Author: admin

…

The post 50 verdades sobre la muerte de dos disidentes cubanos appeared first on Global Research.

Fatal Clashes in Jenin on Monday called for an Apache helicopter to the rescue. Brigadier-General (res.) Amir Avivi, CEO and founder of the Israel Defense & Security Forum, joins ILTV to discuss the latest developments.

 

The post WATCH: IDF must “rethink the way they are operating’ in Judea and Samaria, says defense expert appeared first on World Israel News.

When the official reasons given for the Oct. 2022 gas deal with Lebanon unravel, who can be blamed for allowing “heretical” alternative explanations to creep into one’s mind?

By Martin Sherman

“We will divide up the region. Israel will return most of the West Bank, and the Palestinian flag will fly on public buildings in East Jerusalem – Yair Lapid, Der Spiegel, May 8, 2008.

“Jerusalem is not a place; it is the constitutive concept of Israeli identity and our most fundamental ethos…We will not divide Jerusalem. No matter what happens. If that eventually means that there will be no resolution [of the conflict], then there will be no resolution – Yair Lapid, Walla, December 27, 2014.

This week, the leader of Israel’s opposition, Yair Lapid, appeared in the Jerusalem District Court as a prosecution witness in the trial of his primary political adversary, incumbent Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. As before with a string of previous prosecution witnesses, his testimony ended up strengthening the case for the defense rather than for the prosecution.

But beyond that, his performance on the stand underscored just how little credibility the man has, and how little store can be placed on anything he says. Indeed, it would be difficult to find any topic on which Lapid has expressed an opinion that, elsewhere, he has not expressed a diametrically opposite one.(For example, see the introductory citations regarding his position on Jerusalem.)

No less striking is Lapid’s breathtaking about-face on judicial reform. Whereas today he is a vociferous opponent of the changes in Israel’s legal system proposed by the current coalition, just a few years earlier, he endorsed the very same measures he now purports to reject as imperiling Israeli democracy.

Indeed, a cursory Google search will reveal similarly dramatic U-turns on the 2005 Disengagement and on the Golan Heights.

Unavoidably, this compels us to the conclusion that Lapid does not have an opinion on anything. All he has, it seems, is an ambition, and opinions are merely tools for fulfilling that ambition—and can be changed at will, depending on transient needs required to further that ambition.

Rushed and rash

This lamentable conclusion cannot but make scrutiny of his conduct, during his fleeting term as prime minister, necessary.

The decision that calls out most for review is the rushed and rash agreement in October 2022, for adjustments to Israel’s northern maritime border. This entailed the transfer of large portions of potentially rich marine gas resources to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, earmarked for development by a French concern, Total S.A.

This was a move that defies logic both in terms of its purported rationale and its precipitous execution.

The ostensible justification for entering into the agreements was to persuade Hezbollah to refrain from attacking a nearby functioning Israeli oil rig—for all intents and purposes, surrender to extortion by the Islamist terrorist organization, which had threatened to hit the Israeli drilling site, if concessions were not made.

The agreement was heralded by shamelessly hyperbolic fanfare, being dubbed as “historic” by Lapid himself.

Of course, bowing to extortion is a notoriously shortsighted policy; and sure enough, the rationale for the accords (read “Israeli concessions”) soon began to unravel. In May 2023, both the IDF chief of staff and the head of military intelligence warned of a real danger of war with Hezbollah, which—despite concession—was already engaged in ominous saber rattling.

Subordinating professional integrity to political allegiance

This is particularly troubling given the warm endorsement of the October 2022 agreements by former and serving senior officials in Israel’s security establishment.

Given the prevailing realities in Lebanon, their support seems to reflect an almost child-like naivete regarding both its prospective durability and the potential for future expansion of its terms. Indeed, the backing of the patently flawed pact, which—if nothing else—was an unmistakable feather in Hezbollah’s gory cap—is strongly reminiscent of the endorsement that senior echelons of the US intelligence community provided for the wildly mendacious claim that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop was “Russian disinformation.”

Sadly, it appears that both in the US and Israel, it is not rare to find senior security personnel—past and present—who are prepared to subordinate their professional integrity to political allegiances.

It was particularly risible, especially in light of the gravity of later unfolding realities, to read of the hyped-up praise for the agreement from Orna Mizrahi, former Deputy National Security Adviser and currently a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). According to her: “…this is…a very important agreement. It even raises hopes that there could be real change in the relationship between the two countries.”

