Benjamin Netanyahu needs permanent war to remain in power

 

Benjamin Netanyahu needs permament war to remain in power

Two men represented hope for Israel: Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin. Ariel Sharon ordered the withdrawal from Gaza and Yitzhak Rabin actively engaged in peace talks that could have led to the two state solution.

Unfortunately for the Jewish peoples, Benjamin Netanyahu is using war as a way to remain untouched by Israeli Courts prosecution. So now, there are bombings everywhere, including the end of a fragile ceasefire that he was forced to accept and he sought to breach as soon as possible. So the Murder Campaing continues. He perfectly knows that words like annexation mean no peace for the foreseeable future.

Gullible individuals call Israel "our greatest ally", something that Israel was not, is not and will never be, as those in charge follow their own agenda that puts everybody else in danger and this includes Jews around the World as the present Israeli government is the best promoter of hatred against Jews.

On the way to World War Three: This is not the end, not the beginning of the end. It is maybe the end of the beginning

 

Although, officially, the beginning of World War Two was September 3rd, 1939, in actual fact the World War Two started a lot earlier. 

In the early 1930s, Japan was battling it out with China. In 1936, the Spanish Civil War was yet another step. In 1938, the then Czchecoslovakia so much of its territory taken away. So other things were happening long before German troops launched the atttack against Poland.

Palestine, Ukraine and Yemen are just part of the picture. They are steps towards World War Three. All sides, as it usually the case, try to interpret the opponents' movements, according to what they think is the opponents agenda.

The war in Palestine is a war of extermination. The general idea is to get of Palestinians on the way to the creation of the bigger Israel. When Palestinians are out of the way, or even before that, Israel will use any justification to attack its neighbours. Ir is already waging war against Syria and Lebanon and other countries will be attacked.

The conflict in Ukraine has served to clarify the contradictions of a presumed unified European Union. The European Union is a political project and the controversies in terms of lack of support clearly show that behind the facade of unity there are dangerous differences when countries are asked to choose between the political project and their own national interests.

The conflict in Ukraine is only about winning. In the same manner, that Israel has no intention of allowing Palestinians to have a political solution, in Ukraine there is no political solution. So this is war for years to come and in the process other conflicts will appear, conflicts we have been hearing about as possibilities.

We have repeatedly heard the British Prime Minister, the Secretary for Defense and many other major and minor political personalities talking about doing the walking. The fact remains that in the event of any major conflict Britain is desperately ill equipped. One government after another has totally disregarded the need for Britain to be prepared. They have done the talking, but they haven't done the walking. Britain has barely 40,000 people fit for war of a total of about 73,000 - counting administration staff and cleaning personnel. Britain is not even capable of guarding its own borders or patrolling its own territorial waters.We hear talk about long term projects that mention 2035. Well, what has Britain got today in 2023? 

European politicians talk about their fears of yet another President Trump's presidency. Why? Because they fear that USA will walk away from NATO. Why? Because NATO is the USA. If you look at all other NATO members, they don't have the capacity to wage yet another World War. Germany's development was stiffled on purpose. Germany has been prevented from developing its true potential and German politicians will have to make a huge effort to convince German voters that they need to part with more of their tax monies to build infrasture to prepare the country for war. Germany's bridges and Germany's road have not been built to endure tanks and heavy equipment. But this, as important as it is, is practically nothing compared to the fact that Germany does not have neither the material resources nor the emotional preparedness for war. Decades of blame and apologizing for World War Two have left Germany disabled to even defend itself from aggression. And let us remember that Germany is - even it is poor present state - the biggest economy in Europe.

There are two certain possibilities - vertical escalation and horizontal escalation. Vertical escalation means the use of much more advanced weapons. Horizontal escalation means the spread of war beyond the present boundaries, but there is yet another possibility - vertical and horizontal escalation. Lets see how many countries have the capacity to combine both. Look at both sides of the divide to know what will happen next.

Nazanin: British outside Iran, but Iranian in her country of birth

The time to understand the way International Law works is long overdue. To hear a British minister talking about Iran using British citizens as hostages when in fact they are Iranian and hold British citizenship because of double nationality is appalling. 

Such kind of statements completely misrepresent what is actually going on. Iran is duly entitled to deal with its own citizens. While in Iran, British citizens born in Iran are de facto Iranian and not British. 

With regards to obligations Britain has regarding Iran, it is well known that Britain owes monies to Iran, monies that Britain is mandated to pay. This has been going on for ages and it is an issue that has poisoned British/Iranian relationships. Is it due to geopolitics? Is Britain failing to comply with international obligations contracted with Iran because of geopolitical considerations? 

