrites, also known as “poppers” and their destructive effects on health. Grady also ignores The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, by Michael Fumento, first published in 1990.

Grady does recall how the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) and other activists were “taking matters into their own hands.” In July of 1990, Dr. Anthony Fauci, announced that such activists would have representation on all committees and in all activities of NIAID’s AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG).

“The regulations governing the conduct for clinical trials for vaccines in the U.S.,” Grady explains, “are the same as those for clinical trials of drugs.” The drug of choice for NIAID was  AZT, azidothymidine, marketed as Zidovudine and Retrovir.

As UC Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg noted in 1990, AZT is a DNA chain terminator designed for treatment of leukemia but never accepted for cancer therapy. AZT is cytotoxic, lethal to body cells, and there was no evidence that AZT would cure or prevent AIDS. Professor Duesberg wrote the foreword to John Lauritsen’s Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story, published in 1992 and endorsed by, among others, UC Berkeley molecular biologist Harry Rubin, a pioneer in the field of retroviruses.

In his book, Lauritsen noted “Effects of Continuous Intravenous Infusion of Zidovudine (AZT) in Children with Symptomatic HIV Infection,” by Phillip Rizzo et al, published in the New England Journal of Medicine on October 6, 1988. Five of the 21 children in the trial died but Christine Grady, a mother of three daughters, makes no reference to Poison by Prescription and touts “the availability and effectiveness of AZT” as a boon to research.

The AIDS activists demanded the drug as their right and advanced a curious view of those participating in the clinical trials. As Grady notes, the exclusion of vulnerable groups such as children or women of childbearing age, “was called discriminatory.” Instead of being harmful, exploitative and unjust, “participation in clinical trials was seen as a benefit, so those denied access were being harmed. Some perceived participation not only as a benefit but as a right.”

The rules for clinical drug tests and vaccine development are the same, and Grady explains that children “should not be one of the first groups to bear the burdens of efficacy testing of preventive vaccines.” (emphasis added) So the bioethicist does not rule out the use of children to “bear the burdens” of drug trials. Indeed, as she wrote on page 6, “the ideal HIV vaccine should be safe enough to administer to large numbers of healthy adults and children.”

In 1992, Dr. Fauci’s NAIAD approved secretive trials of AZT and other dangerous drugs with foster children in New York, nearly all of them African American. Those trials escape detailed analysis in Grady’s narrative, which advances a new ethos for vaccine research and application. For example, on page 72:

Protection of the rights, interests, and well-being of the individual as the main consideration in ethical guidance concerning the conduct of clinical research has been criticized by international scientists, representatives of developing countries, epidemiologists, and others. Some have argued stridently for a better balance between individual interests and societies’ interests. Some critics have claimed that the research codes’ emphasis on individualism and protection of individual rights (based on a Western political liberal philosophy) is incompatible with less individualistic cultural and moral perspectives in which persons define themselves in relation to their community, and in which conflict between the interests of the individual and the community would be hard to imagine.

On page 73, Grady cites an epidemiologist who contends:

A person-dominated medical ethic that focuses primarily on individual rights and duties and does not see individuals as part of a wider social order and community is insufficient for the task of setting moral and human rights boundaries around the conduct of research populations.

Grady repeats such contentions several times, and she is pretty much on board with it. 

“The primary participant and beneficiary of vaccine research is the community,” concludes Grady, who recommends research “in which the client and principal beneficiary is the community.” That was where she was going with it, and 27 years later, Christine Grady is the head of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, responsible for “human subjects.”

The Search for an AIDS Vaccine was essentially ventriloquism for Dr. Fauci, chief medical advisor to Joe Biden, who jokes that Dr. Fauci is the real president of the United States. Like his wife Christine, “individualism and protection of individual rights” mean little if anything to the NIAID boss, a government bureaucrat since 1968.

“There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision, for the greater good of society,” said Dr. Fauci last October. Dr. Fauci’s bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry and his prediction that AIDS would ravage vast swaths of the population was hopelessly wrong. Dr. Fauci has reversed himself many times but now claims “I represent science.” That claim gives parents plenty to ponder. 

Children are low risk for COVID-19 but Dr. Fauci wants to vaccinate them, starting in the first grade. Remember, according to his wife, the rules for vaccine development are the same as for drug trials. Children should not be “one of the first groups to bear the burdens of efficacy testing of preventive vaccines,” but for Grady it’s okay to use the children to bear such burdens.

As parents might note, Pfizer wants 75 years before revealing the data on its vaccine, and harmful side effects are already turning up with others. In The Search for an AIDS Vaccine, Grady hinted at what could possibly go wrong with medical research on human subjects.

“Nazi Germany brought the difficult issues in research with human subjects to the attention of the public and medical/scientific communities,” Grady writes. “In the name of ‘experimentation,’ human torture and atrocities were performed on thousands of Jews and justified as medical research.”

