Really interesting read on syria

Elijah J. Magnier: US policy failure reopens Iraqi-Syrian borders and the Iran-Beirut road

“A dinosaur with a bird’s brain”. This is how the ex-President of Iran Hashemi Rafsanjani described the United States of America, evoking its great military strength but lack of strategic intelligence in foreign policy. Indeed, the very unusual meeting of the chiefs of staff of Syria, Iraq and Iran in Damascus this week would not have been possible without the latest US action in Syria. The US establishment has done a favour for the three countries aligned with the “Axis of resistance” by eliminating the “Islamic State” group (ISIS) in its last stronghold east of the Euphrates. The US attack on Baghuz (east of Syria), done in conjunction with its Kurdish proxies, has led the three military commanders to decide to re-open the land road between Syria and Iraq, paving the way for a safe Iranian land passage to Iraq and Syria. This means the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut road is now clear. This is not the first time the US establishment has rendered substantial strategic support to Iran with its clumsy planning.

When US President Donald Trump decided to pull out of Syria, describing it as a land of “sand and death”, he was serious about his plan. However, the US could not leave without first eliminating the ISIS pocket in the area under US control in the east of Syria, which would have meant leaving in place what has been the sole pretext for its occupation of the area. This is why Trump was advised to eliminate ISIS first and then withdraw his troops. He finally ordered his forces to do so after long months of inaction, during which the US effectively offered protection to the terror group and allowed tens of thousands of ISIS militants to move freely to attack the Syrian Army and its allies along the Deir-ezzour al-Bukamal axis.

The significance of Trump’s decision to finally move against ISIS cannot be overestimated. Since 2014 the US has been engaged in a phoney war against ISIS, pretending to fight this brutal takfiri group while in fact allowing it to expand and killing Syrian Army soldiers who actually fought the group. Throughout this time the US has used ISIS as a pretext for the US military presence in Syria. The US did bomb ISIS occupied Raqqah and destroyed it; it then made a deal to deport many thousands of ISIS partisans. But the ongoing Battle of Baghuz marks the first time the US has really fought ISIS. To his credit, Trump is now doing what the US has only pretended to do for five years: actually fighting ISIS. This spectacular and drawn out campaign allows Trump to take credit for defeating ISIS, although for half a decade the forces actually fighting ISIS have been the Syrian Army, Russia, the Iraqi PMU/Hashed al-Shaabi, the Iraqi Army, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Iran.

In Baghuz, US forces (and European allies) have bombarded ISIS to squeeze it into a small confined city. They succeeded in opening a safe passage for women, children, elderly, wounded ISIS militants, and many of those willing to surrender. Over 35,000 ISIS and families have come out of that small place. 9,000 militants have been wounded or killed. The US and their Kurdish proxy forces have managed to corner the remnants of the terrorist group in a small area less than 1 square km and are about to launch the final assault in the coming days. It is only a matter of time before ISIS gives up its last stronghold east of the Euphrates.

https://southfront.org/elijah-j-magnier-us-policy-failure-reopens-iraqi-syrian-borders-and-the-iran-beirut-road/

Norman Finkelstein: Israel, Settlements and the ICC (Part 1/2)

August 21, 2014

ith illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land, why has Israel not been held accountable?

After wars in 2008-09 and in 2012, Israel has once again bombarded Gaza in a land, sea and air military campaign. Thousands of rockets from Hamas and other Palestinian factions have been fired at Israel, the vast majority of which were intercepted by the Iron Dome defense system.

The war remains on a knife edge as only fragile ceasefires have been enforced, while both parties shuttle back and forth to Cairo for talks. Over 2,035 Palestinians have been killed, mostly civilians, while Israel has lost 64 soldiers and three civilians.

In this interview, Fair Observer’s Manuel Langendorf and Abul-Hasanat Siddique speak to Norman Finkelstein, a writer, scholar and activist on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finkelstein is the author of nine books, including Old Wine, Broken Bottle: Ari Shavit’s Promised Land. In part one, they discuss the Gaza conflict, the Israeli lobby and the American Jewish community.

Abul-Hasanat Siddique: In your book, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, you mention the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon as the starting point of your research into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What was it that inspired you to follow the region?

Norman Finkelstein: I have always been active in politics, but Israel-Palestine wasn’t initially on my radar. I was involved in the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement and then the struggle for rights of Central Americans. I then got involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. At the time, I belonged to a Jewish group and one of the topics that came up was Zionism, about which I knew next to nothing. I then started to research Zionism, trying to get some clarity. That eventually became my doctoral dissertation.