It is thought that if Britain paid its debts Iranian attitudes would change, but what has happened for decades hasn't helped. Iran has been under siege and British history of interventions in Middle East and Asia Minor has made matters a lot worse. Since the fall of the Shah of Iran, USA and Britain have been involved in actions against Iran. They used Irak under Saddam Hussein to wage a chemical war against Iran because Iran dared to claim ownership of its oil resources. They never forgave Iran for daring to stand as an independent country.

When USA and Britain decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they created a vacuum that is now being filled up by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran with other countries being affected in the whole process. A mass exodus created by Britain and the USA led to neighbouring countries being flooded with refugees and this completely destabilized the entire region. The conflict in Syria very much started with the so called Arab Spring that both Britain and the USA promoted. The conflict in Yemen is perhaps and without perhaps the biggest tragedy that Britain and the USA actively contributed to create. What happened in Libya, what happened in Egypt, what is happening in Syria, what is happening in Yemen, what is happening in Lebanon and what is about to happen in Jordan could have been avoided. 

A knee-jerk reaction led to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and this was followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and what happened then is history leading to the mess we are in nowadays.

When we look for an explanation of why Iran could ever want to have nuclear weapons, the explanation is self-evident. Iran would look for nuclear weapons to deter any aggressor. Isn't this the explanation or justification for Britain to have its Nuclear Deterrent. Well, Iran is also entitled to have its Nuclear Deterrent to protect itself for external aggression.

In order to lower tensions, Britain will have to change its attitudes towards Iran. Paying debts could be a first step in the right direction. Britain will have to change its attitudes towards Saudi Arabia to reassure other players in the Middle East and Asia Minor that Britain will not support aggression against Iran and Britain will not be involved in wars by proxy like the ongoing conflict in Yemen. All regime-changing attempts must come to an end. All military interventions on foreign soil must come to an end. All demonizing campaigns by the political establishment and the mass media must come to an end. All economic warfare must come to an end. Normalization of relationships is the best way to prevent cases like the case of Nazanin from ever happening again.

 

Britain is committing suicide

The announcement in the House of Commons that Britain is going to proceed to disarm itself coincides with increases of numbers and combat readines in China, in Russia and elsewhere. What the announcement made by Ben Wallace MP - Secretary of Defense - shows is that Britain has failed to recruit enough numbers. In a desperate effort to increase conscription, there was an attempt to contract forces from overseas to beef up the numbers in the United Kingdom. It also failed and now to try and hide the fact that not enough able men and women show any interest in joining British Armed Forces or are physically fit to join British Armed Forces, the Secretary of State brought to the House of Commons a bill that is nothing more than the official acceptance of the fact that Britain is in trouble. 

Immigration does not provide Britain the right candidates for its Armed Forces. There is an inherent risk of bringing into the Armed Forces individuals whose values, religion and ideology together with the fact that they have roots in countries Britain could be forced to engage in wars make them a liability.

As events in Manchester, in London and in other cities have proven, even those born and bred in Britain show no allegiance to Britain. They even choose to travel abroad to join the enemies of Britain.

In 1982, Margaret Thatcher made a mistake that proved to be catastrophic in spite of the fact that Britain managed to expel Argentinian forces from the South Atlantic islands. It came at a huge cost. Deprived of enough airpower, Britain sent British troops to their death to be killed before they even landed on the islands. Argentina was not a major player. It was not a naval power, its armed forces were made up mainly of conscripts that joined at a late hour and only had its Airforce as a major asset with missiles provided by Israel and France.

Today, the dangers are much greater. Britain's enemies very well know Britain's weaknesses. Whether there is Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen - of all places, Britain can only play second fiddle to American forces and American capabilities.

Ben Wallace MP's idea is basically wars by proxy using elements on the ground or supporting elements on the ground. No one rational would think that you can face the world in a real conflict with merely 70,000 men and women under flag. Lower number of men and women under flag dramatically increases the risk of a rising number of casualties should a real conflict occur. Ben Wallace MP also underestimates the risk of internal operations in Britain by individuals acting as proxy forces for foreign countries. What are the potential targets? British nuclear reactors, Communications and Transport to name a few. 

Some time ago, Dame Stella Rimmington, then head of MI5 stated loudly and clearly that the Security Services didn't have the necessary manpower to follow every lead and that people who were potential risks for Britain were going under the radar. In real war, Britain used commandos with relative success. The actions of foreign commandos in the United Kingdom is not unthinkable in a world with very open borders. In a then European Union with extremely porous borders and easy access to passports in which people could travel across the continent without any controls, it was reasonable to expect that potential aggressors would go easily undetected.