Dr. Josef Mengele is not mentioned but “Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling infected more than 1,000 prisoners at Dachau with malaria without their consent.” The experiments exposed at the Nuremberg trials “forced an examination of human research,” and “the medical profession was aware that serious breaches of ethics had occurred in the past.” For someone concerned with ethics, that is not exactly a strong condemnation.

The drug Thalidomide, designed to treat nausea in pregnant women, was “thought to be exceptionally safe,” Grady writes, but left “thousands of children with severe and unusual deformities” such as hands attached to shoulders, feet attached to hips and so forth. “The harm done was the result of inadequate research,” says the wife of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who avoids some dark history about this drug once thought to be exceptionally safe. 

“Some babies had no arms or legs. Others had no ears or malformed kidney,” writes Katie Thomas of the New York Times. Thalidomide was the product of the German company

Chemie Grünenthal, “whose head of research, Dr. Heinrich Mückter, was a Nazi war criminal.” If nurse-bioethicist Grady encountered that information in any of her studies, it does not emerge in The Search for an AIDS Vaccine, published two years after she earned a PhD in philosophy from Georgetown University.

The Tuskegee syphilis study, conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) never offered the effective therapy of penicillin to “poor black males,” some tracked for more than 40 years. Christine Grady cites an opinion that the Tuskegee program had “not provided informed consent, lacked a written protocol and was questionably designed.”

Others believed the study was “racist,” but no word from the bioethicist about violation of the black males’ individual rights, including their right to live. Grady advocates “justice as a principle requiring equitable selection of subject,” but does not invoke justice in the Tuskegee case.

Christine Grady wants research in which “the client and principal beneficiary is the community,” not the individual. Her husband, Dr. Anthony Fauci is on record that individuals must give up “what they consider” to be their right to make their own decision. Whatever decision Dr. Anthony Fauci makes, it’s a safe bet that chief NIH bioethicist Christine Grady has signed off on it. Dr. Fauci lied about funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, so if Christine told him lying was ethically wrong he must have ignored her.

This casuist and her megalomaniac husband now wield executive-level power in America. It is as though Richard Nixon’s wife Pat headed the Federal Election Commission and found no ethical objection to the Watergate operation. Unlike Nixon and all other presidents, Dr. Fauci has never faced a vote of the people.

His forced lockdowns caused untold suffering and loss, but statements of sympathy from Dr. Fauci and his wife are hard to find. Their “human subjects” are now the entire populace, right down to those first-grade students, also known as children. Being a “subject” is different than being a citizen, with rights the government is bound by law to respect and preserve.

Dr. Anthony Fauci and his wife Christine Grady are the embodiment of white coat supremacy, rule over the people by unelected medical bureaucrats. White coat supremacy is incompatible with American democracy, and if embattled Americans believed it is also bad for their health and safety it would be hard to blame them.

 

Lloyd Billingsley

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/nihlist-thought-dr-dooms-wife-christine-grady-lloyd-billingsley/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lebanese Journalists: Hizbullah Behind Attacks By South Lebanon Residents On UNIFIL Forces - MEMRI

 

​ by MEMRI

This report reviews statements and articles by anti-Hizbullah Lebanese journalists who condemned the aggression towards UNIFIL and accused Hizbullah of being behind it.

In the last few weeks, there were two incidents in which residents of South Lebanon attacked UNIFIL forces that are deployed in the area in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution 1701. On December 22, 2021, locals in the town of Shaqra clashed with a UNIFIL patrol that was photographing buildings in the town.[1] Several UNIFIL troops were injured and some of their vehicles were damaged before Lebanese army forces managed to extricate them from the town.[2] This incident occurred one day after UN Secretary-General António Guterres made a visit to Lebanon, on which he called to guarantee UNIFIL's freedom of movement and urged Hizbullah to become " a purely political party, like any other political force in the country," i.e., to surrender its weapons.[3]  Some two weeks later, on January 4, 2022, a similar incident occurred when residents of the village of Bint Jbeil attacked UNIFIL troops, again on the grounds that they were taking pictures of their homes.

The Al-Akhbar daily, with is close to Hizbullah, blamed both incidents on the UNIFIL forces. Following the first incident, it claimed that the UNIFIL troops had deliberately hurt two young men after locals asked them what they were doing.[4] The daily also claimed that, on both occasions, UNIFIL had violated Resolution 1701 by entering the localities without a Lebanese army escort. It added that UNIFIL had instigated the incidents as part of its bid to change the rules of engagement and increase its freedom of movement.[5]

