Mediterráneo Oriental más Irán, Irak chií y Turquía

[Esteban]

Israel podría estar planeando entrar en Gaza para neutralizar a Hamas.

From The Sunday TimesJune 17, 2007

Israel plans attack on Gaza
Uzi Mahnaimi
ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.

According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.

The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings.

Barak, who is expected to become defence minister tomorrow, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armoured divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets, against Hamas.

The Israeli forces would expect to be confronted by about 12,000 Hamas fighters with arms confiscated from the Fatah faction that they defeated in last week’s three-day civil war in Gaza.

Details of the plan emerged as Fatah forces in the West Bank stormed Hamas-run buildings, including the parliament in Ramallah, where they tried to seize the deputy speaker.

Israeli officials believe their forces would face even tougher resistance in Gaza than they encountered during last summer’s war against Hezbollah in south Lebanon. A source close to Barak said that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive “Hamastan” on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable.

“The question is not if but how and when,” he said.

[ZULU]

CON APOYO DE LAS TROPAS BRITÁNICAS
EEUU e Irak inician una gran ofensiva contra las milicias de Al Sadr
Fuentes de la coalición dicen que han muerto al menos 20 personas. Si se confirman estas cifras, se trataría de uno de los combates más sangrientos en cuatro meses

[ZULU]

Interesante perspectiva.

Adiós a Palestina, ¿adiós a Israel?

Por Horacio Vázquez-Rial
El Estado de Israel es un año más joven que yo, de modo que lo he visto crecer y evolucionar día a día desde que tengo uso de memoria; y puedo jurar que nunca antes lo he visto en una situación peor. Lo cual me angustia doblemente: por Israel y por este Occidente suicida que ha sustituido la acción política por una letanía majadera en la que se invoca una imposible alianza de civilizaciones, se llama migración a la invasión y se sigue considerando a los judíos una desgracia universal, aunque se diga con la boca pequeña.

Hagamos un poco de historia. En setiembre de 1970, el que a posteriori sería llamado por los palestinos Setiembre Negro, el reino de Jordania expulsó de su territorio a la Organización para la Liberación de Palestina, la OLP, en una dura persecución que supuso el exterminio de miles de miembros de esa organización. Las fuerzas reales, los beduinos de Husein, tenían órdenes de no tomar prisioneros, de modo que las ejecuciones sumarias se sucedieron sin interrupción.

Era el estallido de un largo conflicto entre jordanos y palestinos. Al Huseini, el gran muftí de Jerusalén, socio de Adolf Hitler y tío de Yaser Arafat, había decidido que quienes hicieran la paz con Israel serían traidores a la causa árabe; y se había implicado en el complot que culminó en 1951 con el asesinato de Abdalá, primer rey de Jordania y padre de Husein. De entre todos los países árabes, Jordania había sido el único en acoger a los palestinos desplazados en pie de igualdad, como ciudadanos y no como refugiados. Además, Husein permitió a algunos grupos organizados, como Fatah o el Frente Popular para la Liberación de Palestina de George Habash, establecer bases en zonas cercanas a la frontera israelí.

Hace ahora cuarenta años, en 1967, Irak, Egipto, Siria y Jordania atacaron Israel y salieron trasquilados al cabo de seis días, perdiendo la franja de Gaza, los altos del Golán, Cisjordania y el Sinaí. Entonces, cientos de miles de palestinos huyeron a Jordania, complicando las cosas a sus propios compatriotas allí establecidos y al mismo reino de Husein. En poco tiempo hubo un Estado palestino dentro del Estado jordano manejado por los líderes guerrilleros, que convirtieron la vida diaria en un infierno: asaltaban, violaban, se lanzaban al pillaje en las aldeas, cobraban derechos de paso por determinadas zonas que consideraban propias. Etcétera.

Primero intervino la policía, luego las tropas. Pero las relaciones entre palestinos y jordanos se fueron deteriorando con una lentitud mayor que la que cabía esperar. Sería exceso de prolijidad resumir aquí las negociaciones entre Husein y los grupos guerrilleros palestinos, el acuerdo de los Siete Puntos, el de los Diez Puntos y, finalmente, el Plan Rogers (por el apellido del secretario de Estado americano que lo propuso –durante la presidencia de Nixon–, tras una visita de Husein a los Estados Unidos).