Yeah, right! I guess she must have missed the fact that Hezbollah is not party to the deal—and that the government of Lebanon refused to sign a pact directly with Israel, instead agreeing only to give a commitment to the US.

Untoward haste

Not only is the lavish praise from senior security experts for the contorted October 2022 agreement both puzzling and perturbing, but so is the untoward haste with which it was pushed through. The professed justification for the unbecoming rush was the claim that the term of then-Lebanese President Michel Auon (who, as mentioned, refrained from signing directly with Israel) was about to end and there was uncertainty about who would replace him.

Interestingly, up until the writing of this piece, Auon has not yet been replaced, mainly due to obstruction by Hezbollah. Apart from the fact that it borders on the absurd to believe that any Hezbollah-approved president would feel bound by a document signed by his predecessor, the heavy-handed manner in which the Lapid interim government pushed the agreement through in the final days of its term, is another disturbing aspect of the deal.

Riding roughshod over previously time-honored democratic norms and conventions, Lapid –with the collusion of his domesticated Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara—blatantly ignored the Knesset, arguing that, in light of what he considered its “wanton behavior“, it should not be consulted on the agreement—implying that for Lapid, only pliable and acquiescent parliaments merit his attention.

This brazen dismissal of the institutions of democracy was so stark that it prompted one of his ministers to express her discomfort. Underscoring the painfully self-evident, she confronted Lapid: “You describe the agreement as an historic agreement. If it is historic you are obligated to present it for the approval of the sovereign—the Knesset.” Pointedly, she asked: “What are you afraid of?”

What indeed!!

Is Israeli patriotism dead?

Given the refuted rationale for the agreement and the disproven arguments for the undemocratic haste for rushing the agreement, thorny questions are unavoidable.

In a time in which declarations once deemed well beyond the pale and deeds once considered inconceivable are becoming increasingly commonplace, nothing can be discounted as beyond the realm of reason. When former prime ministers, defense ministers and chiefs-of-staff openly call for violent civil insurrection and tax rebellion; when prominent public figures urge foreign governments to shun members of a democratically elected coalition; when calls for desertion are not only not condemned, but condoned—even commended—because of patently contrived grievances, fueled by personal and/or political malice, past assumptions and old taboos can no longer be considered valid. What once was thought outrageous, may no longer be so—even the demise of the patriotism of Israeli elites.

With this in mind, how are we to account for the October 2022 gas deal with Lebanon—given the highly unpersuasive official explanations for both the substance of the agreement and for how it was concluded?

In this regard, it is intriguing to note that Lapid and French President, Emmanuel Macron have a long, ongoing friendship, dating back to before either were heads of government in their respective countries. Lapid, in a highly unusual step, endorsed Macron’s 2017 presidential bid, and in return, Macron endeavored to help Lapid in the 2019 elections in Israel, with a high-profile meeting just days before the polls. Add to this that the giant French energy concern, Total S.A., 50%-owned by the French government, is due to have a major stake in the gas fields following the agreement, and it is difficult not to let “heretical” thoughts creep into one’s mind.

Thinking the unthinkable

After all, wouldn’t an alternative explanation for the “anomalous” gas deal be a personal bonanza for those who pushed so hard to rush it through? Indeed, how can a reasonable observer refrain from thinking the unthinkable…and from wondering just how much Lapid and his cronies were paid for it.

Dr. Martin Sherman spent seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli defense establishment. He is the founder of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a member of the Habithonistim-Israel Defense & Security Forum (IDSF) research team, and a participant in the Israel Victory Project

The post Yair Lapid: Thinking the unthinkable – opinion appeared first on World Israel News.

…

The post Perú – Dina Boluarte pretende quedarse en la presidencia hasta 2026 appeared first on Global Research.

“Go to the army,” the woman shouted, not realizing the man in the kippah, white shirt and sidelocks was in fact an IDF reserve officer.

By World Israel News Staff

Yisrael Yonatan Hirsch, a haredi man, did not remain quiet when a secular woman riding the same bus – a complete stranger – accused him publicly of not having served in the army.

“Why do you jump to the conclusion that I didn’t serve in the army? Because I’m wearing a kippah and a white shirt?” he asked, referring to his traditional ultra-Orthodox garb.

She replied yes, after which Hirsch criticized her for being quick to judge people she doesn’t know.

“You should serve in the army, just like my brothers did,” the woman said.