Conversely, Candice Ardell, deputy director of UNIFIL's media office, condemned the attacks on the peacekeeping forces, calling them a violation of the Lebanese and international laws, which guarantee UNIFIL freedom of movement throughout its area of operation as defined by Resolution 1701. She denied that UNIFIL had taken pictures in Bint Jbeil, calling this "misinformation" and clarifying that the troops were on their way to a regular meeting with Lebanese army officers. She implied that the incidents had been deliberately instigated by Hizbullah, condemning "those who manipulate the residents of the area to their own ends", and urged   the Lebanese authorities to prosecute those responsible for the attacks.[6] In an interview with the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar, Ardell again condemned the attacks, calling them a crime. Denying Al-Akhbar's claims that UNIFIL was violating the terms of Resolution 1701, she demanded "to respect UNIFIL's authorities and its freedom of movement," and said that this disinformation about the peacekeeping forces was "destructive, dangerous, and a threat to security and stability."[7]  

Lebanon's foreign ministry likewise condemned the incidents, clarifying that aggression towards UNIFIL forces was unacceptable and that their safety must be ensured.[8]  Hizbullah, for its part, did not respond to the events.

It should be noted that incidents of this sort occur periodically in South Lebanon. According to opponents of Hizbullah, they are instigated by this organization – with the aid of the local population, which is under its influence – as a hostile messages from the organization and its patron Iran to the UN and to the West in general.[9] This time, too, several Lebanese journalists wrote that the attacks on UNIFIL were meant to convey a warning by Hizbullah to UNIFIL itself, and to the UN, the U.S. and other international elements, that Hizbullah is the decision-maker in Lebanon, and certainly in the South. Some assessed that the incidents came in response to Guterres' visit to Lebanon, and reflect apprehension on Hizbullah's part regarding possible intentions of the UN and other international elements to expand UNIFIL's powers in Lebanon.  One journalist stated that the incidents were also a message from Hizbullah to the Lebanese army, warning it not to help UNIFIL or facilitate its activity. 

This report reviews statements and articles by anti-Hizbullah Lebanese journalists who condemned the aggression towards UNIFIL and accused Hizbullah of being behind it.

Shi'ite Lebanese Journalist Who Opposes Hizbullah: The Incident Was A Message From Hizbullah, Which Wants To Curb UNIFIL's Authority

Following the December 22 clash between the UNIFIL patrol and locals in the town of Shaqra, 'Ali Al-Amin, a Shi'ite Lebanese journalist and the editor of the Al-Janoubia website, known as a fierce critic of Hizbullah, wrote: "The attacks on UNIFIL are a 'show of force' by Hizbullah against the international forces, in light of the growing calls to implement the international resolutions and in light of the American pressure to adjust UNIFIL's mandate and expand its mission.  This happens every year ahead of the [UN Security Council's]  renewal of UNIFIL's mandate in August. These incidents were a message by Hizbullah, that the existing situation must be maintained. The organization wants [these] international forces to be limited in their movement, based on the existing situation [on the ground], and seeks to keep them from acting on the force of the international resolutions… This is a new balance [of power] that Hizbullah is imposing in order to limit the mission of the international [forces] and keep them from expanding their current mission…"  

Al-Amin stated further that "Hizbullah's message is not a reflection of its actual power, [but] of its discomfort in light of the situation in the region, the talk about Syria, the fact that the international negotiations [with Iran in Vienna] include the issue of Hizbullah's expansion [in other countries], and the increasing talk about the need to implement the international resolutions, to delineate the border [with Israel], etc…." Amin also assessed that the attack on the UNIFIL forces in Shaqra had been planned in advance: "Hizbullah," he wrote, "wanted photos and videos [of the incident] to be spread, so that the UN and the international community would get the message, that South [Lebanon] operates according to [Hizbullah's] perceptions." [10] 

Lebanese Journalist: Hizbullah Wanted To Inform The UN That It Is The Boss In Lebanon, And Warn The Lebanese Army Not To Cooperate With UNIFIL

Journalist Walid Choucair, a columnist for the Nida Al-Watan paper, identified with the March 14 Forces, likewise wrote that the clash with UNIFIL was intended to convey to the UN, and even more than so the U.S., that Hizbullah is the boss in Lebanon and especially in the South, and also to warn the Lebanese army not to make it too easy for UNIFIL to carry out its mission.  He wrote: "A few hours after [UN Secretary-General] Guterres ended his visit to Lebanon – a visit that indicated that the involvement of international elements in handling the crisis in Lebanon… is only growing – he received news about a clash between 'residents' and a UNIFIL patrol in the southern town of Shaqra, in which [locals] pelted the [UNIFIL] patrol vehicles with stones and destroyed some of them. This was one of a series of [similar] incidents [in the past year], which the UN is likely to mention in its biannual report…

"'Residents' is the term Hizbullah likes to use when referring to incidents of this sort. It takes advantage of the anger felt by the villagers [in South Lebanon] towards the international forces when they try to search some building or neighborhood in order to make sure that they do not house a weapons or ammunition depot or to determine the veracity of intelligence they have received to this effect… It is difficult to rule out the assumption that, [with this incident], Hizbullah meant to convey a message to the UN and the countries behind it, that the arrival of the organization's official [i.e., Guterres] in the country to oversee the international handling of the Lebanese crisis is subject to the approval of the influential group in Lebanon [i.e., Hizbullah], and not to the approval of the [country's] political leadership,  with whom he met.