But even today, with Britain out of the EU, the danger is considerable. For the moment, attacks have been against civilians by individuals driven by hatred and a desire for revenge or trying to make a point. Britain still has to face a deliberately planned military attack from within against key targets. If terrorists had targetted, for example, the London Underground by flooding tunnels, instead of tens of victims, we would be potentially talking about hundreds of thousands dead on a busy day. Such kind of attack is not inconceivable given the fact that despite permanent efforts, the underground system is prone to flooding.

Ben Wallace MP's approach to defense is extremely short-sighted. Let's be reminded of the words of Sergei Ivanov, once again.: wars in Europe will be carried out with conventional weapons. The use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable because it would involve mass destruction of all sides. 

The build up of military capabilities in the Sea of China is not about nuclear weapons. It is about conventional forces. Any aggression would become a fait accompli because Western Nations couldn't possibly commit enough forces to prevent or to reverse any aggression. This is why in recent years, we only hear about economic sanctions and counter economic sanctions and a war of words. 

Dear Ben Wallace MP,

You might think that reducing the number of troops make good sense because you intend to carry on waging wars by proxy using local combatants or guerrillas to do the job and you might think that this strategy can be maintained for ever and ever. But in the real world it doesn’t work.

You might be too young to remember what happened in 1982, right before the Argentine invasion. Margaret Thatcher was mothballing the British Armed Forces. In a panic, Britain had to rethink the strategy overnight and had not been the for the Harrier Jump Jets Britain would have lost the war in the South Atlantic because after Argentina captured the one and only airstrip on the islands there were no available airstrips to provide British forces the crucial air cover that they needed. Now again, you are making the same mistake and there is talk again of potential trouble in the South Atlantic. How are you going to react if you don’t have the means to do the job? In a few years, Britain lost about 30,000 troops after successive reductions. How are you going to manage in a real conflict?

I know you have been having trouble recruiting new personnel. Most of those who come forward to join the Armed Forces are not fit for purpose. This is why the Conservative government launched a scheme aimed at recruiting personnel from overseas. It hasn’t worked either. Now, you talk about reducing then level of British Armed Forces by natural wastage – you were asked in Parliament about redundancies and you said that redundancies were going to be avoided by depending only on natural wastage when people leave the Armed Forces without being pushed out.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently announced an increase of 44% of  nuclear missiles, but this doesn’t change the reality that nuclear missiles are a weapon that will only be used when everything else has failed. I bring to your attention the words of Sergei Ivanov who said that any conflict in Europe – and presumably elsewhere – will still be fought with conventional forces. You know as well as I know that nothing is won until the ground is secured. Lack of enough manpower leads to bigger casualty numbers and lack of effectiveness.

You talk about standing up to China. How are you going to do that when China mobilizes its military machine? Talk about the Sea of China and the territorial disputes between China and India related to rich oil deposits. Talk about the Philippines that recently expressed alarm when vast numbers of Chinese ships got closer to their shores as part of a Chinese effort to assert its predominance in the region? Drones? Un-manned aircraft? Nuclear missiles?

When we came out of the EU, you and your colleagues spoke about enforcing Britain’s rights in British territorial waters? How are you going to do that? Do you have enough ships to patrol British waters?

For years and years, the Conservative Party has had a tendency to cut down while talking about increasing investment to keep up with NATO quotas.

You only have to look at the trends in the East to understand that you are saving the penny and losing the pound and you are doing it in a way that will cost lives.

They say that Keir Starmer is failing as Labour Party leader because he is not offering effective Opposition. I am copying this message to Helen Hayes and to Keir Starmer as Leader of the Opposition. You are living Britain wide open. You don’t face real conflicts with commandos or elite troops only.  It is said that Britain is less prepared today than Britain was prepared on the eve of World War Two.

When it comes to other issues, like the movement towards independence in Scotland, the wave of discontent in Scotland has something to do with Conservative policies in Scotland regarding defence. It was called the amalgamation of British regiments when regiments that were the pride and honour of Scotland and had a long record in history books were wiped out by Margaret Thatcher. Once, again, saving the penny and losing the pound and threatening to partition the United Kingdom. It was David Cameron that moved military contracts from Portsmouth to Scotland to try to push away the danger of a successful vote for independence in Scotland.

