I Don't Get It? This Is One of Those Orwellian Thingies Right?

McJ's picture

From The Times Online:

Tzipi Livini, the Israeil Foreign Minister, seated, left, and Condoleezza Rice, sign an agreement intended to ensure that Hamas militants will not be able to rearm if the Jewish state accepts a ceasefire in Gaza

January 17, 2009
Gaza war 'in final act' as ceasefire looms

"Israel is expected to announce a unilateral ceasefire tonight that will end its three-week war in Gaza.

Officials said that the Israeli Security Cabinet will be asked to approve the surprise move after Israel secured commitments from Egypt and the US to stop Hamas re-arming by smuggling weapons into Gaza.

If the Cabinet agrees, Israeli troops will halt Operation Cast Lead — but if Hamas continues to fire rockets into southern Israel they will resume the action.

[Hamas] "rejected the ceasefire demands yesterday, insisting that Israel should withdraw its troops immediately, open Gaza’s borders and lift the blockade it imposed after Hamas seized [sic] power there in 2007."

So, who does the 'unilateral' pertain to in this deal?
Hamas, the so called raison d'etre of this slaughter of Palestinians (who are not represented or signing the agreement?) doesn't agree to a ceasefire signed by Israel, the US and Egypt which essentially states that Israel will commence a ceasefire if Hamas does. So, in other words does that mean that Israel, the US and Egypt agree to a unilateral ceasefire by Hamas? Im confused!!

Well, maybe there is something here.

"Under the ceasefire plan, those [Palestinian] issues would be discussed at a later date."
They are going to discuss Palestinian grievances after they (Israel, US and Egypt) agree that Hamas will commence a ceasefire that they (Hamas) don't agree to. Still confused...

AH HA!!! Now I get it!
The plan would allow Israel to stop fighting before Barack Obama’s inauguration on Tuesday, and avoid direct dealings with Hamas, which it regards as a terrorist group.
We wouldn't want any of those nasty pictures of dead Palestinian babies usurping the headlines reserved for the inauguration of the Prince of Change, now would we?

UPDATE: Now I really don't get it. I'm back to being confused again. sad
The article posted in the first comment below says this:

"Israeli negotiator Amos Gilad returned to Cairo to discuss terms of an Egyptian-sponsored "peace" deal, which Hamas agreed on Wednesday." [Which is a day before Ismail Haniyeh's message to the west was published, which I posted 'here].
"In Washington, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Foreign Minister Livni signed an agreement "committing the United States to measures to stop Hamas re-arming itself." Israel said it will mean the US and NATO taking responsibility for monitoring shipments into Gaza.

In her Newsweek interview, Livni boasted that Israel's offensive was supported by the Middle East bourgeoisie.

"I don't want to embarrass anybody, but I know I represent their interests as well. It is no longer the Israeli-Palestinian or the Jewish-Arab conflict, but it is a conflict between moderates and extremists. This is the way this region is now divided."

So, let me try again!!
Hamas may or may not have agreed to a ceasefire deal (I'm still checking that one) without being involved in the negotiations. Israel can resume the action any time it says Hamas is still firing rockets. It is no longer just Israel's problem or responsibility. The conflict is now between moderates and extremists (ie. terrorists or anyone we/they don't like or who we/they want to attack or steal land from.). The whole mess has now been dropped into the lap of the US, NATO and Egypt who will police the Gaza ghetto at the Rafah crossing. Sweet deal for Israel, don't you think?

And while I'm at it...
Israel (who is the number one recipient of US foreign aid and who attacked and invaded Gaza) is signing a 'ceasefire deal??' with the US (who has supplied Israel with the arms to fight this 'war' and 100% supports their actions) and with Egypt (who is the second biggest recipient of US foreign aid which insures they will they will do everything Israel tells them to). Yet, Hamas, the democratically elected government of the Gazan Palestinians (who were attacked by Israel and receive zero foreign aid from the US) was not involved in any of the 'ceasefire' negotiations and did not sign it. Does that make any f***ing sense to anyone?


McJ's picture

Amid talk of cease-fire,eyewitness accounts describe destruction

Amid talk of cease-fire, eyewitness accounts describe Israel’s destruction of Gaza
Julie Hyland
The Times supports Israel, but the open savagery it has displayed in Gaza, with the deliberate targeting of civilian areas and reports of summary executions, caused the newspaper to question the repercussions of Tel Aviv's actions for the long-term stability of the Middle East and Israel itself.

A BBC producer in Gaza, Hamada Abuqammar, said that Israeli air strikes had continued even during the supposed three-hour humanitarian ceasefires. Medics reported Friday that they had managed to pull a further 23 bodies from rubble in Gaza City, amid reports of "ferocious fighting" in residential areas.

With at least 1,133 Palestinians killed, including 355 children, and another 5,130 wounded, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) are now said to be in the centre of Gaza City in what a military spokesman said could be "the final act."

Some 40,000 people have fled to United Nations buildings for sanctuary—25,000 in the last week alone. But UN buildings are themselves targets for the IDF. Following last week's attack on a UN-run school that killed more than 40 people, the central UN headquarters holding humanitarian supplies was hit Thursday, destroying thousands of tonnes of food and supplies urgently required.

The blood-letting went on even as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, on a "mediation tour" of the Middle East, expressed his "outrage" at the attack on the UN building.

An emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly late Thursday evening, requested by 118 non-aligned member states, also criticized Israel's offensive. The Israeli delegation had sought to prevent the session on procedural grounds, with Gabriela Shalev, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, dismissing it as a "cynical, hateful and politicised [attempt] to de-legitimize Israel's fundamental right to defend its citizens." But the session proceeded, with General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann accusing Israel of violating international law and stating that Gaza "has been turned into a burning hell."

As Brockmann spoke there was mounting evidence to confirm reports that Israel is using white phosphorus as a smokescreen for the incursions by its tanks and troops into residential areas. Phosphorus, which is illegal under Geneva Treaty of 1980 in built-up areas, causes terrible burns.