En 1968 los dirigentes palestinos ya actuaban bajo el lema "Jordania es Palestina, Palestina es Jordania", convirtiendo el refugio en invasión y empleando el territorio jordano como referente militar. Habash inició entonces una larga campaña de secuestro de aviones de gran resonancia internacional.

En el mes de setiembre de 1970, negro para los palestinos, se declaró la ley marcial y los beduinos del rey se lanzaron a arrasar los establecimientos palestinos. Fatah generó entonces un brazo dedicado al terrorismo fuera de los países árabes que se llamó, precisamente, Setiembre Negro y que pasó a las primeras planas de la prensa mundial por el secuestro y asesinato de once atletas israelíes en los Juegos Olímpicos de Múnich (1972). De ese espanto salió reforzado el liderazgo de Arafat.

Cuando la Guerra de Yom Kippur, en 1973, enfrentó a Israel con Siria y Egipto, Jordania se mantuvo al margen. El proyecto panárabe de Naser y otros líderes de la región se vio duramente afectado. De hecho, no resucitó realmente hasta Ahmadineyad, a pesar de los esfuerzos de Sadam Husein. Claro que del panarabismo se pasó, en ese proceso, al panislamismo.

Del proyecto panárabe dependía en gran medida la negativa palestina a aceptar el Decreto de Partición de noviembre de 1947, que ordenaba la creación de dos Estados en el territorio hasta entonces bajo protectorado británico. Fue la Liga Árabe, y no ninguna entidad palestina más o menos etérea, la que respondió que no, que nada de eso: "Vamos a echar a los judíos al mar". Por otra parte, era del todo lógico que fuese así, ya que no había por entonces (ni ahora, en realidad) nada parecido a una nación o un pueblo palestino diferenciado: la identidad palestina, si es que tal cosa existe, se ha ido creando a lo largo de los últimos años, cuando unas Naciones Unidas dispuestas, como siempre, a concederlo todo otorgaron a la OLP de Arafat –una organización terrorista; tanto como Al Qaeda, aunque con menos recursos, y tanto como la ETA, aunque con muchísimos más recursos– un sillón de representación oficial para que se sentara entre los jefes de Estado.

De las necesidades de Arafat dependió durante mucho tiempo la creación o no de un Estado palestino. Avanzó y retrocedió a lo largo de lo que llegaron a ser décadas de enfrentamientos, negociaciones, promesas incumplidas y compromisos rotos. Pero a su muerte existía la Autoridad Nacional Palestina.

En todos esos años los más interesados en la constitución de ese Estado fueron siempre los israelíes, que también eran los únicos capaces de garantizar su supervivencia, en todos los órdenes. De modo que los dirigentes palestinos, aun los más moderados y sensatamente volcados al proyecto de un Estado, siempre interpretaron que, puesto que era interés de Israel, algo malo debía de haber en ello. Incluido, claro está, Abu Mazen.

Medio siglo de actividad terrorista, entretanto, creó un tipo de individuo deforme, que sólo sabe de muerte. Hay generaciones enteras (muy breves, dado lo temprano de los embarazos y la brevedad de la vida en esos empleos) que no hicieron jamás otra cosa que matar.

Eso, naturalmente, es causa de enfermedad. Ya no se trata de psicópatas como De Juana Chaos o la parejita que asesinó a Miguel Ángel Blanco. Ni siquiera de serial-killers de película: Hannibal tiene un código de conducta y cuestiona conscientemente la moral general. Ni siquiera de psicópatas o de sociópatas más o menos encuadrados en una organización como la ETA. No: se trata de un ejército, numerosísimo, de decenas de miles de hombres en cada lado (porque, en esto, los de Fatah y los de Hamás no se diferencian) que sólo se han preparado para volar en pedazos al enemigo, aun a costa de la propia vida.

El enemigo es el infiel: hasta anoche (aunque también mañana), los israelíes, Israel, los cruzados; esta mañana, y durante toda la semana, los de Fatah o los de Hamás. Lo de que Hamás es peor es sólo una ilusión óptica debida a que son los que van ganado y, para eso, han matado más que los otros.