"That is, the message went beyond the issue of UNIFIL's freedom of movement in its area of operation. [Hizbullah's] message is part of the campaign it is waging against 'the international involvement' in Lebanon, and especially against the Americans, who it says  are trying to incite against the resistance in order to weaken it in the upcoming parliamentary elections. [According to Hizbullah, they do this] by supporting civil society organizations through which they deliver aid to the Lebanese. [Hizbullah's] goal is to clarify to these elements that 'we [Hizbullah] are the ones who decide' on freedom of movement in South Lebanon, and more importantly, freedom of movement throughout [the country] is under our supervision…

"The message is also directed at the Lebanese army, even though it did not escort the UNIFIL patrol [that was attacked in this incident]. The army has begun receiving monthly aid from UNIFIL in the form of fuel, medical supplies and food for 27,000 soldiers and officers, in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution from August [2021], which renewed [the mandate] of the international forces for another year. By means of the incident in Shaqra, the 'residents' prevented any possibility of the army taking the issue of UNIFIL's 'freedom of movement' too lightly."[11]


The incident in Shaqra (Source: Al-Akhbar, Lebanon, December 22, 2021)

Lebanese Journalist: Most Lebanese Support UNIFIL And Prefer Peace Over War In The Service Of Iran And Syria

In his column in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Lebanese journalist and political analyst Hazem Saghieh likewise accused Hizbullah of instigating the clashes with UNIFIL in order to prove that it is the boss in South Lebanon. He wrote that in Lebanon there are two opposite views: one is the view of most Lebanese, who support UNIFIL and wish to avoid conflicts, and the other is the view of Hizbullah, which wants to keep the option of conflict open in order to further the interests of Iran and Syria. The following are excerpts from his column, as it appeared in the daily's English edition:

"Would we be exaggerating if we said that the United Nation Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is at the top of the long list of things Hezbollah hates?

"We’ll delay answering this question to offer a reminder of what happened a few days ago in the border town of Shaqra in South Lebanon: a clash between the 'local community,' i.e., Hezbollah supporters, and the 'international forces' (Finnish according to one narrative and Irish according to another).

"Here, we could drown ourselves in endless minutiae. However, one thing is impossible to believe; Hezbollah and its followers’ claim: the 'international forces' engaged in 'dubious activity,' and an armored vehicle 'intentionally' ran over two youths from the 'local community.'

"Upon hearing this narrative, one is surprised by the idea that international soldiers, be they Finnish or Irish, had harassed the residents of a safe and peaceful village in South Lebanon. It sounds like something that requires a lot of cinematic imagination.

"Like many others, we find that it is most probable that the secret lies elsewhere: it lies first in United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s visit to the 'international forces' in the South two days before the incident and the criticism he was reported as directing at Hezbollah, like his demand that it turns into a political party. Guterres was told, through the Shaqra incident, that Hezbollah is in charge in the South, not the United Nations. Secondly, it lies in the ongoing battle over UNIFIL’s powers, which allow it to play its role. This requires freedom of movement and the mandate to install cameras to ensure compliance with UN Resolution 1701. Guterres himself had also raised the need to respect those powers.

"In other words, and this is the bottom line: the tension, with its political underpinnings that go beyond the details, is between a faction that wants to avert any armed conflict, to make it impossible if it can, and another that wants to keep the option [of conflict] open. Indeed, the latter wants conflict to be easy to stir up: if it is in the interest of Tehran or Damascus, Lebanon will be dragged into the fight with no constraints or parameters imposed by the 'international forces'…

"And so, we are facing a new round of that old battle between two opposing views: one that does not want Lebanon to be dragged into wars, and another that wants nothing but that for the country…

"The 'international forces' deter this project. They do not want Lebanon to be a country at war or on the brink of war every so often. They want to keep the peace in our country, peace protected by a UN resolution. The last thing on their minds is recruiting youths from Ireland and Finland to bring them to Lebanon so they can attack innocent inhabitants of Shaqra…

"Given that we are living in a time when the hostility of sects for one another is increasing, it is not difficult to conceive of youths from strange distant countries, who have different colors to ours and speak different languages, being dealt with this way.

"That is how it becomes understandable that UNIFIL tops the long list of things Hezbollah hates. It also becomes understandable, for the same reason, that the vast majority of Lebanese, to whom life means more than martyrdom and whose country’s security means more to them than improving Iran’s military conditions, are clinging to the 'international forces'!"[12]


UNIFIL patrol attacked in village of Kawthariyat Al-Siyad one year ago (Source: Kataeb.org, December 4, 2020)

 


[1] According to reports by some locals, the patrol was taking pictures of a Hizbullah military area. Almodon.com, December 22, 2021.