Abu Shaaban, director of the burns unit at Gaza's Shifa hospital, told Christian Aid that the situation was a "disaster."

"We have been receiving a very high number of patients with a strange burn," he said, "completely different to the burns we are used to managing, very deep burns with a very offensive, chemical odour coming from the wound site...

"In some cases there is then severe destruction of the tissue and we have had to amputate whole limbs."

During the emergency UN session, Brockmann rebuked UN member-states for failing "to take the necessary steps to impose an immediate cease-fire," stating, "[The UN] cannot continue to fiddle while Gaza burns."

But the UN is not simply sitting on the fence in the one-sided conflict. While distancing itself from Israel's worst atrocities, the major Western powers are working towards a conclusion that will leave the Palestinians in even more wretched conditions.

Writing in the Independent Friday, Alvaro de Soto, chief UN Middle East peace envoy from 2005-2007, reported that on December 16 the UN Security Council had adopted resolution 1850, reaffirming its support for the "agreements and negotiations resulting from the 2007 Middle East summit in Annapolis, Maryland."

The Annapolis agreement was supposedly an initiative by the US to help the "peace process" and establish a Palestinian state by 2009.

But as the World Socialist Web Site reported at the time, the Palestinian state envisaged is little more than a Western protectorate that could "be imposed on the Palestinians only through a military and political offensive involving the United States, Israel, the European powers and the Arab bourgeois regimes, particularly Egypt."

The agreement specifically ruled Hamas, which had won the majority of seats in the January 2006 elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council, out of any settlement. Israel had insisted there could be no reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas and that any "national unity" government was out of the question. With Washington's backing, Israel made a clear warning that "Abbas must wage all-out civil war against opposition to Israel. If Abbas can't or won't do it, then Israel will," the WSWS explained.

Despite its best efforts, Fatah is considered to have done too little, too late, while its alliance with the Zionist state has seen it even further isolated amongst the Palestinian masses. Twelve days after the UN adopted resolution 1850, the Israeli bombardment began.

Interviewed in Newsweek on January 10, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni explained, "[W]e have a situation in which... Hamas is getting stronger, while Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] is getting weaker." Rejecting talk of a cease-fire for implying that Hamas could be a legitimate participant in negotiations, Livni said that agreement was possible only with those who accept Israel's "vision."

"The only way to continue the peace process is not only by continuing the dialogue with their [the Palestinians'] pragmatic leadership, but also by weakening those who are not willing to live in peace in this region. This is the strategy," she said.

In the same magazine, Daniel Klaidman explained that Israel's "strikes [on Gaza] were not simply a reaction; they were a calculation." The ultimate aim, he continued, was "to crush Hamas altogether, first by aerial attacks and then with a grinding artillery and infantry assault. The hope, however faint, is eventually to allow Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah government to reassert control in Gaza."

The Jerusalem Post reported that Fatah and the IDF are currently imposing an "Iron Fist" policy in the West Bank, to extinguish Hamas and any other oppositional forces.

The operation is "being carried out in coordination with the IDF and under the supervision of US security experts," the Post said. In addition to bans on oppositional activity at universities and schools, "[T]he IDF has also been helping the PA security forces by arresting dozens of Hamas men in the West Bank," it continued.

The article added, "In Bethlehem, Hebron and Ramallah, policemen beat a number of Palestinian reporters and photographers who were covering protests against the IDF operation. Other journalists have been receiving threats almost on a daily basis from the PA security forces in the West Bank."

Palestinian Authority policemen "responsible for the massive crackdown received special training in Jordan and the West Bank as part of a security plan engineered by the US," the newspaper said.

On Friday, it was reported that a teenager had been killed during clashes between demonstrators and Israeli soldiers in the West Bank town of Hebron.

Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a senior aide to Abbas, said that Hamas must be excluded from any talks on the situation in Gaza. Similarly, UN Secretary General Ban has said that "a return to the status quo ante cannot be an option," and that the unification of Gaza and the West Bank must be "under one legitimate Palestinian authority."

Whether Hamas is sufficiently weakened to achieve this end is a calculation in on-going efforts to draw up cease-fire terms.

Reports indicate that Israel and Washington hope to have brokered a deal before US President-elect Barak Obama's inauguration on Tuesday.

Israeli negotiator Amos Gilad returned to Cairo to discuss terms of an Egyptian-sponsored "peace" deal, which Hamas agreed on Wednesday. In Washington, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Foreign Minister Livni signed an agreement "committing the United States to measures to stop Hamas re-arming itself." Israel said it will mean the US and NATO taking responsibility for monitoring shipments into Gaza.

In her Newsweek interview, Livni boasted that Israel's offensive was supported by the Middle East bourgeoisie.

"I don't want to embarrass anybody, but I know I represent their interests as well. It is no longer the Israeli-Palestinian or the Jewish-Arab conflict, but it is a conflict between moderates and extremists. This is the way this region is now divided."

Mass demonstrations across the Middle East in support of Gaza are increasingly turning on the Arab regimes themselves for facilitating Israel's slaughter.

In an attempt to rescue some credibility, Qatar had called for an emergency summit of the Arab League on Friday. The aim, said Qatar's emir, Shaykh Hamad Bin-Khalifah al-Thani, was not to jeopardise a truce, but to enable a unified Arab position to be formulated.

But US allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain and Kuwait boycotted the meeting, leaving it without a quorum. A rival summit of the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries called by Saudi Arabia and held in Riyadh on Thursday agreed only to continue its deliberations in Kuwait on Monday, on the eve of a previously arranged Arab economic summit.

Egypt had insisted that no meeting should be held before then. It has led the way in facilitating Israel's objectives—participating in the blockade of Gaza and ensuring its borders remain closed, sealing its inhabitants into what has effectively become an open-air tomb.