I am of Jewish background. My parents lived through the Nazi Holocaust. The Nazi Holocaust was constantly invoked as a justification for Israeli policy, so I had a personal (familial) stake in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Once I got involved, I was not about to just latch onto something else because I am not a quitter.

In sum, I had a political, professional and personal stake: they all converged when it came to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Manuel Langendorf: Amid violence in the decades-long conflict, we often witness another war about the narrative over who is to blame. Since you have studied the conflict extensively, which type of changes have you seen in terms of the discourse regarding Palestinian self-determination and resistance, and Israeli actions?

Finkelstein: First, as a scholarly point, I have an allergic reaction to terms like “narrative” and “discourse.” I don’t think history is about narratives. Nobody would take seriously a Nazi narrative of the Nazi holocaust versus a Jewish narrative. There is one truth. It is always difficult to reach and will always be an indefinite approximation, but this notion of two truths — of the oppressor and the oppressed — I find extremely distasteful. So I am not going to speak about narratives, but I will talk about the historical record and how our understanding has changed.

When I first got involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, there was little critical historical research done on the subject. Most of what passed as scholarship was the Leon Uris novel, Exodus, with footnotes. It was basically propaganda put out by Israel’s official agencies, which was accepted as the truth. That began to change in the late 1980s, with the emergence of what has come to be known as the “New Historians.” In the late 1980s, the First Intifada took place, which began on December 7, 1987. It was a mass, non-violent resistance movement and, at that point, it was impossible to ignore the reality and justice of Palestinian demands for self-determination. It was also impossible to ignore because of this new historic scholarship.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/norman-finkelstein-israel-settlements-and-the-icc-02734/

>>5852692

Norman Finkelstein: Israel, Settlements and the ICC (Part 2/2)

Abul-Hasanat Siddique: Israeli settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law. For some Jewish settlers, they view migrating to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a biblical right. Does such an argument have any basis in a secular world?

Norman Finkelstein: First, the majority of Jewish settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories have not migrated there because of a biblical right. Yes, there is a core of crazies, but the majority of settlers have migrated because they were given incentives — there was a government project. This notion that they just carried it out on their own and went out in the wilderness is simply a myth.

One thing you can credit Israel with is the level of planning and bureaucracy. Israel is very modern and rational. There were certain areas of the West Bank it wanted to keep due to water resources and good land. Israel was very clear with what it wanted. The expression in the 1970s was it wanted everything but areas of dense Arab settlement. Israel wanted the land and resources, but not the people.

To take one classic example, a senior Israeli hydrologist was once asked: “Where are the settlements located? Why are some located at X place and not at Y place?” So he said: “Well, just look at what’s under the settlements. All the major settlement blocs are located right above the water aquifers.” That wasn’t an accident and that wasn’t because of messianic Jews who were inspired by the Bible. Israel laid the territorial grid for settlements based on where the resources were. So the hydrologist said: “You want to know where the settlements are? Look what’s underneath them — where water is.”

So this was a government-inspired plan. There was a tip of the spear — the messianic crazy Jews — but overall settlers were given housing and education subsidies. Therefore, it was more inviting to live in settlements than in Israel due to massive government subsidies.

Labor leaders such as Yitzhak Rabin always built more settlements than their Likud predecessors. This included Labor leader Ehud Barak when he replaced the first government of Binyamin Netanyahu. Now, the pattern has been broken somewhat because Netanyahu has been in power for so long. But the point being, settlements have been a national project of Israel and it has been a rational, bureaucratic process.

Manuel Langendorf: Many people point especially to the wider Jerusalem area where a lot of settlers live as well, in what some describe as “quality of life” settlers.

Finkelstein: Right after the 1967 war, an Iraqi representative at the UN General Assembly was a very smart when he said: “Of course Israel wants to annex East Jerusalem. Whoever controls East Jerusalem controls the West Bank.” East Jerusalem was the social, economic, political and cultural hub of the West Bank, and so controlling East Jerusalem meant controlling the West Bank.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/norman-finkelstein-israel-settlements-and-the-icc-56812/

Benjamin Netanyahu's Plan to Rule the World

Pure psychopath in his own words tells you how he and Israel are going to run and control everything.

>>5852794

>>5852762

It's him speaking in his own words so how does that make me a shill shill?