Hamás está mejor financiado. Tiene a Irán detrás. En ese sentido sí que es más peligroso que Fatah, porque es el encargado de retomar el proyecto panárabe devenido panislámico. Han ocupado Gaza, que ni Abu Mazen ni Israel van a reconquistar por ahora, y han conseguido el objetivo primordial: no habrá Estado palestino por muchísimos años, y lo que se propone como alternativa no formal, porque nadie quiere asumir responsabilidades de Estado, es una república islámica de modelo iraní. Todo es modelo iraní. Y, como decía con razón el domingo Ramón Pérez Maura en ABC, ¿por qué habría que confiar ahora más en Abu Mazen de lo que correspondía confiar en Arafat, es decir, poco?

Ahora bien: así contado, parece una historia aislada. Pero Cisjordania no tardará en caer, y es una rama religiosa de Fatah, Fatah al Islam, escindida en principio del partido de Abu Mazen, la que hace estragos en el sur del Líbano, junto a Hezbolá. Esa rama, perfectamente autónoma respecto del Gobierno de Fatah, incluye terroristas palestinos pero también yihadistas islámicos de variadas nacionalidades, no todas árabes, como informa George Chaya, quien también dice que Fatah al Islam se constituyó con la bendición de los servicios de inteligencia sirios y que tiene su sede operacional en Damasco, aunque no puede descartar la aportación al movimiento de los salafistas de Al Qaeda.

Por otra parte, Siria e Irán sostienen al alimón la acción de Hezbolá, que dio lugar a la última intervención defensiva israelí en territorio libanés, y no parece probable que el ejército libanés pueda combatir exitosamente por sí solo en varios frentes, de Trípoli a Sidón y, probablemente, el valle de la Bekaa: tarde o temprano, la eterna pusilanimidad chamberlainesca europea tendrá que ceder paso a la necesidad de defenderse, y las tropas allí estacionadas se verán forzadas a actuar, incluidas las españolas, le guste o no a Zapatero.

Es en este marco, con un embrión de república islámica en dos fronteras establecidas de facto (Gaza ahora, y Cisjordania, que se ha interpuesto entre Israel y Jordania y que no tardará en caer en manos islámicas, pese a no haber sido abandonada por el Tsahal, al menos en un 60% de su territorio, despúes), con grandes conflictos nacionales en otras dos (el Líbano y Egipto) y con una quinta, la Siria, desde la cual se financia en parte la actividad en las demás, donde se empieza a explicar, más allá de su probable ingreso en el club nuclear, que el presidente de Irán afirme que Israel tiene los días contados.

Nunca, desde su nacimiento como Estado en 1948, Israel estuvo tan amenazado. Y hay que recordar que por entonces y hasta 1956 contaba con el apoyo de la URSS, que al fin se decantó por aliarse con un mundo árabe en el que, comenzando por el Egipto de Naser, al menos la apariencia era laica. Rusia debería haber comprendido su inmenso error de entonces cuando la amenaza fundamentalista le llevó a la guerra en Afganistán y le planteó el problema interior de Chechenia.

Haberlo comprendido y haber rectificado, como rectificaron los Estados Unidos en relación con el mismo Afganistán, donde se subieron a lomos de los talibán por mor de la Guerra Fría. Una Guerra Fría que, en realidad, no ha cesado desde que cobró vida visible (nunca había dejado de existir) la alianza ruso-germana, de tal entidad que nada menos que un ex canciller, Schroeder, se ha convertido en presidente de una empresa rusa, Gazprom. Una vez más, Chamberlain come en el plato alemán, asegurando la neutralidad de esta Europa que duerme la siesta en el lecho de sus glorias pasadas como si éstas no hubiesen tenido un precio para todos, América incluida.

Ciertamente, Europa ha declamado su apoyo a Abu Mazen. Pero eso sirve de muy poco cuando se ha estado manteniendo generosamente primero a Arafat y después a unos sucesores que en ningún momento fueron aval de nada. O bien se apoya de forma irrestricta el derecho de Israel a existir y a defenderse, incluyendo la acción militar, o bien el entierro ya consumado del proyecto de Estado palestino, que no se puede imponer desde fuera, traerá aparejado el del Estado israelí.

Sólo Israel ha podido respaldar a los palestinos para que levantaran su Estado, y, por contrapartida, sólo la creación de un Estado palestino laico fronterizo podía respaldar su propia trayectoria histórica. Ésa era la idea que subyacía al Decreto de Partición y que asumieron los padres fundadores del Estado. Y eso es lo que había comprendido el malogrado Ariel Sharon, que intentó acelerar el proceso mediante la desconexión antes de que fuera demasiado tarde y allí surgiera lo que ahora surge: otro país islámico.

Como Israel es un país democrático en serio, las ineptitudes de quienes se hicieron cargo del Gobierno tras el accidente vascular de Sharon han salido a la luz y a los tribunales, lo cual me parece muy bien. Pero, siempre hay un pero, las pugnas en el laborismo y en el Kadima no benefician a nadie ni revelan un nuevo liderazgo en ciernes en el país.

Ni Barak ni Peres han dado pruebas en el pasado de ser los hombres adecuados en el lugar adecuado, en el claro sentido en que lo era Sharon. Y creo que todos somos conscientes de que el liderazgo es un factor decisivo: el destino de Occidente en la Segunda Guerra Mundial dependió en gran medida del liderazgo de Churchill, y sin su constante presión es posible, no sé si probable, que Roosevelt hiciera caso a los aislacionistas y no reaccionara ni siquiera ante Pearl Harbor, su gran justificación para entrar en la contienda. (Curiosamente, lo que entonces se entendió en relación con Pearl Harbor no se ha entendido ahora en relación con el 11-S, ni con la ya larguísima lista de atentados precedentes y posteriores, de los que tienen la culpa los americanos).

De modo que Israel tiene otro problema, esta vez propio, que debe resolver rápidamente, porque en ello le va la vida. Y nos va la vida.

[Esteban]

preocupante noticia; ha aparecido un vídeo del periodista de la BBC secuestrado en Gaza donde se le ve con un cinturón de explosivos encima.

BBC's Johnston shown in tape wearing explosives
24/06/2007
GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said on Sunday that the kidnappers of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston have made a new video of the abducted journalist wearing what appeared to be explosives around his waist.

Haniyeh, prime minister of the Hamas-led government sacked by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, disclosed the video of Johnston in his first major speech since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip just over a week ago.

"In the past they showed him in an orange uniform. Today they showed him with an explosives belt round his waist," Haniyeh said.

AdvertisementA Palestinian source close to the negotiations confirmed the existence of a new tape showing Johnston wearing an explosives belt. The tape has not been aired publicly but the contents were shared with Haniyeh.

Johnston, 45, went missing in Gaza on March 12 and is believed to be being held by the Army of Islam, a little known group that appears to draw inspiration from al Qaeda but also seems to be linked to violent clan rivalries among Gaza's 1.5 million people.

The only other known video of Johnston, released on June 1, showed him wearing a baggy red sweater. He said in that tape that he was in good health and being treated well.

Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip said they were pressing the kidnappers to free Johnston.

"We will not allow the continuation of the abduction of the British journalist. The issue of Alan Johnston must end," Haniyeh said on Sunday.

Haniyeh said his government has not used force to free Johnston at the request of the British government, fearing he might be killed or injured in the process.

The Army of Islam has demanded that Britain free Muslim prisoners, particularly Islamist cleric Abu Qatada. A man identified as a spokesman for the group recently told Al Jazeera television that it might kill the journalist.

The Scotsman is the only Western correspondent based full-time in the Gaza Strip, where a year-old economic embargo and fighting among militants have worsened living conditions.

[Esteban]

El vídeo (porque con estos canallas siempre tendremos un vídeo):

http://www.lauramansfield.com/4_NEW.rm

[Esteban]

Según fuentes rusas recogidas por el Asian Times, Putin estaría vendiendo Mig29 y Mig31 a Siria, aunque podría ser un globo sonda.

The strange story of MiG-31s for Syria
By Pavel Felgenhauer

Moscow's respected business daily Kommersant reported that Russia's arms-trading monopoly Rosoboronexport has begun to fulfill an arms deal it secretly signed with Syria this year to sell five MiG-31E jet fighters, considered among the best in the world, and an additional unspecified number of the newest MiG-29M/M2 fighter-bombers.

The paper reported the total price to be about US$1 billion. MiG-31s were produced at the Sokol aviation factory in Nizhniy Novgorod from 1981-94 (some 500 planes overall). Since production has been terminated, Syria, according to Kommersant, will get the jets from the Russian Defense Ministry stockpile after a refurbishing at Sokol.

Kommersant suggested that Iran is partially or even fully covering the purchase bill, and that the jets may partially or fully end up as part of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. Commenting on the Kommersant report, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamiynin last week told reporters, "All Russian arms deals comply with international law and Russia's obligations under international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions."

This vague statement was widely taken as indirect conformation of the Kommersant story, but it later turned out not to be the case. By last Tuesday evening, Rosoboronexport head Sergei Chemizov, speaking in Paris at Le Bourget Air Show, had denied the existence of any jet fighter deal with Syria.

This is not the first time Kommersant has published a page 1 "scoop" on breaking arms-trade news that later turned out to be not fully accurate. Last month it reported that Libya and Russia were close to finalizing a $2.2 billion arms deal. Neither Moscow nor Tripoli confirmed the report.

This month Kommersant reported that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez might buy nine Russian submarines, reportedly worth $2 billion, when he visits Moscow in June to meet President Vladimir Putin. This deal seemed fishy from the start, since it clearly exceeded the present capacity of Russian shipbuilders to make new subs and the Venezuelan navy's capacity to run so many new ships.

Kommersant reported that Venezuela had chosen Russian subs over others offered by Germany and France, which also sounded odd, because Russian conventional attack subs, including the latest models, are outdated and significantly inferior to German and French ones. Venezuelan Defense Minister Raul Isaias Baduel promptly denied that his government was planning to buy submarines from Russia.

Kommersant claims the MiG-29M/M2 is more or less the same jet Russia is peddling to India as the MiG-35. The MiG-35 is still only a flying prototype - not a real fighter - and the Russian Air Force does not have any such planes. If India chooses a European or US fighter instead, the MiG-35 as well as the MiG-29M/M2 may never enter serial production.

The MiG-31, in turn, is a real fighting jet. Russia today has some 280 MiG-31s. Before delivering the aircraft to buyers, arms traders and producers first remove secret Russian military equipment. Then the jets are repainted and sold as "modernized" for high prices, creating sky-high profits that do not seem to ever reach state coffers.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow has been trying to sell the MiG-31. The plane has been displayed at air shows, but no customers have come forward. The MiG-31 is a highly specialized jet - not a fighter per se, but an interceptor specifically designed to kill long-range US cruise missiles. The MiG-31 is a bulky two-seater that can carry up to eight air-to-air guided missiles with a range of up to 120 kilometers.

The MiG-31 can fly supersonic near the Earth's surface as well as high up. It is a purely defensive fighter, designed to be used over friendly territory to defend against massive air assaults. The MiG-31 has sophisticated and powerful radar that can track 24 different targets simultaneously and exchange information with other MiG-31s and ground control centers.

Any country that is seriously preparing to meet the US military on the battlefield, as Iran seems to be, would want to have such a jet to meet an air assault complemented with hundreds or thousands of cruise missiles, as happened in 1999 in Yugoslavia and in 1991 and 2003 in Iraq. Syria could also want several such jets, if Washington were to decide to attack, say, terrorist-connected targets on its territory. The MiG-31 deal with Syria, as reported by Kommersant, seems more plausible than stories about, say, nine subs for Venezuela.

Chemizov has denied the MiG-31 contract, but Kamiynin was deliberately noncommittal. Kommersant may have received confidential information about the possible deal and the leak could have been deliberate. The arms-trade stories Kommersant has been printing may be tests of Western (US) reactions, to see what would happen if imaginary arms contracts suddenly turned out to be real.

These leaks also may be a signal to the West to understand what woe to expect if the Russo-US summit this coming weekend in Maine goes awry.

[Esteban]

Hay que intentar ver la "gran foto" del asalto de al Qaeda a Oriente Medio. Nuevo audiovisual de al Zawahiri defendiendo a Hamas.

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two individual in the leadership of al-Qaeda, speaks in a 25:17 video produced by as-Sahab, titled, “Forty Years Since the Fall of al-Quds [Jerusalem]”.

The video, issued to jihadist forums today, Monday, June 25, 2007, does not contain footage of Zawahiri speaking, as only his image is shown over the audio track; however, in the beginning it does contain previous footage of Usama bin Laden from October 2001 threatening that the United States shall never dream of security until security is realized in Palestine.

Focusing on the primacy of Jerusalem and Palestine for the Muslim Ummah and its continuous subjugation to Western powers since its fall in 1948 with the establishment of Israel, Zawahiri urges support for the Mujahideen in Palestine in the face of additional aggression, which is in the form of the United States financially and militarily supporting the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

Due to the historic failure of Arab governments to protect Jerusalem and attempts to crush the jihad in Palestine, Zawahiri softens in his position towards the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, and calls for its support, “despite all the mistakes of their leadership”, especially in light of its recent actions in usurping power in Gaza Strip from Fatah.

Zawahiri anticipates a coming attack on Gaza to rid Hamas of its positions, an attack in which even Egyptians and Saudis will participate, and declares in regard of Hamas: “a victory of Hamas is a victory of Palestine”. To achieve this he instructs Muslims to support Hamas with money, weapons, and information.

Previously, Zawahiri adopted a hard-line position to Hamas and chastised the organization for engaging in diplomacy and negotiations with Fatah, particularly in the Mecca Agreement, and claimed that by doing so the group had abandoned its Salafist jihadi doctrine and Islam by shirking the Shari’a, or law, of Allah.

This view was then supported by other Salafist personalities, such as Abu Yahya al-Libi, and shared by members of the jihadist Internet community until Hamas recently took control of Fatah centers in Gaza. In this speech, Zawahiri sees the greater enemy in Fatah, supported by the West, moving against Hamas, and this act in tandem with Hamas’ movements against Fatah, perceived as a return to jihad, causes a degree of softening. However, he still reminds Hamas that it must hold steadfast to the Shari’a of Allah and not vacillate in this regard, and also unite with other Mujahideen in the face of the coming attack.

Toward the end of his speech he calls for the defeat of the United States, and states: “Don’t believe those who tell you that America is not defeated. To the contrary. America is being defeated now in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, and it will be defeated in Palestine.”

http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.c ... category=0

[Esteban]

Hizbullah se prepara para la guerra

Hizbullah Preparing for Next War with Israel

Hizbullah is busy preparing for its next war with Israel keeping in mind that the Jewish state will not rest easy with the results of last summer's 34-day conflict, military analysts in Beirut believe.

Since the U.N.-brokered ceasefire came into force last August 14, the pro-Iran Shiite militia has been steadily gearing itself up for the next round with the same determination and secrecy that have made its reputation, the experts say.

"Immediately after last summer's war Hizbullah began re-fortifying its positions and working on new ones," said Judith Palmer Harik, author of the book "Hizbullah: The Changing Face of Terrorism."

"They are rearming... In fact, there has been no interruption in their receiving of more arms," she told Agence France Presse.

The only Lebanese militia allowed by the government to have weapons, Hizbullah has moved most of its weapons out of the border area with Israel to conform with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 which ended the conflict. A Western military observer in the Lebanese capital, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Hizbullah was now redeploying its arms farther north.

"They left the (border) zone at once," he said. "Last summer, much to their surprise, they found themselves fighting well in front of their strongest lines because the Israeli army halted near the frontier.

"Hizbullah has far stronger positions in the rear, north of the Litani river, that no one knows about and that they are fortifying all the time."

For 24 years Timur Goksel was the public face of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, and the former UNIFIL spokesman says it is only a matter of time before war between Israel and Hizbullah breaks out again.

"Israel can't live in the Middle East with the impression that they lost to Hizbullah, a militia," said Goksel, now lecturing at the American University of Beirut.

"Since 1949 they lived on their reputation of the unbeatable Israeli soldier, the invincible Jewish army, the legend. And here comes the Hizbullah who says 'We beat you.' They have to set that correct. They have no other option -- they have to restore their credibility."

He says further conflict is inevitable but not imminent.

"Not now, it will take Israel time to be ready. I'd say two years. Hizbullah knows that very well and they are working on it full-time."

Even in the border zone, patrolled by blue-helmeted international peacekeepers and the Lebanese army, Hizbullah is busy preparing for the next round of hostilities. The militants are so accepted by villagers in the area that no outsider gets to know what is really going on there.

"Iron discipline reigns within the Hizbullah ranks," the Western military observer told AFP. "Promotion is only on merit and security vetting draconian. They're almost impossible to infiltrate and extraordinarily professional."

Retired Lebanese general Whebe Katisha has no doubt that Hizbullah "has retained its military potential and is preparing for the next assault.

"UNIFIL knows nothing about what's going on in the Shiite zone. It's not an easy situation for the Lebanese army -- we don't have enough numbers, equipment or vehicles."

He said that last month a container full of shells and missiles, sent by Iran via Turkey and Syria, was intercepted.

"Hizbullah is Iran's vanguard against Israel," Katisha said. "If Iran is attacked, everyone knows that the response will begin with Hizbullah."

Shortly after last summer's devastating conflict ended, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that the militant group's arsenal had been replenished, and that it now includes new weaponry.

"Knowing their organization, their planning, I think they are going to go more on sophisticated air defense," Palmer Harik said. "Hizbullah is a great mixture of traditional guerrilla warfare and very advanced and efficient weapons."

According to Goksel, "Hizbullah knows very well that next time it's going to be different. What did we do wrong last time, what will happen next time? They know the other side is studying too. If it happens tomorrow, they're ready."(AFP)

Beirut, 27 Jun 07, 17:27

E Israel se prepara para la guerra

General Predicts Israel Will Attack Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, “al-Qaeda” this Summer
Kurt Nimmo
Tuesday June 26, 2007

It is a provocative headline: “Israel braces for July war with up to five enemies.” If we are to believe Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, this attack will be launched by Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and, of course, “al-Qaeda,” the database. “Each of these adversaries is capable of sparking a war in the summer,” Yadlin told the World Tribune. In other words, Israel is capable of attacking one or all of these “adversaries,” as Israel has a notorious history of attacking its neighbors under contrived pretense.

Few remember the words of the Irgun terrorist Menachem Begin, later Israeli prime minister—as Israelis, much like Americans, prefer to be led by terrorists and war criminals—who admitted in 1982 “that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a ‘choice,’ meaning Israel started the wars,” according to Donald Neff, writing for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Here is Begin’s quote in full: “In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

As Livia Rokach writes in the introduction to Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, the former Israeli prime minister, the “Israeli political/military establishment aimed at pushing the Arab states into military confrontations which the Israeli leaders were invariably certain of winning. The goal of these confrontations was to modify the balance of power in the region radically, transforming the Zionist state into the major power in the Middle East.”

In order to realize this modification of power, Israel engaged in “military operations aimed at civilian populations across the armistice lines,” in particular against a defenseless Palestinian population, but also against Israel’s Arab neighbors, and these “operations [were] designed to dismember the Arab world, defeat the Arab national movement, and create puppet regimes which would gravitate to the regional Israeli power.”

“A clear, lucid, coherent logic runs through the history of the past three decades,” Rokach wrote in the 1980s. “In the early fifties the bases were laid for constructing a state imbued with the principles of sacred terrorism against the surrounding Arab societies on the threshold of the eighties the same state is for the first time denounced by its own intellectuals as being tightly in the deadly grip of fascism.”

“Lebanon was the model, prepared for its role by the Israelis for thirty years, as the Sharett diaries revealed,” explains Ralph Schoenman in his book, the Hidden History of Zionism. “It is the expansionist compulsion set forth by Herzl and Ben Gurion even as it is the logical extension of the Sharett diaries. The dissolution of Lebanon was proposed in 1919, planned in 1936, launched in 1954 and realized in 1982.” Schoenman cites Oded Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s, a document that “outlines a timetable for Israel to become the imperial regional power based upon the dissolution of the Arab states.”

In regard to Syria, Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery tells us the Zionist state created a convenient myth in order to escalate hostilities and thus steal land. “According to legend, the Syrians exploited their control of heights overlooking the Israeli villages in the valley below them.

Again and again the evil Syrians (the Syrians were always ‘evil’) terrorized the helpless kibbutzim by shelling. This myth, which was believed by practically all Israelis at the time, served as a justification for the occupation of the Golan Heights and their annexation by Israel. Even now, foreign visitors are brought to an observation post on the Golan Heights and shown the defenseless kibbutzim down below.”

The truth, which has been exposed since then, was a bit different: Sharon used to instruct the kibbutzniks to go to their shelters, and then he would send an armored tractor into the demilitarized zone. Predictably, the Syrians shot at it. The Israeli artillery, just waiting for its cue, then opened up a massive bombardment of the Syrian positions. There were dozens of such “incidents.”

Earlier this month, Jan Muhren, a Dutch UN observer stationed interchangeably at the Golan Heights and the West Bank in 1966-67, told a Dutch current affairs program “neither Jordan nor Syria had any intention to start a war with Israel,” according to Monsters and Critics.

Muhren said “Israel was not under siege by Arab countries preceding the Six-Day War … and that the Jewish state provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land,” that is to say steal land at gunpoint, most notably from Syria, although the “war” resulted in the theft of Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan respectively. As well, Israel grabbed the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.

Once again, Israel is not “under siege by Arab countries,” or Hezbollah, Hamas, and the fantastical “al-Qaeda” for that matter, and yet we are told each “of these adversaries is capable of sparking a war in the summer.” Israeli officials, according to the World Tribune, “said Iran has direct influence over Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. He said Al Qaida has increasingly come under Iranian influence and was being used by Iran and Syria in such countries as Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.”

In short, the Israeli “security myth” documented by Livia Rokach in the 1980s and in the current era buttressed by ludicrous fairy tales, is alive and well. Under such a “security” pretense, never examined by the corporate media, we can expect Israel, or more likely the United States, under an AIPAC and neocon zombie trance for some time now, to attack Iran and Syria, possibly next month, certainly before the Commander Guy leaves office.

Iraq was attacked and 750,000 Iraqis slaughtered in the name of “Israeli security,” that is to say Israeli hegemony. “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel,” Philip Zelikow, Bush insider and former executive director of the nine eleven whitewash commission, told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, according to Emad Mekay, writing for the IPS-Inter Press Service. Naturally, the corporate media completely ignored Zelikow’s comments.

As should be expected, the Likudniks and American neocons will demand, in the wake of Israel’s defeat to Hezbollah last summer, another go, this time making certain to accomplish their goals. Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli married to the neocon David Wurmser, admitted as much last December. “Hizbullah defeated Israel in the war.

This is the first war Israel lost,” she told Yedioth Internet. “I know this will annoy many of your readers… But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah.”

Wurmser, of course, is talking about the neocon part of the administration, the part that has control of American foreign policy. Iran, naturally, figures prominently on the target list as well. If the Israeli Likudniks and the American neocons have their way, Israel will have a second go this summer.

http://infowars.net/articles/june2007/260607General.htm

[juan de la cosa]

El próximo trabajo, que toca la cuestión nuclear, será publicado próximamente por KS. Seguro que os va a entusiasmar.
Que disfrutéis.
Un saludo

B.

[Esteban]

No se puede negar que estos barbudos tienen cierta gracia. Conmemoración del ataque a la corbeta israelí del año pasado. Hizbullah, como Hamas, suele recrear alguna de sus operaciones en una especie de teatrillo para regocijo de los suyos.

Hizbullah Reenacts July 2006 Strike Against Israeli Warship

To mark the anniversary of its strike against the Israeli Sa'ar 5 warship Hanit with an anti-ship missile during last year's Lebanon-Israel war, Hizbullah reenacted the incident by blowing up a model of the ship.

http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/2160.htm