[2]  Arabic.rt.com, December 22, 2021.

[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 24, 2021.

[4]  Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), December 23, 2021.

[5]  Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 6, 2022.

[6] Al-Jumhouriyya (Lebanon), January 5, 2022.

[7]  Al-Nahar (Lebanon), January 9, 2022.

[8] Arabi21.com, December 23, 2021.

[10]  Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 24, 2021.

[11]  Nidaalwatan.com, December 24, 2021.

[12] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 26, 2021.

 

MEMRI

Source: https://www.memri.org/reports/lebanese-journalists-hizbullah-behind-attacks-south-lebanon-residents-unifil-forces

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thousands rally on behalf of Homesh, call for Bennett to resign - Tovah Lazaroff

 

​ by Tovah Lazaroff

MK Itamar Ben-Gvir called Ra'am Party head Mansour Abbas a terrorist and the crowd loudly chanted the slur "terrorist" multiple times.

 

Right wing activists protest the demolition of structures in the illegal outpost of Homesh, outside the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem on January 13, 2021 (photo credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)
Right wing activists protest the demolition of structures in the illegal outpost of Homesh, outside the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem on January 13, 2021 (photo credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)

 
Prime Minister Naftali Bennett must resign, chanted thousands of right-wing activists as they rallied outside his Jerusalem home on Thursday night.
 
“This government will fall, warned Binyamin  Regional head Israel Ganz, as he stated that those on the Right “were heading out to battle.”
 
He stood on a makeshift stage set up on the closed off street. The crowd below him chanted “Bennett resign, we don’t want you anymore.”
 
They gathered under the slogan “No to razing Homesh” to demand that the government authorize the Homesh yeshiva situated on that West Bank hilltop in northern Samaria. They also called on the government to rebuild the settlement that the government destroyed there in 2005 in the aftermath of the Gaza pullout.
 
“This is our land. Judea and Samaria is an indivisible part of Israel,” Samaria regional council head Yossi Dagan said, adding “This government will fall over Homesh and the Negev.”
 
MK Itamar Ben Gvir protests the demolition of structures in the illegal outpost of Homesh, outside the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem on January 13, 2021 (credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90) MK Itamar Ben Gvir protests the demolition of structures in the illegal outpost of Homesh, outside the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem on January 13, 2021 (credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)
 
The event marked the 30th day since the terror attack that killed Yehuda Dimentman, 25, as he left the Homesh hilltop.
 
He had been a student at the Homesh yeshiva and had dreamed of restoring a Jewish community on that hilltop.
 
The speakers included parliamentarians mostly from the Religious Zionist party, including its leader MK Bezalel Smotrich and MK Orit Struk. Settler leaders and Yehuda’s wife Ethia and father Rabbi Mordechai Dimentman also spoke.
 
A few of the activists held up a sign that said, “Bennett is a liar.”
 
Speakers included a number of other issues, including the meeting of Defense Minister Benny Gantz with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas; illegal Palestinian construction in Area C of the West Bank and the decision to hook up some illegal Israeli-Arab homes in the Negev to the electricity grid.
 
MK Itamar Ben-Gvir called Ra’am Party head Mansour Abbas a terrorist and the crowd loudly chanted the slur “terrorist” multiple times.
 
The left-wing group Peace Now charged that the Homesh hilltop was a “hotbed of settler violence against soldiers and Palestinians.
 
“Every day the criminal outpost is not evacuated, is a mark of the Israeli government’s surrender to ‘hilltop youth’ and their patron Yossi Dagan.  This will inevitably lead to more violence. “We call on Defense Minister Benny Gantz to stop bowing to criminals... and to order its dismantling... today.
 
“Only an uncompromising fight against the illegal outposts and their razing will prevent more cases of settler violence,” Peace Now said.

 

Tovah Lazaroff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-692492

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hassan Nasrallah’s Litany of Woe - Hugh Fitzgerald


​ by Hugh Fitzgerald

The abandoned Hizballah leader and his forlorn hope.

 

 

The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has just gotten a few things off his chest. He’s been having, you see, a bad time of it recently. His sole supporter is Iran, an economic basket case that has seen its currency lose 90% of its value in the last two years. That has meant less money is being transferred from Iran to Nasrallah’s coffers, and he, in turn, has had to cut the salaries of his flag-waving fighters goose-stepping along the streets of Beirut. He’s also facing a political challenge: the incorruptible Tarek Bitar insists on pursuing his investigation into the Beirut blast of August 4, 2020, and so far Hezbollah’s attempts to intimidate him so that he calls off his inquiry have failed. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is universally understood to be the party responsible for that explosion, by having carelessly stored 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrates in Hangar 12 at the Port of Beirut; Nasrallah continues nonetheless to deny that responsibility, and is desperate to keep Bitar from bringing the incontrovertible evidence before the Lebanese authorities, and before an enraged public as well. Despite Hezbollah’s threats, Tarek Bitar soldiers on.