Its primary concern is that nothing be done to disrupt an Israeli/US-dictated settlement. According to reports, the truce being formulated under Egyptian auspices would see the IDF remain in Gaza until a timetable for the opening of crossing points—possibly overseen by unspecified "international monitors"—is agreed

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Thanks for the post, McJ,

Thanks for the post, McJ, and for spotting the bizarreness of it all. Confusion comes from missing, wrong or contradictory information. When dealing with a psychopath, you will almost certainly be receiving all three. You are always dealing with lies.

"Israeli negotiator Amos Gilad returned to Cairo to discuss terms of an Egyptian-sponsored "peace" deal, which Hamas agreed on Wednesday."

To make it a little harder to decipher "which Hamas agreed (to?) on Wednesday" is not even good English. My thought would be that Hamas didn't agree to anything further than which sandwiches they would eat at the break in negotiations in Egypt. Israel's abiding practice is to not talk with their opponent until their opponent has agreed to everything they substantialy want beforehand. So Israel still will not talk with Hamas therefore Hamas hasn't agreed to anything substantial if anything at all.

I think it reasonable to assume that Obama has traded his "No Comment" compliant position for a promise that the slaughter will stop before his enthronement. So the Israelis will be keen to do so having achieved their goal of venting their rage on innocent people and reducing Gaza to a totally non functioning society incapable of causing a serious threat at their back door should Israel attack other neighbours. BUT they need to cover their motivation so they need to retreat from Gaza after being seen to have achieved their STATED goals. This necessitates Hamas agreeing to something, anything, but they wont.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hizbollah regrets their ceasefire agreement with Israel and allowing NATO troups into Lebanon as they are little more than Israeli proxies and have advised Hamas accordingly.
So what is Israel to do? They do their "Alice in Wonderland" thing and "sign an agreement with Hamas" that Hamas hasn't agreed to let alone signed. The US is trotted out to act the part of Hamas proxie, Israeli protector, mediator and judge and jury all rolled into one!
The US is there to legitimise it, to make it real which it can never be. It's all a show, a pantomime, a lie. The "agreement" will also be used in future to justify further war crimes because Hamas hasn't abided by what the US has agree to on Hamas' behalf. Truly bizarre as you point out.

McJ's picture

Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III)

James wrote:
"So the Israelis will be keen to do so having achieved their goal of venting their rage on innocent people and reducing Gaza to a totally non functioning society incapable of causing a serious threat at their back door should Israel attack other neighbours."
..."I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hizbollah regrets their ceasefire agreement with Israel and allowing NATO troups into Lebanon"

An interesting read at the link below about Israel's next war and what their real motives in attacking Gaza may be. Protecting their back door and, as we have speculated, provocation may be the name of their game.

"The objective in Lebanon is "regime change" and to repress all forms of political opposition. But how to bring it about? The forecast of the 2009 general-elections in Lebanon does not look favourable for the March 14 Alliance. Without an internal political or armed option in Lebanon, which could result in the installation of a U.S.-sponsored "democracy," Washington and its indefictible [sic] Israeli ally have chosen the only avenue available: a military solution, another war on Lebanon. [3]
...In the Middle East, it is widely believed that the war against Gaza is an extension of the 2006 war against Lebanon. Without question, the war in the Gaza Strip is a part of the same conflict.
...Lebanon is still in the cross-hairs. Israel is searching for a justification or a pretext to launch another war against Lebanon.
...Why is Lebanon in the cross-hairs again?
The answer is geo-political and strategic. It is also related to the political consensus process and the upcoming 2009 general-elections in Lebanon. Following the formation of a unity government in Beirut under a new president, Michel Suleiman (Sleiman), a new proactive defence doctrine for the country was contemplated. The objective of this defence doctrine is to keep Israel at bay and bring political stability and security to the country.
...Washington's political cohorts in Lebanon are alarmed at the direction Lebanon is taking under its new defence strategy.
...The formation of a new proactive defence doctrine implies that Hezbollah fighters would be incorporated in the Lebanese Armed Forces and that the existing paramilitary forces of Hezbollah would be disbanded once certain conditions are met.
...With the integration of Hezbollah fighters into the country's army together with military aid from Russia and Iran, Lebanon would acquire defensive capabilities, which would enable it to confront the threat of Israeli military aggression.
...The clock is ticking for Israel, the U.S., and NATO to obstruct the implementation of Beirut's new national defence doctrine.
...This war is already in the advanced planning stage. In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III).[4]
The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon. Several months before the Israeli invasion drills, Tel Aviv had also warned Beirut that it would declare war on the whole of Lebanon and not just Hezbollah.[5]

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Good find, McJ

You've been pounding the keyboard!
I think time has been running out for the would be World Masters (those that run the US, UK and Israel) in lots of ways. The article you cite is very good butthe author doesn't mention the resources angle which I think is crucial.
The immediate problems for Israel are water and oil. Oh, and gas. There's the little matter of $4billions worth of gas just offshore from Gaza!
Lebanon's Litani river has lots of water. Israel is planning to run two underwater pipelines from Ceyhan on Turkey's coast just above Lebanon border offshore to Haifa. One pipeline will carry water all the way from the upper reaches of the Tigris or Euphrates river (I forget which one). I imagine this would be unneccesary should the Litani river fall under Israeli control.
The other pipeline is from Baku bringing oil from the Caspian Sea. The plan is to pipe it offshore from Ceyhan along the coast of Lebanon and bring it ashore at Haifa. From there it will be piped to the port city of Eilat and onto ships to Asia. Now if Israel controlled Lebanon they could run this pipeline overland and save a lot of time and trouble and, of course, money. This will be a nice little earner for Israel puting them on a much more secure footing financially and politically.
There's also a pipeline coming from Mosul in Iraq to Haifa and the oil from this is destined for Europe. The new pipeline follows the old moribund one (which I've been told is still in operatatioal condition, though small) through Jordan but along the Syrian border. There are three new US bases built along this line. (They are H1 H2 & H3 or H2,3 & 4 - It's been a while!- Google them). Syria also has oil but way out west in the Kurdish area near northern Iraq. The same goes for Turkey. Israel has been very friendly and helpful to the Kurds and I would expect them to be primed to grab the oil areas should Israel attack Syria (which they will sooner or later).
Control of oil is necessary for Israel's immediate financial survival and also key to controlling the entire world together with US/UK in the future. Israel used to get very cheap oil from Iran prior to the Iranian revolution. They've been struggling ever since.
So will Israel attack Lebanon? I'd say it is an absolute certainty.