“I did serve in the army, and I’m quite sure I served longer than you did,” Hirsch said, adding that he was a captain in a reserve combat unit.

Unmoved, the woman called him a “sexual pervert,” among other insults, and had the gall to ask why he dresses the way he does.

“It is my right,” he replied angrily. I dress the way I want to dress, and you dress the way you want to dress…that’s democracy. “Shame on you!”

“It’s unbelievable that each time that I ride on a bus in Hod HaSharon – the city where I live – I get harassed like this,” he said.

Hirsch, a lawyer, filmed the incident, and the video went viral.

סרטון מבהיל. תהליכים
pic.twitter.com/wJxKr3yi5e

— יאיר שרקי (@yaircherki) June 19, 2023

National Unity party leader tweeted: “The video of the ultra-Orthodox young man on the bus – it hurts [to see]. It doesn’t matter where a person served or whether he served, or what we wear and whether and to whom we pray – we should remember that we are all brothers. I hope that the passenger will find a way to apologize to him and that he will find a way to forgive her.”

The post ‘Shame on you’: Orthodox man responds to anti-religious abuse on public bus near Tel Aviv appeared first on World Israel News.

The then-prime minister offered the concessions in 2000, Israel State Archives reveal.

By JNS

The Barak administration agreed to give up part of Israel’s sovereignty in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in December 2000, according to an official response to a Clinton administration proposal published for the first time by the Israel State Archives on Sunday.

Israel agreed to relinquish its sovereignty over the area of ​​the mosques on the Temple Mount, Ynet reported.

Among the comments written in Hebrew in the margins of the Clinton administration proposal: “de facto division of sovereignty on the Temple Mount.”

Israel demanded continued sovereignty over the Western Wall, the Western Wall tunnel, the Makhkame building overlooking the Temple Mount, the Siloam Tunnel (aka Hezekiah’s Tunnel), the City of David and the Mount of Olives.

Israel expressed reservations regarding the U.S. suggestion to give the Old City’s Armenian Quarter to the Palestinians, saying, “Armenians aren’t Arabs.”

Israel suggested instead that “everything from the Jaffa Gate straight and to the left [the Christian and Muslim quarters] will be Palestinian, and everything to the right [the Jewish and Armenian quarters] will be Israeli.”

Israel demanded to keep 80% of the Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria under Israeli sovereignty, which amounted to retaining only 8% of the area. It also agreed to retain no more than 2% of the Gaza Strip, Ynet reported.

Israel failed to receive a favorable response to a number of its requests, the document shows.

Israel expressed concerns that the “Palestinian recognition of the Jewish narrative regarding the Temple Mount was not accepted.”

Israel gave up its demand that Palestinian sovereignty in Arab-majority neighborhoods would be limited to the neighborhoods adjacent to the Old City.

Its demand that Palestinian sovereignty in the Jordan Valley be postponed until the end of the final-status negotiations was described as having “no chance” of being accepted.

Furthermore, Israel’s demand that an international force be deployed only along the Jordan Valley and the Gaza border with Egypt was not accepted. The U.S. proposal was that the force would also be deployed on the border between the Palestinian state and the State of Israel.

President Bill Clinton’s negotiators also didn’t accept Israel’s proposal that Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb outside Bethlehem, Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus and other holy places would remain under its sovereignty.

The document, an official Israeli response to Clinton’s ideas, is part of the archival file of the late Noah Kinarti, who was an adviser to the minister of defense for settlement matters and a member of Israel’s negotiating team.

The document includes an English-language letter sent in January 2001 by Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s Chief of Staff Gilead Sher to Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

In the letter, Sher said that Israel views the outlines as “a basis for discussion, provided that they remain, as they are, a basis for discussion acceptable to the Palestinians.

“Israel will request a number of clarifications concerning matters of vital interest to Israel,” Sher added.

The post Ehud Barak agreed to give up part of Temple Mount, Old City appeared first on World Israel News.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article …

The post The Arms Dealer Behind the African Peace Mission to Ukraine appeared first on Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article …

The post Russia-Ukraine Crisis: The Meandering Roadmap to Ultimate Peaceful Settlement appeared first on Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article …

The post Disagreement Between NATO’s Stoltenberg and America’s Biden on Ukraine Membership in NATO appeared first on Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article …

The post Putin’s Shocking Revelations Show There Can be No Negotiations with Kiev appeared first on Global Research.