Nasrallah has just been delivered another body-blow: his erstwhile Christian allies in the Free Patriotic Movement, President Michel Aoun and his son-in-law Gebran Bassil, have given unmistakable signs of abandoning that political alliance with Hezbollah they first forged in 2006; they have been appalled by Hezbollah’s attempts to derail Bitar’s investigation. Furthermore, Aoun and Bassil worry that if Israel were to attack Iran, Teheran might order Hezbollah to attack Israel, and thereby drag Lebanon into a war that the Lebanese do not want.

A report on Nasrallah’s most recent rant is here: “Nasrallah rails against US, Saudi Arabia and Israel on Soleimani anniversary,” by Tzvi Joffre, Jerusalem Post, January 3, 2022

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah railed against the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel during a speech on Monday evening, marking the second anniversary of the US assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

On January 3, 2020, Soleimani and al-Muhandis were killed in a US drone strike near Baghdad International Airport.

The assassination incident established a new stage of awareness, insight and conflict,” Nasrallah said, adding that the people who ordered and carried out the assassination “will receive their reward in this world before the hereafter.”

Nasrallah blamed the US for creating ISIS and claimed America looted and tyrannized Iraq, adding that Iran “was the first to stand by the Iraqi people in the face of ISIS.”

The U.S. did not “create ISIS,” but did all it could to destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, both with its own military and in concert with local allies, like the Kurdish peshmerga. Nasrallah knows this perfectly well. The charge that the “US created ISIS” is a way for Muslims to remove responsibility from where it truly belongs. It is the texts and teachings of Islam, the contents of the Qur’an and the Hadith, are what molded the minds of the fanatical Believers who joined the ranks of ISIS.

Nor did the U.S. “loot” Iraq, as Nasrallah claims. Our misadventure in Iraq cost American taxpayers two trillion dollars, not only to rout Saddam Hussein but to attempt to transform Iraq into a prosperous and democratic state, an attempt which ultimately proved, like the equally quixotic American effort in Afghanistan, to be a failure. American soldiers have described how they would distribute pallets of American cash to eager Iraqis, buying – or rather renting – their loyalty. The Americans spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, building tens of thousands of hospitals, water treatment plants, electricity substations, schools and bridges and roads. The only “looting” that went on in Iraq was the looting of the pockets of American taxpayers to pay for all this.

“The martyr Qassem Soleimani resisted the American occupation and contributed to the establishment of the Iraqi resistance factions and provided them with money, weapons, strength, vigor, hope, confidence and enthusiasm until the great victory and the expulsion of the American forces from Iraq,” he said. “Is there a sane equation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which supported and protected Iraq?”

Qassem Soleimani did not drive the Americans out of Iraq. It was the realization that the grand scheme of turning Iraq into “a light unto the Muslim nations” had failed, and that keeping large numbers of troops in-country was too costly, that finally led the Americans to the decision they ought to have made at least fifteen years before which was to pull out. And far from “supporting and saving” Iraq, Soleimani contributed to widening the sectarian divide by providing weapons and money to those Shi’a militias that were willing to do Iran’s bidding, such as Kata’ib Hezbollah, a policy rejected even by some Shi’a leaders, like the Iraqi nationalist Muqtada al-Sadr. Soleimani was no friend of Iraq, despite Nasrallah’s claim; he wanted to transform that country, bedeviled by sectarianism, into a satellite of Iran. Just as Nasrallah would, if he could, turn Lebanon into a similar satellie.

“Tolerating or obscuring the presence of US forces in Iraq is a new killing of the martyrs Soleimani and al-Muhandis,” Nasrallah said, expressing outrage at the intention of the US military to leave advisers in the country after it withdrew combat forces.

The US’s “fate” was to leave the region, he said.

Here we can disagree with Nasrallah – we are, after all, not oriental fatalists — that the U.S. is “fated” to leave the region. Last I looked, there were American forces in bases in Bahrain, in Qatar, in Saudi Arabia, and in the U.A.E., and they intend to stay. But as for Iraq itself, the Americans would do well, after so much heartache and waste, to pull out the 2,500 last remaining troops from the country that Winston Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, famously described in a 1922 letter to Prime Minister Lloyd George: “At present we are paying eight millions [in] pounds Sterling a year [the equivalent of half a billion dollars today] for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.” What did we get out of Iraq that was “worth having”? Iraq was not transformed into the advanced democracy we had expected; it has not become an ally of the West; the Shi’a militias in the south answer to Teheran. That is what we got for our two trillion dollars.