McJ's picture

Follow the money...

I had been thinking all along during this recent attack on Gaza that it would be a good idea to follow the old adage of 'follow the money' and then I read about that oil offshore from Gaza. Thanks for the additional info... very interesting.
Doesn't Israel still occupy parts of southern Lebanon which they kept after the 1982 war. I thought I read somewhere that it had something to do with their wanting the water from the Litanni river?

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Google British Gas for more

Google British Gas for more info. Or better yet, use this search engine which isn't link to Zionism and doesn't (so they say!) keep records of your searches - Cuil
The other good thing to follow in this whole War of Terror thing is the oil pipelines. I used to have links to a whole lot of maps. I'll see if I can dig some up tomorrow.
The ocuppied part is Sheba Farms and it is next to the Golan Heights and your right in that it is relativley near the Litani river. Not sure when it was occupied. It may have been '82 but I think it was '67.

McJ's picture

Gaza Gas

thanks for the tip on the search engine

follow the money indeed...

How much more blood for oil do these psychos need!

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Seems I was wrong. There are

Seems I was wrong. There are four underwater pipelines planned, not two!
Yes, Israel wants to insert themselves into the middle of the game; to be the gatekeepers or more correctly, the gatevalve keepers. Europe really needs to think twice about having Israeli hands on their energy spigot.
The article has a further link-
which enlarges the context. If Israel controls the coasts of Lebanon and Syria then Syria could be blockaded.
Ultimately, I believe it is about control of the whole world and China is the biggest obstacle to that. China needs to be starved of energy resources to overcome it so everything moves toward that goal. It's about who doesn't get the oil as much as who does. Same with the Gazan gas. It would spell freedon to the Palestinians.

If you look at a map of the Eurasian landmass, you will notice that the oil fields of Middle East and the Caspian Basin are smack bang in the middle of everything. England and Europe to the west, Russia to the North, China and Japan to the east and Africa and India to the south.
Control of the pipelines and their routes together with the shipping lanes is crucial. It's the main game.

And Oz time is good!

Shebaa Farms

rticle on history of Shebaa Farms with overall map-

Map showing closer relationship of Shebaa Farms to Golan Heights-

Map showing relationship of Golan Heights to Litani river-
(gotta look close! Labelled as Nahr al Litani)

And finally, an excellent article from Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (always good) at GlobalResearch on the broader context of the war on Gaza-

More maps

Here is a fantastic resource for maps for the middle east (and elsewhere)-

Of particular interest to me were the ones showing oil and gas deposits and pipelines

McJ's picture

James RE: Maps

Thanks for all the map links. I started a Middle Eastern section in our forum.
I thought it might be a good place to store articles, maps, history etc. We really haven`t used it much, in fact I imagine most people don`t know it is there.
I added a couple of the maps to it at link. http://www.winterpatriot.com/node/238 and will add some of the articles we found because they tend to get lost in the comments and I am just not organized enough to keep track of what I read so I thought this might help. smiling

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Good idea

It's kinda getting a bit messy!

McJ's picture

Ya - working...

Vacuuming Vacuuming Vacuuming

I have now added several documents to the Middle East Forum.

Forum on the top right menu bar or at link.

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

McJ's picture

Thanks James

Thanks James,

Great analysis - I suspect you are circling the truth with this - and as I still can't figure out what Hamas has agreed to - sandwiches seems as good a guess as any. laughing out loud

And thanks for all your comments on psychopaths, I still have to get over and read that article you linked to by Les Visible.

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

McJ's picture

Israel declares ceasefire in Gaza

The absurdity continues.
From BBC News:

Israel declares ceasefire in Gaza

17 January 2009

"Israel is to halt its three-week military offensive against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said. Israel had achieved the aims of its operation, Mr Olmert said, and a unilateral Israeli ceasefire would take effect from 0200 (2400 GMT).
Earlier, a Hamas spokesman said it would fight until its demands were met.
Nearly 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since the violence began on 27 December. Thirteen Israelis have died.
Minutes before Mr Olmert was due to speak, a rocket was fired from Gaza, a BBC producer in Gaza said."

" 'Goals achieved'
[ Confused ]

The Israeli prime minister's announcement came in a televised address following a late-night cabinet meeting.
Israel's "goals have been achieved, and even more", Mr Olmert said, with Hamas badly damaged both militarily and in terms of infrastructure.
But the success of the ceasefire depended on Hamas, he said. If militant rocket fire into Israel continued, Israel would return to force, he said.
How Hamas responds remains to be seen.

[ doh! ]
The group says any ceasefire must involve Israeli troops withdrawing from Gaza and an immediate lifting of the Israeli blockade."

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Michael Rivero cries, "Bullshit"!

Just read about the ceasefire on WhatReallyHappened and the editor, Michael Rivero, made these comments -
"This is pure propaganda. Israel declares a cease fire, but refuses to pull their forces out of Gaza. HAMAS can never accept that, so Israel gets to play victim one more time when the shooting continues."

Israel already knows that a withdrawal of troops is the first condition HAMAS will demand in the Egyptian brokered truce.
So, Israel calls a cease fire (really, we will stop shooting, honest!) but leaves its invasion force in place. HAMAS cannot agree to that politically, so now Israel will scream that it is HAMAS continuing the fight, despite Israel's honest attempt at peace (really, we will stop shooting; we just want to keep our soldiers standing amid the rubble because ... well, just because!"

That's it in a nutshell.

"really, we will stop

"really, we will stop shooting; we just want to keep our soldiers standing amid the rubble because ... well, just because!"

Well...... not really just because. The bombing will stop but one has to wonder if the doctors, teachers, academics, reporters and community organisers will find themselves targeted for assassination just like in Iraq.
The goal after all is to stop the society from functioning and they always go after the leaders and those with influence and skills.

For these peoples sake, Hamas cannot afford to stop fighting while ever IDF troops are in occupation. Israel seems to be jamming Hamas in a no-win situation (again....still) but the lies and media criticism must be better than the deaths of their community leaders.

Either way I can't see the killing stopping anytime soon. I hope I'm wrong.

McJ's picture

Tragically, I think you are right

I think you are absolutely right and the tiny spot of media attention (in the west) this massacre has engendered will soon be extinguished as the Obama train has started rolling.

I posted excerpts from Jonathon Cook's analysis of the plot in the comment below.

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

McJ's picture

Israel's Goals

The plot against Gaza
By Jonathan Cook
16 January 2009

Although Israel is determined to crush Hamas politically and militarily, so far it has been loathe to topple it. Israel withdrew from Gaza precisely because the demographic, military and economic costs of directly policing its refugee camps were considered too high. It will not be easily dragged back in.
Other options are either unpalatable or unfeasible. A Fatah government riding in on the back of Israeli tanks would lack legitimacy, and no regime at all – anarchy – risks loosing forces more implacably opposed to a Jewish state than Hamas, including al-Qaeda. Placing Gaza under a peacekeeping force faces other hurdles: not least, the question of which countries would be prepared to take on such a dangerous burden.
Instead Israel is planning to resort to its favourite diplomatic manoeuvre: unilateralism. It wants a solution that passes over the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians. Or as Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, put it: “There is no intention here of creating a diplomatic agreement with Hamas. We need diplomatic agreements against Hamas.” The formula being sought for a ceasefire will face stiff opposition from Israel unless it helps achieve several goals.
Israel’s first is to seal off Gaza properly this time.
Egypt, although profoundly uncomfortable at having an Islamic group ruling next door, is under too much domestic pressure to crack down on the tunnelling. Israel therefore wants to bring in American and European experts to do the job. They will ensure that the blockade cannot be broken and that Hamas cannot rearm. At best, Hamas can hope to limp on as nominal ruler of Gaza, on Israeli sufferance.
The second goal has been well articulated by the Harvard scholar Sara Roy, who has been arguing for some time that Israel is, in her words, “de-developing” Gaza. The blockade has been integral to achieving that objective, and is the reason Israel wants it strengthened. In the longer term, she believes, Gazans will come to be “seen merely as a humanitarian problem, beggars who have no political identity and therefore can have no political claims.”
In addition, Gazans living close to the enclave’s northern and southern borders may be progressively “herded” into central Gaza – as envisioned in Vilnai’s plan last year. That process may already be under way, with recent Israeli leafletting campaigns warning inhabitants of these areas to flee. Israel wants to empty both the Rafah area, so that it can monitor more easily any attempts at tunnelling, and the northern part because this is the location of the rocket launches that are hitting major Israeli cities such as Ashkelon and Ashdod and may one day reach Tel Aviv.
The third and related goal is, as Barak and Vilnai proposed more than a year ago, to cut off all Israeli responsibility for Gaza -- though not oversight of what is allowed in. Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian analyst, believes that in this scenario Israel will insist that humanitarian supplies into Gaza pass only through the Egyptian crossing, thereby also undercutting Hamas’ role. Already Israel is preparing to hand over responsibility for supplying Gaza’s electricity to Egypt – a special plant is under construction close by in the Sinai.
Slowly, the hope is, Gaza’s physical and political separation from the West Bank will be cemented, with the enclave effectively being seen as a province of Egypt. Its inhabitants will lose their connection to the wider Palestinian people and eventually Cairo may grow bold enough to crack down on Hamas as brutally as it does its own Islamists.
The regime of Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank, meanwhile, will be further isolated and weakened, improving Israel’s chances of forcing it to sign a deal annexing East Jerusalem and large swaths of the West Bank on which the Jewish settlements sit.
The fourth goal relates to wider regional issues. The chief obstacle to the implementation of Israel’s plan is the growing power of Iran and its possible pursuit of nuclear weapons. Israel’s official concern – that Tehran wants to attack Israel – is simple mischief-making. Rather Israel is worried that, if Iran becomes a regional superpower, Israeli diktats in the Middle East and in Washington will not go unchallenged.
In particular, a strong Iran will be able to aid Hizbullah and Hamas, and further fan the flames of popular Arab sentiment in favour of a just settlement for the Palestinians. That could threaten Israel’s plans for the annexation of much of the West Bank, and possibly win the Palestinians statehood. None of this can be allowed to pass by Israel.
It is therefore seeking to isolate Tehran, severing all ties between it and Hamas, just as it earlier tried – and failed – to do the same between Iran and Hizbullah. It wants the Palestinians beholden instead to the “moderate” block in the Arab world, meaning the Sunni dictatorships like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that in turn depend on Washington for their security.

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v


To both McJ and James for gathering all this info together. How disgusting can the Israeli Govt be? Th 'unilateral' bit is certainly weird. Just another Orwellian attack on the language, I guess. Obviously Hamas and the people of Palestine don't count, except when it comes to the dying of course :argh!!!!!!

McJ's picture

Debbieanne: It's all a bunch of BS and doublespeak

Your Welcome Debbieanne,
"th 'unilateral' bit is certainly weird."
Well, for Israel it means they can make up the terms of the ceasefire and then declare one without ever having talked to the other side. It's bizarro world up there with the war mongers and power elites.

The way I see it, Israel gets to 'unilaterally' commit whatever atrocities they want to the Palestinians being the victims and all, and the Palestinians get to 'unilaterally' lie down and be massacred being the occupied, brutalized, pipe launching, self defending aggressors that they are.

Who would agree to that crap! The whole thing is bullshit and double speak. Up is down, wrong is right, war is peace, ceasefire is a one sided deal and means we can attack you if you try to defend yourself from whatever horrid thing we may do to you.

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

"You're welcome" also from

"You're welcome" also from me and thanks for the thanks. The whole things is nauseating, though, isn't it. And quite surreal, sitting here in physical comfort and trying to get our heads around this madness. This lack of meaningful response from our "leaders" is telling; telling me how deep in the shit we all are.
I hope there is a special place or special honour in Heaven for Palestinians. The physical, mental and spiritual stamina to go on year after year, generation after generation is beyond words for me. May they be vindicated, and soon.

Zionists in Palestine History

Lawrence of Cyberia is an excellent blog.
There are three very good entries this last week on the history of Zionism in Palestine and how the present day debacle was clearly foreseen 90 years ago-
Nobody Could Have Predicted

No, Really; Absolutely Nobody Could Have Predicted

This Time I Really Mean It; Absolutely NOBODY Could Have Predicted


Very interesting James. They knew it wouldn't work. Until WWII, then guilt took over, along with a few terrorist attacks(Jewish) and those in the British and US govt's lost the plot. Would that be the correct understanding?

An understanding

I can't give you the “correct” interpretation but I'm happy to give you mine, Debbieanne. (grin)
I'll summarise the articles because there's bits in there I need for my answer and others might read it and not have time to go to these sources.

The first article notes that the Balfour agreement (which didn't consult the Palestinians – nothing has changed!) allowed for the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” but not at the expense in any way of the Palestinians. The author notes that that is impossible and that the Zionists have been deliberately misrepresenting i.e. lying about the circumstances and the nature of the then present inhabitants (nothing has changed there, either).
The author predicted, if the Zionist project went ahead, “the outbreak of a great war between the white and the brown races, a war into which America would without doubt be drawn.” this was in 1920.

The second article (1919) noted that establishing a "a national home for the Jewish people" did not amount to establishing a Jewish State; that there was bitter and unanimous resentment towards the Zionist program; that it would necessarily greatly disadvantage the Palestinians and that it could only be established under force of arms.

The third is an excerpt from a book written in 1919 and quotes the Balfour letter to Lord Rothschild (note who Balfour wrote to i.e whose project it was) and emphasises that the Palestinians' interests were not to be overriden. Later he says this is, of course, impossible. The author notes that, “the declaration was guarded and non-committal”. (To me it sounds like it was written extremely reluctantly.) The author then further notes, “but the Zionists did not interpret the declaration of the British Government according to its clear wording”. Again, no surprises there! He notes that everybody in Palestine is against the immigration including the indigent Sephardic Jews and that should it increas in momentum it would threaten world peace and that granting a re-colonisation of Palestine is against the princples put forward by President Wilson and of the Peace Conference that was taking place.

So, now this is what I understand happened from what I can remember from readings from long ago! Consequently, I can't give you much in the way of references.
Basically, I believe the Zionists blackmailed their way into Palestine. There are two clues I worked on. One was the mealy-mouthed Balfour Declaration itself and the other was the sudden reversal of Latin American country votes at the UN partitioning Palestine and granting the Zionists their wish.

During WW1 the British resources were stretched rather thin and they were in a vulnerable position and the Zionists/Rothschilds threatened to do (or not do ) something to do with Palestine and the opening of a new war front. In return they would get the official sanction to massively increase the immigration that was already happening. The official sanction would, in turn, tie Britain into defending the immigrants from the resident population. I can't remember the details and hesitate to mention it except for the fact that it does account for the Balfour Declaration existing and also its particular style of wording. It reads to me that Balfour was trying to fulfil his obligation to Rothschild without fulfilling it i.e. putting an impossible (he thought) condition into it; the condition that Palestinian interests were to be in no way injured or compromised.

Moving forward nearly twenty years and the vote is before the UN on the partitioning of Palestine. As I said the Zionists didn't have the votes and time was running out. The Rothschilds and Worms (related) banks did business with the German govt. throughout WW11. So did a lot of US businesses including the Rockefellers' Standard Oil. There was cross ownership with a lot of German companies heavily involved in the German war effort including involvement in the death camps (slave labor). Subsidiaries of General Motors made tanks and Ford made trucks for the German Army through out the war. The US Govt rescued many Nazi war criminals and brought them to America *. So the American Establishment was in a vulnerable position and Rothschilds and the Zionists would have known all the details.

Just before the UN vote some prominent Zionist called on Nelson Rockefeller. It was considered at the time that Latin America was the Rockefellers' private province. They ran it. Presto, five or six South American countries changed their votes and the State of Israel was declared a reality. It wouldn't have hurt that the Vatican was deeply involved in helping the Nazi war criminals to flee Europe (know as the Ratline) to the US and South America and also had a lot to lose as well as having substantial influence over these same countries.

So that, to me, explains why the Zionists were able to bend the UK and US governments to their will and against their own good sense and interests and against the spirit prevailing after WWs1 and 11 of de-colonisation. It rings true to me because it is in accord with the character and methods we see in evidence today

For info on these topics see “Trading With The Enemy” by Charles? Higham and “Unholy Trinity” by John Loftus and Mark Aarons. You might find them in you local library.
I'm not sure where I read about the Nelson Rockefeller meeting but it might have been “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” by Gary Allen. It's available somewhere online as a free download if your interested.

McJ's picture

Lawrence of Arabia

I don't know if I am remembering my history right but didn't Lawrence of Arabia secure the help of Arabs which was instrumental in defeating the Ottoman Turks (and securing the allied victory) in WW1 in return for the promise of their own kingdom or Caliphate?? which Britain later reneged on. Then they carved up the Turk Empire between Britain and France. The British obviously had no intention of giving the Arabs anything and the Zionist plan of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was well on it's way long before the start of WW1.

The excerpt below is from The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed (not to be confused with The Protocols of Zion)
I haven't made my way through the entire book as yet (but I have started it and read excerpts numerous times smiling ). You can read it online at this link - http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/ or download a pdf version at this link
- http://www.google.ca/search?q=the+controversy+of+zion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&...
This is from Chapter 28 - The Aberration of Mr. Balfour.

Balfour, closeted with a Zionist emissary from Russia, prepared something worse than slavery for the Arabs of Palestine. His captivation was complete before the interview began, as his niece and lifelong confidante (Mrs. Dugdale) shows: "His interest in the subject was whetted. . . by the refusal of the Zionist Jews to accept the Uganda offer. . . The opposition aroused in him a curiosity which he found no means to satisfy . . . He had asked his chairman in Manchester to fathom the reasons for the Zionist attitude. . . Balfour's interest in the Jews and their history. . . originated in the Old Testament training of his mother and in his Scottish upbringing. As he grew up his intellectual admiration and sympathy for certain aspects of the Jews in the modern world seemed to him of immense importance. I remember in childhood imbibing from him the idea that Christian religion and civilization owed to Judaism an immeasurable debt, ill repaid" .

Such was Mr. Balfour's frame of mind when he received Dr. Weizmann in a room of the old Queen's Hotel in dank and foggy Manchester in 1906. The proposition before him, if accepted, meant adding Turkey, in 1906, to England's enemies in any "future world war" and, if Turkey were defeated in it, engaging in perpetual warfare thereafter with the Arab world.

But calculations of national interest, moral principle and statesmanship, if the above quotations are the test, had deserted Mr. Balfour's mind.

He was in the grip of a "whetted" interest and an unsatisfied "curiosity"; it sounds like a young girl's romantic feeling about love. He had not been elected to decide what "debt" Christianity owed to Judaism, or if he decided that one was owing, to effect its repayment, from a third party's funds, to some canvasser professing title to collect. If there were any identifiable debt and any rational cause to link his country with it, and he could convince the country of this, he might have had a case. Instead, he decided privately that there was a debt, and that he was entitled to choose between claimants in favour of a caller from Russia, when the mass of Jews in England repudiated any notion of such a debt. History does not tell of a stranger thing.

Dr. Weizmann, forty years later, recorded that the Mr. Balfour whom he met "had only the most naive and rudimentary notion of the movement"; he did not even know Dr. Herzl's name, the nearest he could get to it being "Dr. Herz". Mr. Balfour was already carried away by his enthusiasm for the unknown cause. He posed formal objections, but apparently only for the pleasure of hearing them overborne, as might a girl object to the elopement she secretly desires. He was much impressed (as Dr. Weizmann says) when his visitor said, "Mr. Balfour, supposing I were to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it?" "But, Dr. Weizmann, we have London", he answered. Dr. Weizmann retorted, "But we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh".

Mr. Balfour apparently felt this to be a conclusive reason why the Ashkenazic Jews from Russia should be removed to Palestine. However, the only body of Jews whose interest he had any right to consider, those of England, had been working hard to dissuade him from getting entangled in Zionism, and he made a last feeble objection: "It is curious, Dr. Weizmann, the Jews I meet are quite different". Dr. Weizmann replied, "Mr. Balfour, you meet the wrong kind of Jew".

Mr. Balfour never again questioned the c1aim of the Zionists from Russia to be the right kind of Jew. "It was from that talk with Weizmann that I saw that the Jewish form of patriotism was unique. It was Weizmann's absolute refusal even to look at it" (the Uganda proposition) "which impressed me"; to these words Mrs. Dugdale adds the comment, "The more Balfour thought about Zionism, the more his respect for it and his belief in its importance grew. His convictions took shape before the defeat of Turkey in the Great War, transforming the whole future for the Zionists". He also transformed the whole future for the entire West and for two generations of its sons. In this hotel-room meeting of 1906 Max Nordau's prophecy of 1903 about the shape of "the future world war" was given fulfilment.

As that war approached, the number of leading public men who privily espoused Zionism grew apace. They made themselves in fact co-conspirators, for they did not inform the public masses of any intention about Palestine. None outside the inner circ1e of "labyrinthine intrigue" knew that one was in their minds and would be carried out in the confusion of a great war, when parliamentary and popular scrutiny of acts of State policy was in suspense. The secrecy observed stamps the process as a conspiratorial one, originating in Russia, and it bore fruit in 1917.

The next meeting between Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Balfour was on December 14, 1914*. Then the First World War had just begun. The standing British army had been almost wiped out in France, and France itself faced catastrophe, while only the British Navy stood between England and the gravest dangers. A war, costing Britain and France some three million lives, lay ahead, and the youth of Britain was rushing to join in the battle. The great cause was supposed to be that of overthrowing "Prussian militarism", liberating "small nations", and restoring "freedom and democracy".

Mr. Balfour was soon to be restored to office. His thoughts, when he met Dr. Weizmann again, were apparently far from the great battle in France. His mind was not with his country or his people. It was with Zionism and Palestine. He began his talk with Dr. Weizmann by saying, "I was thinking about that conversation of ours" (in 1906) "and I believe that when the guns stop firing you may get your Jerusalem".

People who lived at that time may recall the moment and see how far from anything which they supposed to be at stake were these thoughts of Mr. Balfour. In the person of Mr. Balfour the Prophet Monk reappeared, but this time armed with power to shape the destiny of nations. Obviously "irresistible pressure" behind the scenes had gained great power and was already most effective in 1914.

By that time the American people were equally enmeshed in this web of "labyrinthine intrigue", hidden from the general view, though they did not suspect it. They feared "foreign entanglements"; they wished to keep out of the war and had a president who promised he would keep them out of it. In fact, they were virtually in it, for "irresistible pressure" by that time was working as effectively in Washington as in London.

* An instance of the difficulty of eliciting facts in this matter: Mrs. Dugdale quoted Dr. Weizmann as saying, "did not see him again until 1916", but contradicts this statement by another of her own, "On December 14, 1914, Dr. Weizmann had an appointment to see Balfour". This implicit mention of a second meeting on that date appears to be confirmed by Dr. Weizmann's own statement, that after seeing Mr. Lloyd George on December 3, 1914, he "followed up at once Lloyd George's suggestion about seeing Mr. Balfour".

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Re Lawrence

I'll preface my comment by saying I'm no expert on Palestine by any means so take it as you will!
Yes, it is as you say. The Syrians and the Palestinians were indeed promised independence in return for fighting the Turks and Lawrence felt utterly betrayed when the British reneged on it. From the third of the articles I linked before-
"They want to safeguard their own rights, freely and unhampered, like every other nation. They challenge the authority of the British cabinet to dispose of Palestine. Palestine is theirs. They live in the country. They own the country. They have been indispensable in the military operation of freeing it from the Turks. They have been recognized as belligerents."
I take it from the last sentence that the Palestinians were acknowledged as experienced fighters.
The British were dithering about Syria while the French were pressing to control it themselves. So the Brits pulled a three card trick on them (and the Syrians) and offered Syria to them in exchange for not contesting control of Iraq. The French agreed not realising (as the British did) that Iraq was floating on oil. The British wanted the oil for their navy. That's a bit bye the bye because I don't know how Palestine fitted into it all except that it (obviously) ended up under their control.

Thanks for the link to Douglas Reed's book. By coincidence, I have it on reserve at my local library! The excerpt doesn't leave me with any sort of clear picture of what was supposed to have been going on. So I'm suspicious of the story. I always take the view that I'm not stupid so if I can't understand something that should be straight forward then there is almost certainly missing, incorrect of misleading information here. Things are made labrinthine through lies. The truth is usually pretty simple. Peoples' motivations are likewise pretty simple, too. It does get complicated only when there are lots of actors (bit like a Guy Ritchie movie!)

Speaking of motivation, what did the Rothschilds want with Palestine anyway? They worship money. They, and the Zionists they bankroll, don't care about the mass of Jews. Their behaviour in WW11 alone tells us that. They've never lived there as far as I can tell. The whole show has never been a profitable exercise. So what's going on?

McJ's picture

Reed's book

"Thanks for the link to Douglas Reed's book. By coincidence, I have it on reserve at my local library!

smilingSmile h-m-m-m

"The excerpt doesn't leave me with any sort of clear picture of what was supposed to have been going on. So I'm suspicious of the story"

I only excerpted a section of the chapter - there was more there as a preface but I think one probably needs to read the whole book to put it in context. The book is not without controversy - so says it's title smiling. Reed's personal history is interesting as well and the book was published after his death. Just my opinion, but I think it is worth reading.

It (the book) was quite an undertaking and it starts - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..." laughing out loud just kidding. I guess I am going to have to make an effort to read it cover to cover this time.

You have me doing a lot of reading James....

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v


Thanks to you both,yet again. I really had no idea how long the Zionist desire for a Jewish state preceded WWII. It only makes me even more profoundly angry/sad that after the treatment the Jewish peoples received in WWII they would inflict the same type of pain and suffering on the Palestinians. It almost makes the statement 'never again' totally redundant, I think.

McJ's picture

labyrinthine intrigue

I think Reed's labelling it as a 'labyrinthine intrigue' sums it up nicely. It is a ridiculously difficult process trying to piece together an understanding of it for yourself and very time consuming I might add. smiling I really had no inkling of any of this up until a few years ago when I began reading about it on the internet. I new about the Exodus after WW II and the forming of a Jewish state but that was about it. It was certainly an eye opener for me.

Don't quote me on this - but I believe modern day Zionism has it roots in Russia - during the Russian revolution and the formation of the communist regime there - where the twin ideas of commmunism and zionism had their beginnings.

Zionism as I understand it is about 'ghettoizing' the Jews in their own 'homeland' of Palestine where they can be controlled under Talmudic laws. It is really a very disturbing ideology.

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Research can drive you nuts!

At least, that my excuse. In my experience, the trick is to have a question and follow it and try not to get sidetracked. It would be good to get some advice from WP when he gets back as he is quite gifted in this, in my opinion.
Zionism made its appearance in the late nineteenth century.. maybe 1880's. Theodore Hertl was the leader/promotor and some say the author of the Protocols. They were first published in Russia in 1905 give or take a year. All well before the Russian and Bolshevik Revolutions. They (or at least some of the same actors) were very likely tied up in the latter one involving Lenin.
Zionism is a secular movement, strangely enough, and is at odds with the extreme conservatives in Judaism.

McJ's picture

Funny that...

"Zionism is a secular movement, strangely enough, and is at odds with the extreme conservatives in Judaism."

Funny that...and then we could talk some more about psychopathy....

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Odd, too!

Because I believe there is a spiritual dimension to psychopathy and to Zionism and it's anything but nice. Oh, I forgot to say I appreciated your comments earlier today. Thanks....made my day.
BTW, when do you sleep?

McJ's picture

more lol's

No sleep for me = bad habit I picked up from having a mess of kids in a short period of time - late nights were the only time for myself....either that, or I'm just getting old and don't need that much...I sleep in short spans and rarely ever feel tired...I like to read on Aussie time laughing out loud Laughing out loud

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v


That should read Theodore Herzl. (I'm as bad as Balfour!)

McJ's picture


laughing out loud laughing out loud laughing out loud

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.