You are barely 50 years of age. You have no real memories of the process that led to rising votes in favour of Scottish independence. You have no real memories of the conflict in the South Atlantic and about the disadvantages that the British fleet faced in the South Atlantic. Do you know why British troops were killed before they ever set foot on the islands? Lack of air cover.

Helen Hayes might not be aware of it. I saw it when it happened. The Sir Galahad and other ships were easy prey of the Argentine Airforce because there was no air cover available. This brings memories of another military disaster that took place under a Conservative government. Have you about the history of the Royal Navy and the sinking of the Prince of Wales by the Japanese air force that used torpedo planes against British ships that went to war without air cover?

Have you read about what happened in Narvik, Norway? Are you aware of why it happened? It happened because British troops went to Norway without air cover and without artillery. They were attacked by the Wermacht from the sea, on land and from the air. This led to the downfall of Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister. If anything happens in the South Atlantic or elsewhere that is remotely similar to what happened in Narvik, you will only have yourself to blame.

Don’t play with British lives. Don’t risk British lives by reducing British military capabilities.

 

Nostradamus and the Middle East: Are we on the verge of a major cataclism?

Nostradamus and the Middle East: Are we on the verge of a major disaster? In the 1990s and then again in 2003, the issue was Iraq, and Palestine was an ongoing headache that had become a constant and so there were no unexpected consequences believed to be about to come out of it.

What Western military intervention in Iraq in 2003 opened was a can of worms that is now spreading in every direction reaching Europe with very undesirable effects to the point that political stability in Europe is being seriously undermined.

Despite the fact that the major players, US and Russia are decidedly involved in a series of conflicts, the risk is that those trying to fill up the gaps might unwittingly turn regional issues into something major.

When secondary players become involved, there might be not enough reasons for restraint and as the battle of words takes over the unexpected might happen. There are government and there are populations and government playing the tune for internal audiences in an effort to prevent or to counter internal upheaval are most dangerous since external wars are thought to be - a good way to silence internal opposition or to cover up bad governance.

The South Atlantic War initiated by the Argentinian Military Junta was a desperate attempt by the military to play for time when the military were loosing control. They need something that could unite a very divided Argentina. Whatever can be used to counter internal divisions will be used to try and unite public opinion in favour of governments. 

Kurdish struggle towards statehood goes on. Kurdish populations exist in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and also in Syria and Turkey is the one most affected. Israel and Iran have been at odds for a very long time. Israel favoured the invasion of Iraq and now is pushing the US to see Iran as a valid target and to justify military operations within Syrian territory. While many in the European Union favoured the continuation of a nuclear deal signed up with Iran, US withdrew from the pact and has announced that it would be reduced its military intervention in Syria. Israeli action in Syria and elsewhere justify the level of mistrust of Iranian authorities when Iranians who are fighting against Islamic State are being killed by Israeli jets.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are in a proxy war in Yemen. Qatar is leaving OPEC and is not in good terms with Saudi Arabia. Lebanon and Jordan could be brought into conflict due to Israel military operations in the region. And then there is the relationship between European countries and countries in the Middle East. Germany and France announced an embargo on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Turkey - a NATO country - threatened France - another NATO country - about French military operations in support of Kurdish fighters in Syria.

Where the initial flash will come from that will trigger a major conflict is everybody's guess but there are plenty of possibilities for disaster to strike. The assassination of a Saudi Arabian journalist in spite of the savagery and callousness shown by the Saudi Arabian Monarchy might be seen as insignificant when it comes to a very difficult balancing exercise.

Britain's attempt to defuse the situation in Yemen has to do with putting an end to a human catastrophe but it has also the aim of reducing the chances of a direct confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

We are dealing with a House of Cards. One wrong move and wars will spread in every direction. 

Nash Higgins of The Independent doesn't have a clue about military operations

Nash Higgins of The Independent doesn't have a club about military operations. An article published by Evgeny Lebedev's newspaper shows that Mr Higgins seems to believe that in military operations there cannot be casualties, perhaps unaware of the fact that even in the most successful military operations there can be casualties.

Having said that, Mr Higgins follows Mr Lebedev's guidelines in terms of writing rubbish about President Donald Trump because such writings are popular with the Clinton News Networks and other rags passing as Free Press.

This brilliant strategist of The Independent, self-declared military strategist, writes a shambles pretending to be writing a serious journalistic article.

This is a kind of journalism aimed at feeding mass hysteria based on ignorance because the company and its editors obviously know that it is the kind of trash that many equally ignorant individuals in the United Kingdom seem to love.