Regarding Israel, Nasrallah said the US “is responsible for all of Israel’s crimes in Palestine and in the region because it is the one that funds, supports, arms, protects and forces the world to normalize with Israel.”

Nasrallah may not realize it, but during the 1948 war, and what he regards as the original sin of Israel’s founding, there was no American military aid to Israel. Instead, the Israelis fought and defeated five Arab armies while under an arms embargo. Some weapons were smuggled in by individual supporters, but the only nation that sold weapons to Israel was Czechoslovakia. American military assistance to Israel — as opposed to weapons Israel bought — began only after the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Nor can it be said that the U.S. “funds, supports, arms, protects and forces the world to normalize [ties] with Israel.” American aid to Israel has been generous, but even at its height, it constitutes less than 15% of Israel’s defense budget. Nor does that aid go only one way. Israel provides assistance to the U.S. military, in the form of technological advances, such as the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system, and it shares with the U.S. the intelligence on Iran and the wider Middle East that its extensive network of agents gather, including information about terror groups that are a threat to American interests. The aid, though of different kinds, goes in both directions.

The U.S. does not “protect” Israel. The IDF manages quite well on its own, having defeated its enemies in three wars (1948, 1967, 1973) for the state’s survival, and repeatedly defeated, too, in numerous conflicts, the terror groups that seek to make Israeli lives miserable – Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ, the PFLP.

The U.S. has not “forced” the world to “normalize [ties]” with Israel. The U.A.E., the most important Arab member of the Abraham Accords, had its own good and sufficient reasons to normalize those ties: it wanted to enter into mutually beneficial agreements on trade, tourism, agriculture, and technology, with Israel, and it has succeeded spectacularly. Israel and the U.A.E. have already signed $675 milllon dollars worth of business deals. 

He [Nasrallah] spoke about Hisham Abu Hawash, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad member being held in administrative detention, who has been on a hunger strike for 140 days.

It’s most thoughtful of Nasrallah to express an interest in a PIJ fighter, but he needn’t worry. Unlike those who go on hunger strikes in Iran, and are left to die, the Jewish state sees to it that all hunger strikers are provided with appropriate medical treatment and care which meet Israeli and international standards, and upon consent, they receive intravenous (IV) fluids, supplements, and vitamins. Even in cases where consent may not be given, Israel makes sure they are given what is necessary to stay alive. No Palestinian hunger striker in Israeli detention has ever died.

Nasrallah questioned how the Lebanese people saw the US as a friend, considering it stands behind Israel.

The U.S. has stood behind Lebanon on several occasions. Eisenhower sent troops in 1958 to support the government of the Maronite Camille Chamoun, who was worried that the country might be taken over by pan-Arabist supporters of Egypt’s Nasser. When the PLO held Beirut hostage, the Americans backed the IDF campaign to push Arafat and the PLO out of Lebanon altogether. And an enormous Lebanese-American population, 90% Christian, constitutes a human link between the U.S. and Lebanon. Most Lebanese who are not part of Hezbollah see the U.S. as having the same enemies as they do – that is, Hezbollah and Iran.

Referring to Saudi Arabia and the civil war in Yemen, he said Saudi Arabia was a “tool” being used by the US in Yemen. He accused Saudi Arabia of supporting ISIS in Syria and holding “thousands of Lebanese” hostage in the Gulf.

Saudi Arabia is in Yemen not as a “tool” of the U.S., but for reasons of national security. The Saudis do not want the Shi’a Houthis, who rose in open revolt against the central government in 2014 by seizing the capita Sana’a, to win the long-running civil war, and take over Yemen. For Riyadh realizes that that would mean that Saudi Arabia’s mortal enemy, Iran, the indispensable backer of the Houthis, supplying them with money and weapons, would control Yemen, and threaten the Saudis all along their southern border.

Nasrallah rejected statements by Saudi officials calling his movement “terrorist,” saying Saudi Arabia was terrorist for its action in the war in Yemen, while Hezbollah is defending its homeland.

Both Hezbollah and the Saudi forces in Yemen have engaged in attacks against civilians that can properly be described as “acts of terror.” But there is a difference: the Saudi military is not always and everywhere involved in terrorism; Hezbollah, on the other hand, is only a terror group, the largest, best-armed, and best-financed terror group now existing. It has more weaponry than 95% of the world’s conventional armies, and billions of dollars in its coffers, with most of its money now coming from the drug trade carried on by Hezbollah operatives world-wide.

In response to recent critical statements from a Hezbollah ally, the Free Patriot Movement (FPM), against the party, he said Hezbollah was keen to reach an understanding with the FPM and is still committed to the understandings already reached with the movement.

Nasrallah said he would address internal issues on another occasion.

Nasrallah must have been deeply disturbed by the open signs of disaffection from the two most important members of the Free Patriotic Movement, the Maronite President Michel Aoun and his son-in-law Gebran Bassil, who in recent remarks have expressed their displeasure with Hezbollah. Their main complaint has to do with Nasrallah’s attempts to keep Tarek Bitar from continuing his investigation into who was responsible for the Beirut blast on August 4, 2020. But there is also the disquieting realization that Hezbollah’s subservience to Iran might lead it, under Tehran’s command, to drag Lebanon into another disastrous war with Israel.

Nasrallah won’t be able to do the two things that would be required of him in order for the Free Patriotic Movement to continue its former alliance with Hezbollah. He can’t allow the investigation into the Beirut blast to continue, whether by Tarek Bitar or another investigator, and he cannot become independent from Iran, his sole source of weapons. No wonder he’s said he’ll leave discussion of “internal matters” – that is, relations with the FPM – for a later occasion. At the moment, all he has is a forlorn hope.

For Hassan Nasrallah, 2022 promises to be an annus horribilis. He had it coming.

 

Hugh Fitzgerald

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/hassan-nasrallahs-litany-woe-hugh-fitzgerald/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

If limiting the unvaxxed is wise, what about limiting fat people? - Selwyn Duke

 

​ by Selwyn Duke

Consider the implications of the underlying principle, which is: "You have no right to make a life choice that increases the probability you'll strain the medical system."

For the record, I've nothing against our friendly-fronted friends.  Why, my favorite philosopher, G.K. Chesterton, reportedly weighed in at close to 400 pounds.  Yet the reality is that the horizontally challenged have something in common with the "unvaccinated."

The latter are now today's lepers, attaining this status via refusal to accept experimental mRNA therapy agents (MTAs, AKA "vaccines") designed to prevent something they don't prevent.  In fact, many Branch COVIDians talk about making "vaccine passports" a requirement for "participation in society."

This is already happening to an extent in Australia, the Land Down Under — COVID tyranny.  For example, Australia's Northern Territory announced new draconian lockdown restrictions last week, with the MTA-resistant especially targeted.

Never mind that Lord Fauci the Infallible and other health oracles once said, implying that it was quite the mountain to climb, that a 70- to 80-percent "vaccination" rate would suffice to deliver herd immunity, and Australia now has a 91-percent rate among people over 12.

But, hey, they just need to get that rate up to 154 percent, and it'll be shrimp-on-the-barbie and Foster's time once again.  Don't say it's impossible, either, because Democrat counties often prove the achievability of such numbers at election time.  You just have to "vaccinate" those recently dead Australians, mate, to be fair dinkum safe — and forbid casket exiting and midnight zombie romps for the foreseeable future.

Anyway, "There are only three reasons to leave the home now, not five," said Northern Territory chief minister Michael Gunner last Monday, explaining the COVIDian establishment of (dark) religion.  "Work is not a reason to leave the home for the unvaccinated," he continued, elaborating on the limitations.  "The chief health officer has also determined that restriction of movement is critical right now and that one hour of exercise for the next four days is not essential."

This is despite the fact that most coronavirus transmission occurs indoors and that adequate sunlight exposure reduces one's chance of infection and serious illness.

Gunner also stated (video below) that you "may only leave home for three reasons — medical treatment, including Covid testing or vaccination — for essential goods and services, like groceries, power tokens, and medications – [and] to provide care or support to a family member or person who cannot support themselves." Ja, mein führer!

 

Gunner is the poster boy for why insurrection was invented.  He's also quite dull, incorrectly claiming that the MTA-resistant are at "greater risk" of catching the China virus.  He further stated that such people are more likely to require medical care, and this concern — that the MTA-resistant will clog up hospitals — is currently a major justification for compelling the jab now that many health authorities (e.g., Fauci) have confessed that the shot doesn't prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission and contraction.

But consider the implications of the underlying principle, which is: "You have no right to make a life choice that increases the probability you'll strain the medical system."  What of the plumper among us?

It's not just that the overweight or obese have constituted 78 percent of China virus deaths, but that such stature is associated with a higher incidence of a host of illnesses.  So should the portly be limited in how much food they may buy and what kind?  Should they be forced to exercise?  They're costing us all money, you know.

I'm being facetious, but this mentality could be applied to anyone who's seen as playing fast and loose with his health, such as smokers and sedentary thin people who happen to scarf down artery-clogging food.

For that matter, what if it's learned that the promiscuous and people engaging in certain sexually anomalous behaviors inordinately burden the health care system?  Well, I guess some things are worth the money — such as our ruling class's favorite hobbies.

And, hey, if we weren't distracted with the mob-catalyzing misdirection that is the blaming of the MTA-resistant, we might notice what our ruling class is actually doing.

Photo credit: Tony AlterCC BY 2.0 license.

 

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/if_limiting_the_unvaxxed_is_wise_what_about_limiting_fat_people.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter