Friday, 28 May 2010


Friday, May 28, 2010

"The two men, an ally of Israel & a reluctant partner of Hizbollah – exchanged banalities... "

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

the National/ here.

"... A few days ago, Lebanon celebrated the 10th anniversary of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from its south. Little wonder that many Lebanese, deeply scarred by the painful, 22-year long occupation, still rejoice at the memory of the Israeli Goliath’s sloppy and hasty retreat across the border......

For its part, Israel anticipated a brief war in 2006. Instead, it fought the longest one in its history and emerged, at best, with a draw, leading to a public flailing of its military. It restored some of its “pride” with its fearsome Gaza operation last year. Now it appears keen to settle old scores with its nettlesome northern neighbours.

Contrast this feverish atmosphere with the uneventful meeting in Washington three days ago between the US president, Barack Obama, and the Lebanese prime minister, Saad Hariri. The two men – the former an ally of Israel and the latter a reluctant partner of Hizbollah – exchanged banalities. The leaders appeared to do little to turn back the coming storm."
How else to explain Israel’s decision to top off weeks of heated warnings to Hizbollah and its sponsor Syria by scheduling military exercises on its northern border, just as the Lebanese were commemorating their anniversary? Israel seems itching for another opportunity to apply the Dahiyeh Doctrine, which calls for targeting and levelling entire neighbourhoods as a way to make the entire Lebanese population suffer for “harbouring” Hizbollah.....
Posted by G, Z, or B at 3:30 PM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Nasralla: In Next War, Only Israelis Fleeing From Occupied Palestine Will Be Safe

Click the pic and listen carefully (Arabic)

  • They bomb us, we bomb them. They kill us, we kill them. This is their strategic weakness todayezbollah
25/05/2010 Hezbollah marks the tenth anniversary of the Resistance and Liberation Day Tuesday at the Sayyed Al-Shouhada compound in Beirut’s southern suburb.

Official, religious, military, and popular figures attended the ceremony in which Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah delivers a speech for the occasion and tackles recent developments in Lebanon and the region.

Sayyed Nasrallah paid tribute to the martyrs “who sacrificed their lived to realize this victory, namely Sayyed Abbas Mousawi, Sheikh Ragheb Harb, and Hajj Imad Moghniyeh.” His eminence also thanked south Lebanon residents “who took part in municipal elections despite of the simultaneous Israeli maneuvers.” Iwould like to thank all the Lebanese who fulfilled the three-of-four phases of the elections and I ask Almighty Allah that the fourth round due Sunday in the north would smoothly,” his eminence said.
The Hezbollah chief divided his discourse into three parts: “The conflict with the enemy, the future, and position and formula which I am committed to and which will be added to the many formulae of confrontation with the enemy.”

Sayyed Nsrallah recalled that the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon was part of a broader US-Israeli scheme. “In 2000, this scheme was thwarted. However they always have other schemes and they will go on plotting until they fall.”

He said that one of the plots was to build Israeli settlements in south Lebanon, “but thanks to the martyrs and particularly the self sacrifice martyrs, this never materialized. We all remember how the first year of the occupation was rife with Jihadi operations against the occupation in several regions and by more than one party and movement.”

The S.G. also reminded how some sides in Lebanon and the Arab world used to ridicule Hezbollah as of 1982 when its leaders spoke about the victory to come. “When Sayyed Moussawi said in 1991 that Israel has fallen and that it will move out of Lebanon humiliated, some used to mock at him. But the year 2000 came and the resounding victory came along, and now I ask all the Lebanese and the entire world: Who would have thought that Israel would withdraw from Lebanon humiliated? What was mocked by many has happened for real and all of you saw it.”

Sayyed Nasrallah said that some Arabs had been colluding against Lebanon before the 2000 pullout. “May 26 is another day and another different shape of the region. The Zionists realized this and Arab leaders as well. Israel revealed that some Arab official sides contacted Israeli counterparts to urge the Zionist entity not to withdraw with conditions. This is not strange because we know that in 2006, some Arabs contacted Israel and urged them not to stop the war so that Hezbollah and Lebanon would not come out victorious.”

The Secretary General stressed that the formula that yielded victory was “the army, the people, and the resistance.” He said that Israel’s home front that used to be safe in most of the post wars, was no longer safe. “This era has ended,” his eminence stressed. “Today the Israelis, through their maneuvers, are trying to pacify their home front by trying to convince the people that they are strong and ready for any new war. Other argue and criticize the drills saying: Let’s see what the maneuvers will result in when rocket shower all of occupied Palestine.”

Sayyed Nasrallah explained that the Scud Missile transfer, “which I don’t deny or confirm,” was raised so the US Congress pays Israel $250 million for their ‘Iron Dome’ which is yet to be proven feasible. Others believe that the Israelis are afraid to wage war and they are concerned about its outcome. This is why the Israeli rhetoric reflects a tendency to calm things down in the north.”

“Israel used to wage wars knowing that its home front was safe. This has ended in the wake of the 2006 war. We have our home front and they have theirs. They bomb us, we bomb them. They kill us, we kill them. This is their strategic weakness today,” his eminence said.

As for “the future”, Sayyed Nasrallah’s second point, the Hezbollah chief cited US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech at the AIPAC conference to address the Israelis on the one hand, and some Lebanese journalists who are still questioning the feasibility of the resistance facing Israel.

“Clinton said: In the face of these unforgiving dynamics of demography, ideology, and technology, it becomes impossible to entrust our hopes for Israel's future in today's status quo. These challenges cannot be ignored or wished away. Only by choosing a new path can Israel make the progress it deserves to ensure that their children are able to see a future of peace, and only by having a partner willing to participate with them will the Palestinians be able to see the same future. We cannot be blind to the political implications of continued conflict. There is today truly a struggle, maybe for the first time, between those in the region who accept peace and coexistence with Israel and those who reject it and seek only continued violence. The status quo strengthens the rejectionists who claim peace is impossible, and it weakens those who would accept coexistence. That does not serve Israel's interests or our own. Those willing to negotiate need to be able to show results for their efforts,” Sayyed Nasrallah read.

His eminence continued to quote Clinton as she spoke about technology. “She finally says: we must recognize that the ever-evolving technology of war is making it harder to guarantee Israel's security. For six decades, Israelis have guarded their borders vigilantly. But advances in rocket technology mean that Israeli families are now at risk far from those borders.” Sayyed Nasrallah elaborated by saying that manufacturing and acquiring missiles was not a complex process as it used to be.

“It is not even costly; however it requires a political decision. Their patriots and their Iron Dome will not be effective against our missiles.

The technological development today makes every town and every settlement within the Zionist entity under threat; this is what the Israelis cannot tolerate. Clinton was trying to puch the Israelis into striking a deal or a settlement. I believe that their arrogance and racism will push them into the abyss.

Therefore, to those who claim they are intellectuals I tell them: that was Clinton, the US Secretary of State speaking. Those were the Americans telling the Israelis that if you don’t help us to make a settlement, a Jewish state will never exist in the future and you will never find anyone to strike a deal with you. We believe in the future that Clinton was preaching about.”


Sayyed Nasrallah assessed the current situation based on the May, 2000 withdrawal.

“We are committed to the following position: After trusting in Allah, we have to be convinced that we are protecting our country with the will of our people and our national determination. The Lebanese government is making all necessary contacts to push away any danger Lebanon might be under. This is good and we agree with this, however, we should not bargain on this. The real bargain is on our national capability to defend and confront in the battlefield.”

The Hezbollah Secretary General concluded his discourse with the new equation that the resistance will be committed to. “We will tell the Israelis to be afraid of us. If the war, which we do not want, yet we are not scared of broke out, it will change the face of this region – and Clinton agrees with me.

We previously said that the Israeli home front has become exposed and vulnerable and we know everything about it, therefore we know where to strike.

In 2006, and even before this date, there were times when the Israelis besieged our shores. Israeli vessels used to deploy in Lebanese waters and besiege our shore; so today we add the sea to the terrain.

I am not announcing that we possess a new weapon, but in 2006 we destroyed the Saar 5 vessel.

What I am saying is that if you besiege our shore and our ports in any coming war, all of your military and commercial ships heading to Palestine will be under the fire of the Islamic Resistance across the Mediterranean. We are talking about the Mediterranean but we have not mentioned the Red Sea yet.

We are determined to enter this new domain God willing. No one will dare sail to any port in occupied Palestine. However, if a ship with Israelis on board was leaving occupied Palestine, we might let it pass.

They military power used to scare others, but not today because our hearts are as solid as a rock. Let us flip the picture around. Let us make Israel afraid and then seek for someone to reassure it.

For those who are still calling for disarming the resistance I tell them that this rhetoric is behind our backs because it is useless. We shall confront the next war, we shall win and we shall change the face of this region,” Sayyed Nasrallah concluded.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

A Day to Remember: Resistance and Liberation Day 2010


Anniversaries measure time. In one respect, they are an artificial concept. We decide, for instance, that twenty-five years of marriage should be celebrated, but we ignore the subsequent days as merely marking the path to twenty-six years. And reaching twenty-six years, though obviously a greater length of marriage, will not be celebrated with the same gusto as the twenty-fifth anniversary that boasts pre-printed greeting cards and foil balloons.

As the contrivance of marking anniversaries in many ways defies common sense, we might ask ourselves why we do it. Perhaps it is because the infinite, amorphous magnitude of time must be taken in bite-size pieces. It would otherwise be overwhelming. When we stop the passage of time—no matter how arbitrarily, no matter how superficially—then we are in effect looking for significance in what we accomplish with our lives.

On the 25th of May 2010, we observe the ten-year anniversary of the Lebanese Resistance and Liberation Day. A full decade has passed since the victory that baffled the Western world. A twenty-two year military occupation was virtually uprooted and expelled. The balance of global power was unhinged.

This tilting of the scales took time. It cost many lives. But in the end, the so-called mighty army created by the Americans for their Jewish state, an army protected politically by the Western superpowers, was soundly defeated by the persistent determination of ordinary Lebanese. These ordinary Lebanese were bound by their commitment to protect their homes and their families, their faith and their dignity. They fought back and they stood firm.

While the Western-“Israeli” alliance wanted to believe that they could intimidate and tyrannise the Lebanese into submission, they discovered that the more they pushed, the more the Lebanese resisted. The Resistance of Hizbullah would not relent. This bold defiance of the Islamic Resistance inspired Lebanese of other religious credence to focus on the fundamental principle they all shared: intolerance for subjugation. Their coordinated efforts paid off.

Failing to coerce either a physical or a political concession from the Lebanese, the occupying “Israelis” were forced to retreat. Beginning on the 21st of May 2000, as families returned to Southern Lebanon on the heels of the exiting “Israeli” troops, members of the Resistance ensured the peaceful nature of the transition. And herein lies the greater significance of this accomplishment. Herein lies the reason it is imperative to mark this anniversary in order to reflect on an achievement that far exceeds the laurels of military victory.

We should remind ourselves that the Lebanese had endured, day after day for twenty-two years, the harsh and bitter realities of life under military occupation. They had lost their homes, their farms and their businesses. They had suffered deprivation and betrayal. They had lived with the anguish of having their loved ones disappear—maybe learning they’d been imprisoned or murdered, or maybe never learning anything at all. They had faced fear and hopelessness, knowing that their very lives were subject to the whims of a merciless political power.

For twenty-two years the armies of the Western-“Israeli” alliance and their proxy Lebanese militia—enemy-collaborators known as the “South Lebanon Army” (SLA)—inflicted death and destruction in Lebanon. The statistics we casually list off are typically rounded, averaged and often disputed. There are so many deaths that the injured are seldom counted. The sole undeniable fact is that there were far too many.

How do we begin to count the dead? We could stack up the civilians on one side and the Resistance fighters on the other. But, then again, those of the Resistance were not a standing army when the Zionists invaded Lebanon; had it not been for this military offensive, they too would have lived civilian lives.
We could stack up the Palestinians on one side and the Lebanese on the other. But, then again, the Palestinians would not have been in Lebanon had the Zionists not forced them there. Should they be viewed separately, when they were targeted as one faceless enemy?

We could survey sources to discern bias one way or another. There are dozens of reasons to inflate or deflate the body counts. Or maybe the repeated scenes of massacre were simply too murky with blood to be clinically accurate. Perhaps the man with the clip board came across a head lying on the pavement and ticked off the remnant as a victim, and then hours later he came across a headless body on a kitchen floor and ticked it off as another victim—not realising through his nausea that the two had the day before been one.

A few specific scenes will here suffice to illustrate the murderous rage of the “Israeli” military machine. The numbers give an idea of the magnitude. But more than statistics, these numbers represent individual people whose lives were grievously impacted.

Just warming up, in March 1978 the Zionist forces launched an aerial assault on Southern Lebanon. With the proclaimed intent of eradicating the Palestinians whom they had already driven from their homes, the “Israeli” assault destroyed 2500 homes and killed over 2000 Lebanese and Palestinians. Many fled to the North. Many of those who stayed behind were seized by “Israeli” troops on suspicion of supporting the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). Those who were seized were then tortured and often killed.
In June 1982 the Zionist forces launched a series of air raids on Lebanon, while their army tanks paved the way to Beirut, leaving behind 9500 dead and 16,000 wounded. The army blockaded the city so that there were no supplies coming in; they cut both water and electricity. Then, for 70 days, “Israel” blasted Beirut with bombs and mortars. On 12 August, Beirut suffered 11 hours of non-stop, saturation bombing. Over 500 people died. The city was virtually destroyed.

In September 1982 over 8000 PLO members and their leader were exiled from Beirut. But this eviction, which seemingly met “Israel’s” stated goal of ridding itself of the PLO, was not enough to end its military operations in Lebanon. Together with their collaborating allies, “Israeli” forces implemented the systematic murder of around 1500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, mostly women, children and elderly, at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Over a two-day period, the people were penned in and wantonly slaughtered.
Other highlights include the 1985 opening of Khiam Prison, a detention and interrogation centre where thousands of Lebanese were held without trial, routinely tortured and often killed. But it was not only the ordinary Lebanese civilian that was targeted. In February 1992 “Israel” assassinated Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Abbas Moussawi, together with his wife and son. In response, the Resistance for the first time fired rockets into “Israeli” settlements in northern occupied Palestine. Incensed, “Israel” launched the “Seven-Day War” in July 1993. In a week’s time, “Israel” launched 1224 air raids, killed 140, wounded 500, and displaced well over 200,000 Lebanese.

Their appetite for violence unabated, for sixteen days in April 1996 “Israelis” executed air raids over the whole of Lebanon, leaving massive damage to infrastructure, hundreds of thousands displaced, scores injured, and 250 dead. The Zionist rampage spared no one. The “Israeli” military wilfully bombed a UN installation at Qana, where some 800 civilians had sought refuge. Over 100 people were killed, with over a hundred more, including four UN soldiers, seriously wounded. Those who survived Qana, just as those who survived blitz after hateful blitz, suffered untold anguish. These are the dangerous and bloody days of military aggression and occupation. These are the atrocities from which the Resistance fought to defend the Lebanese people.*

Under such circumstances, in the hours of regaining control, how easy it would have been to lash out against the enemy-collaborators who had suddenly found themselves left behind without the shield of their Zionist chiefs. Under such circumstances, how easy would vengeance have been? How tempting. How understandable.

But the goal of the Resistance had not been power; it had been liberation. And that goal had been achieved. They had not sought to gain political position. The Islamic Resistance understood and respected that the strength to liberate their land was derived ultimately from God. Thus to have flaunted their position as victors—to have succumbed to the temptation of vengeance—would have been to disparage the source of that victory. Such a move, though ever so common in the history of the battles of men, would have violated the fundamental principles of the Islamic Resistance. Consequently, the victors expressly prohibited any act of vengeance. Any enemy-collaborators who had not fled with the “Israelis” were simply turned over to the Lebanese Army for legal processing.

To be sure, the Resistance had earned the right to be proud, even jubilant, for having rid their land of enemy occupiers. But throughout the years of resistance, their conduct proved that the liberation was not simply about land. Liberation was essential to safeguard Lebanese lives, honour and dignity. And so it was with ease that the Resistance fostered coordination rather than competition amongst those who would resist subjugation, no matter their religious or familial affiliations. And it was only natural that, as they faced the vulnerable enemy-collaborators, the Resistance maintained their composure.

Had the Liberation been merely a jostling for military and political superiority, they might have celebrated, revelled in their newfound status, and rested on their laurels. But given the threat of renewed aggression from the Western-“Israeli” alliance, the Resistance recognised that Liberation was as much a process as it was an accomplishment. And so they maintained their vigilance. The sacrifices they had made would continue if they were to validate the victory of May 2000.

As we consider the tenth anniversary of Resistance and Liberation Day, we look for its significance. Why should we of the English-speaking world see this decade-old conflict as anything more than someone else’s problem? Because in this turning point in Middle East history lies the hope of something noble.

On the one hand, we find a military occupation born out of greed and arrogance. If we are honest with ourselves, we will recognise in this aggression our own impulse toward self-preservation in this our society of the survival of the fittest. We do not want to be the weakest link who is cast away. This twenty-two year occupation represents the darker side of human nature: a dog-eat-dog mentality.

On the other hand, we find a Resistance born out of faith and a commitment to protect. Again if we are honest with ourselves, despite our part-time inclination to be self-serving, we have also admired those who abide by principles beyond themselves. We will, for example, cheer the good-guys in a film, and we will walk away from the experience with firm approval of the character who acts selflessly to achieve something greater for another character, or for a cause. Then more often than not, we shake off the notion of principle being rewarded. It’s just scripted entertainment, we remind ourselves, it is not real life.

But the Resistance and Liberation was very, very real life. As real as it gets. Ordinary people embraced principle, defied the odds and chose Liberation. They could have run away. They could have shrugged their shoulders and resigned themselves to life on someone else’s terms. But they chose instead to resist—and it worked. Above all, they continued to act with integrity. This was not because it was necessary in practical terms, for surely it would have been more expedient to eliminate enemy-collaborators on the spot. This was because to have set aside the integrity they had fought to defend would have as surely tainted the Liberation they had achieved.

In marking ten years of Liberation, we realise that by adopting a perspective beyond the here and now, the Resistance was able with its limited means to turn back the aggressor of seemingly unlimited means. We realise that this perspective enabled the Resistance to foresee and to overcome renewed challenges to the Liberation in July 2006. And we realise that an ordinary man can triumph with his principle intact. He will find the strength to do what must be done, and he will find the strength to acknowledge what must not be done. The Resistance and Liberation represents the brighter side of human nature: altruism.

*These are merely the highlights of a sustained campaign to devastate the people of Lebanon. More detailed descriptions can be found at Arab Media Watch here, Al Arabiya here and Mostakbaliat-Future here. Reports are also available from organisations such as Amnesty International (Stopping the torture trade, February 2001), and Human Rights Watch here (Persona Non Grata: The Expulsion of Lebanese Civilians from Israeli-Occupied Lebanon, July 1999).

Brenda Heard is founder and director of Friends of Lebanon, London.  Email
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Sayyed Nasrallah to Mark Resistance and Liberation Day Tonight at 1730GMT

25/05/2010 Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah will deliver a speech Tuesday marking the 10 anniversary of the Resistance and Liberation Day, at the Sayyed Al-Shouhadaa compound in Beirut’s southern suburb. His eminence is expected to tackle the latest developments in Lebanon and the region, in addition to the military exercises conducted by the Zionist entity dubbed “Turning Point 4.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Aoun: Support for Resistance Solid Choice; Victory Is Ours

Aoun: Support for Resistance Solid Choice; Victory Is Ours

25/05/2010 The head of the Change and Reform parliamentary bloc MP Michel Aoun congratulated on Tuesday the Resistance in the occasion of the Resistance and Liberation Day.

"We have steady trust in the Resistance fighters in that they are in constant readiness to thwart Israel from waging a war against Lebanon," Aoun told reporters following his bloc's weekly meeting. "If it does launch one, victory will be ours as we have overcome the fear of death a long time ago."

"Our support for the Resistance is a solid national choice regardless of where we are politically," he went on to say.

Aoun, meanwhile, said that Jezzine witnessed the greatest electoral battle in Sunday's municipal and mayoral elections in the South, adding that Batroun will also witness the greatest battle in the elections in the North as all preparations for it are complete

He stated that the FPM did not withdraw from the Tannourine elections out of fear of losing, asking: "Will we eat the whole of Lebanon? We have become full."

Addressing the Jezzine election results, he said that they were "not bad" pointing out that 21 out of the 28 municipal heads in the town are affiliated with the FPM, while 11 out of 17 in al-Zahrani are affiliated with it. In addition, he said that 180 municipal council members in Jezzine and 80 in al-Zahrani are also affiliated with the movement.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israel Can’t Take My Ice Cream Stick from Me Anymore

Mohamad Shmaysani

25/05/2010 I remember the summer of 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon. I was nine years old and my father had promised to give me half a Lira (Lebanese pound) to buy ice cream. But the footage showing Israeli tanks crossing the border into south Lebanon was enough to deprive me of my treat for the rest of the day and deprive southerners of their freedom for the next 18 years. I’m not sure about the relevance of this lead to the rest of the article, but I think this retrospection is as useful as looking at the post 2000 withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from most of south Lebanon.

The pullout was not just an event; it was a historic precedent. True, Israel withdrew from Jordan and Sinai after Amman and Cairo were coerced to sign agreements with the triumphant, undefeatable, and arrogant Zionist state.


However, this was not the case in Lebanon. After 18 years of occupation and war of attrition waged by the resistance, Israel decided to cut its losses and escape, yes escape. "It wasn't a withdrawal and it wasn't a retreat...We ran away, pure and simple," Col. Noam Ben-Tzvi, the last commander of the Israeli occupation forces western sector in south Lebanon, told Haaretz last week. Ben-Tzvi was not in denial; he did not attribute the withdrawal to Israel’s implementation of UN Security Council resolution 425 that stipulates Israel withdraw from Lebanon after its first invasion in 1978.

“Hiding behind UNSC resolutions has always been an Israeli policy,” Lebanese political analyst Michel Samaha told Al-Manar Website. “Then Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his Foreign Minister David Levy were maneuvering with the military leadership and they went to negotiate with UN S.G. Kofi Annan to cover the Zionist state with another international resolution that binds it to implement resolution 425 on the one hand and set new conditions on Lebanon. However the strikes of the resistance and its operational performance in the south forced Israel’s political and military echelons to make a dramatic 24-hour pullout before issuing a new UN resolution,” Samaha added.

Still, Israel sought to persuade the international community that its withdrawal was in line with the Truce Line as stipulated in the Truce Agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel in 1949. “Annan and then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright conspired to send Terje Rød-Larsen to delineate a Blue Line instead of implementing resolution 425. The aim was to make the pullout look like a full withdrawal according to the Truce Line. So Larsen invented the Blue Line and the Lebanese government cried foul because of the many gaps that kept Lebanese areas, including strategic spots and water sources, under occupation,” Samaha said.

“Our main concern was to determine the international border, but the Israeli enemy had changed the landmarks in several border areas,” Ret. Gen. Amine Hotait, who was the head of the committee to verify the Israeli pullout, told Al-Manar Website. “We started our mission based on official maps, but the Israelis made use of the so called ‘rolling borders’ and sought to delineate a new line that served its avarice, so it demanded a delineation based on more advanced methods. The United Nations adopted the Blue Line but we refused to recognize it as the international border since it missed at least 13 points. After tough negotiations we managed to gain back ten points, and three points remained outstanding: Rmeish, Odayseh, and Metula,” Hotait said.

From a legal point of view, the Blue Line is of no value and does not establish any right for any party. “The idea of the Blue Line was terminated when the Lebanese committee concluded its mission,” the retired general explained.


Speaking to Al-Manar Website, expert in Israeli affairs Helmi Moussa said that some Israeli leaders still have their regrets because the withdrawal was unilateral and without agreement. “The existential threat is cumulating in Israel because of this pullout, especially that their home front has since then become a target for rocket attacks, when prior to the withdrawal they only had to sacrifice 25 to 30 soldiers on yearly basis to preserve their home front security,” Moussa, who writes for the Lebanese daily Assafir, said.


The Israeli pullout could not have materialized if it were not for the support of Iran, Syria, and the popular and official positions in Lebanon, particularly during the first term of President Emile Lahoud with PM Salim Hoss and then during Lahoud’s second term with PM martyr Rafiq Hariri. Nevertheless, the internationally backed Israeli move cleared the way for Tel Aviv to demand a similar pullout of Syrian forces from Lebanon and engage in “peace” talks.

Israel’s incomplete pullout and its constant threat to Lebanon rendered the years-long pressure on Syria a failure. In 2005, Hariri was assassinated in Beirut and the Syrian leadership decided to speed up the pullout in that same year.

In 2006, Israel waged war on Lebanon with the aim to crush Hezbollah once and for all and to get even with the party’s Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah who – in his famous speech in Bint Jbeil May 25, 2000 - described Israel as an entity ‘weaker than a spider web.’

“Sayyed Nasrallah’s speech in Bint Jbeil established three fundamental principles: First, he described Israel as an illusion and fixed the notion that Israel can be defeated while stressing the necessity to mobilize forces to confront and win over this enemy.

Second, the resistance did not act as a party independent from the Lebanese but acted on their behalf because he did not ask for power sharing in return for the sacrifices and the victory; this is why Hezbollah was embraced by the people of Lebanon en route to the 2006 victory. Third, the resistance does not replace the state or its institutions, and this is why, unlike other revolutions throughout history, triumphant Hezbollah did not go on a vendetta spree against those who had collaborated with the Israeli occupation; it left this mission to the Lebanese authorities,” Ret. Gen. Amine Hotait told Al-Manar Website.


The failed 2006 war proved Israel’s networks of Mossad agents in Lebanon were useless, and by 2010 dozens of these spy networks were dismantled.

“What’s been said recently about the fate of Antoine Lahed’s South Lebanon Army (SLA) and their suffering in occupied territories highlights another aspect of Israel’s weakness and failure to protect its agents as they promised them.

In fact this negatively affects the performance of Israel’s Mossad (mainly in Lebanon) which constitutes the backbone of Israel’s security,” Helmi Moussa said.

“Shortly before the pullout, the Israeli enemy had grasped two facts: First, they cannot rely on their agents as the Israeli leadership predicted the SLA’s breakdown; surprisingly enough, this army of collaborators broke down much faster than Gabi Ashkenazi and his staff had expected. Second, the political and military leaderships were helpless vis-à-vis the sophisticated resistance which dealt the Israeli occupation army and the SLA very severe blows. This same helplessness was the main reason why the so called ‘Four (Israeli) Mothers’ Movement’ came to being and eventually pressured Tel Aviv to take the decision of immediate withdrawal,” Michel Samaha told Al-Manar Website.


Today Israel is still threatening Lebanon with war, carrying out large scale exercises to prepare its home front, and making replacements within the top military brass. The resistance leadership has expressed full readiness to deal Israel another blow should it decide to wage war. Syria and Iran have also warned Tel Aviv against making another “foolish mistake”. Until the next war begins and ends, Israel would continue to be the fake entity that destroyed armies and occupied countries in a matter of days, but then defeated at hands of a few determined men and women in Lebanon.

I’ve seen it in 2000 and I’ve lived it in 2006 and I know that what I had seen in 1982 is forever gone. Ever since liberation was fulfilled, I’ve never missed a Resistance and Liberation Day without having an ice cream stick, and today I’m seeing that my children follow suit.

Wael Karaki contributed to this report

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Monday, May 24, 2010

A strategy of liberation requires emancipation

The case for “Palestinian voice”
A critique through the eyes of an exiled Palestinian

By nahida the Exiled Palestinian
After almost one century of Zionist terrorism in Palestine, the world is gradually waking up to this racist and destructive ideology.
Contributing to the heroic Palestinian Resistance, this growing awareness will incidentally precipitate the abolition of the Zionist ideology and its hideous manifestation, just like slavery or Nazism were abolished.
The Palestinian Resistance and its allies represent an exemplary model of diversity and cooperation across borders, race, age, economic circumstances, religion or nationality.
In essence, the Palestinian Resistance is a model of inclusion, the radical contrary of the exclusivist Zionist ideology.
Contrary to the gory Zionist project, our true and sincere aspirations are long lasting Peace, Justice and Freedom. For us, this will restore of the true foundations of Palestinian society.
After almost a century of unrepentant Zionist terrorism in Palestine, all doubts have vanished: The only real road to Peace is a full and unconditional Liberation of Palestine, liberation from this supremacist ideology and liberation from the perpetrators. That will inevitably mean a return to the original, peaceful society Palestine was before the Zionist invasion.
To be called again “The Holy Land”, Palestine must be reunified with its people, the Palestinians.
Only Palestinians can heal the disfigured landscape and Holy City of Jerusalem, for the benefit of humanity. Only Palestinians will open its doors to all those who come in Peace, as they had in the past, contrary to the present day Zionist occupiers and their apocalyptic weaponry and dishonesty, their bulldozers uprooting millennial olive groves, destroying biblical World Heritages, evicting entire families from their ancestral houses and neighbourhoods, bringing harm and destabilization all across the Middle-East and to the world.
To aim towards the Liberation of Palestine, it is vital to establish a clear, firm and visionary strategy, one that is not sabotaged by diversions, deflections, dilutions, obfuscation or control by anyone with slightly different objectives than the Palestinians themselves.
As a person who holds this Liberation dear to my heart, and as someone who was involved for many years- with various shades and colours of activism in support of the Palestinian struggle, I can testify personally of the significant change in people’s awareness and level of support to this just cause; thanks to the endurance and perseverance of Palestinians and the passionate hard work of our supporters across the globe.
In order to plan a successful strategy, the global solidarity movement needs to:

· Define clearly its aims in a way that does not contradict or lower the aims and objectives of Palestinians themselves
· Identify the parameters of struggle -that keeps the movement’s aims unambiguously resolute and persistent- as well as keeping the core issues on focus
· Select the methods and tactics that are most likely to function in their locality while supporting Palestinians on the ground –under occupation- to select and implement their own
This requires a system of communication for consultation, synchronization, and support of the Palestinian people and their representatives, at home and in the Diaspora.
So far, the international solidarity movement (in the wider sense) has been wonderful. It has to a certain extent provided some of these requirements.
However, despite its sincerity and ceaseless efforts to mobilize and generate support, it fails to notice a “small detail”; namely the lack of representation of Palestinians at the decisive level of its action, both in strategy planning and implementation. Consequently, the real aspirations of the Palestinians risk to remain vague and not easily defined. Hence it falls a little short in representing, conveying and carrying forward all of Palestinian aims of Justice, Freedom and legitimate Self Determination.
To fill these positions by Palestinians can be a challenge for various reasons, but it causes a huge gap in authentic representation. In addition, the solidarity movement being made up of so many quite diverse groups, the task of acquiring consent for cohesive objectives of all parties becomes almost an impossibility.
Nevertheless, to rise up to the task of defeating one of the most brutal regimes and militarized societies in history, a profound understanding and comprehensive vision of the Palestinian aspirations is needed, including the capacity of swift coordination and cooperation within the whole spectrum of Palestinians, i.e. their political diversity and geographical dispersal.
Furthermore, one cannot fail to notice that there is a level of subtle steering and goal-planning of the movement by some groups, especially anti-zionist Jewish solidarity groups, some of which (knowingly or not) share with the zionists FINAL AIMS of conquest and colonization more than they realize or dare to admit, and more than what they actually share with the Palestinians

Let me explain;
Many of our Jewish supporters, individuals and groups (including leading intellectuals) vigorously oppose Zionism, and condemn “Israel’s” crimes and brutality. At various degrees, they also play a significant role in documenting and exposing “Israel’s” crimes, and are unambiguously critical of the Zionist apartheid discrimination policies towards Palestinians. Yet their vision of a solution always keeps at heart the interests of their co-religionists, co-culturalists (Jewish zionists, occupiers of Palestine), as they seek to secure a good future for the perpetrators hand-in-hand with that of their victims:
§ .. Some persist in supporting the obsolete two-state solution, irrespective the fact that this would subjugate Palestinians to the crushing “iron fist” of the occupier’s military, and force them to accept the annexation of 80% of their land !
§ . Others oppose boycott campaigns under the pretence that this tactic is ineffective and it would harm Palestinians, irrespective of the almost unanimous call by most Palestinian political affiliations in support of a Boycott and Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)
§ S. Some categorically oppose the inalienable Right of Return of Palestinians on the grounds that it is allegedly unpractical, hence unrealistic, that the “Israelis will never agree to it”, as it would cause political suicide of the Jewish state. On such grounds Algeria, all other colonial entities, would have never liberated themselves!
§ . Others go as far as supporting BDS, the Right of Return of refugees and a one state solution, but they fail to go all the way toward Justice, since they request from Palestinians acceptance of their form of government, their judicial organization, their decision to accept the final stay of the formerly “Israeli” population! This tramples most elementary rights of ownership that can not be obliterated by violent conquest, right of Self-Determination that can not be obliterated by assassinations, Sovereign rights that can not be obliterated by mere “facts on the ground” perpetrated by violent invaders. The times of “wiping indigenous populations off the map” are over. The time has come for Palestinian indigenous people to reign and decide over their own land, and Palestinian state affairs are the sole decision of the Palestinians themselves, and not of the occupiers.
Disturbingly, our Jewish supporters promote the unwarranted contention that final status of liberated Palestine should be decided jointly with the invaders, irrespective the fact that these invaders have absolutely no rights whatsoever, neither to the land (robbed by force) nor to the policy/ law making, moreover in light of their abysmal record of genocidal activities against Palestinians.
Establishing an independent judicial system will enable Palestinian to prosecute criminals, restore property rights to the rightful owners, and eventually decide upon compensations.
Depriving the victims of their inherent rights to freedom and justice by forcing upon them the permanent presence of the occupier on their stolen lands, imposing “equal rights” in favour of the occupiers, giving them free hand to shape the future status of Palestine, unequivocally equates to give high reward for crimes. And this thrice:

First: by giving the occupier the privilege to stay in the land they robbed by force (making a mockery of any rule of law, as did the contrived Law of “return” and the “absentee” laws), again all under the pretext of “facts on the ground, we are here, nothing can be done about it”

by the sheer fact that the occupier is empowered, even militarily, and his assaulted victims are disempowered, giving the occupier “equal rights” to plan and shape the state of Palestine, unequivocally sets up the Palestinians to be on the shorter end again, de facto limited to only minor input, to the sole profit of the Zionist occupier.

under the most absurd pretence that restitution “would create another injustice”, some are hoodwinked to believe that the Zionist occupiers should be granted the privilege to “keep the loot”, lands, property, rights, everything!

A few examples of “supportive” Jewish anti-zionist groups and excerpts of some aims as quoted from their own websites:
1) Jews for Justice for Palestinians (UK)
  • Peace in the Middle East will only come about with mutual recognition and respect and must be seen as just by both sides.
  • A lasting peace must be seen as just by both sides.
  • We support the right of Israelis to live in freedom and security within Israel’s 1967 borders.
  • To secure a lasting settlement to the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis so they can live in peace and security, thrive side by side, and co-operate together, Jews today are obligated to pursue justice on behalf of both peoples.
  • We believe that a peace settlement taking equal account of the needs and human rights of Palestinians and Israelis, Arabs and Jews and all other

3) Scottish Jews for a Just Peace (UK)
  • SJJP is a diverse group of Jews committed to peace, social justice, and human rights in the Middle East. We support the right of both Palestinians and Israelis to self-determination and to live without fear of violence or oppression.
  • support for the right of Israelis to live in freedom and security within Israel's 1967 borders.

4) British Shalom-Salaam Trust (UK)
  • Supports projects both within Israel’s 1967 borders (the ‘Green Line’) and the Occupied Territories. We work closely with Palestinians and Israeli Jews committed to a just resolution of the conflict in Israel/Palestine based on equality and mutual respect.

5) European Jews for a Just Peace (a federation of Jewish groups in ten European countries), whose principles include:
  • recognition of Israel’s 1967 ‘green line’ borders
  • the recognition of the right of both states to have Jerusalem as their capital
6) Jewish voice for peace (USA)

Mission Statement includes:
  • JVP seeks an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem; security and self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians
  • We support the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians for security and self-determination.
  • Israelis and Palestinians have the right to security, sovereignty, and self-determination within political entities of their own choosing.
7) Independent Jewish Voices (Canada)
  • Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peaceful and secure lives.

8) Independent Australian Jewish voices (Australia)
  • We are committed to ensuring a just peace that recognizes the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians with a solution that protects the human rights of all.
9) J Street
  • the organization seeks provide a political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who believe that a "two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to Israel’s survival as the national home of the Jewish people and as a vibrant democracy."
  • J Street supports Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own
  • J Street would support [...] a two-state solution under which the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem would fall under Israeli sovereignty and the Arab neighborhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty.
  • J Street believes that reaching a sustainable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is both a fundamental American interest and essential to the survival and security of Israel as a democracy and home for the Jewish people
Another example from a supportive intellectual:
Professor John J. Mearsheimer : it is essential that the Palestinians make clear that they do not intend to seek revenge against the Israeli Jews for their past crimes, but instead are deeply committed to creating a bi-national democracy in which Jews and Palestinians can live together peacefully
“Palestinians should definitely not employ violence to defeat apartheid”
The only exception I found throughout my research of anti-zionist Jewish groups was the example of IJAN, “International Jewish Anti-zionist Network”. I can only praise and commend IJAN for their declarations and charter. One beautiful example of how our supporter should be in their understanding and respect of Palestinians:

From IJAN Charter:
  • We commit our hearts, minds and political energy to support the varied and vibrant resistance movement of the Palestinian people and to confront the injustices for which the countries we live in are responsible.
  • We respond wholeheartedly to the call from Palestine for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
  • It is not our job to prescribe what road the Palestinian people should take toward defining their future. We do not presume to substitute our voices for theirs. Our strategies and actions will emerge from our active relationships with those who are engaged in the range of liberation struggles within Palestine and in the broader region. We will support their struggle to survive, to hold their ground and to advance their movement as best as they can, on their own terms.
  • We are partners in the vibrant popular resistance movements of our time that defend and cherish the lives of all people and of the planet itself. We are partners in movements that are led by those most impacted by imperial conquest, occupation, racism and the global control and exploitation of people and resources. We stand for the protection of the natural world. We stand by the rights of indigenous peoples to their land and sovereignty.
  • Solidarity with the struggle for Palestinian self-determination, including full political, economic, cultural, social and land rights for all those living in the historic Palestine, and the right of return for its refugees;
  • Rejection of the Israeli apartheid state, premised on Jewish supremacy and Zionist ideology, and support for all struggles for legal and economic equality against it;
  • Challenging the current use of Islamophobia as a strategy for defending and justifying an imperialist US-European agenda;
  • Challenging white racism, including its manifestations as Ashkenazi racism against Mizrahi Jews;
  • Challenging the privileging of Jewish voices in conversations and negotiations about Palestine;
IJAN an amazing model of how our supporters could/ should be like; supportive without being condescending, determined but not directing the struggle, advising but not imposing their vision, proactive but not taking the lead
But unfortunately, the fact is that the majority of our Jewish supporters display a completely different attitude and behaviour, as demonstrated clearly by their aims and objectives, by their lead-taking, imposing their agenda on the solidarity movement as well as on Palestinians, and promoting the permanent colonization of Palestine by zionist Ashkenazi invaders, though using soft and humane tactics
The pushiness and doggedness of such influential cluster of these groups and intellectuals, have managed skilfully to direct the vibrant and dedicated solidarity movement and caused the subtle steering of its direction, away –as far as I am concerned - from attaining the true aims and full aspirations of the Palestinians, victims of almost one century of ruthless, sadistic occupation.

Bottom line is: Almost all the so called “anti-zionist” Jewish groups who “support” the Palestinians, have exactly the same aims and objectives as their zionist “enemy” ; i.e. enabling, supporting, and securing the Jewish-zionist project and their permanent illegal, and immoral colonization of Palestine, be it as it may under a different name and altered regime.
This troubling conclusion urges to scrutinize how these facts have been translated as strategy on the ground:
It appears that the strategy is manifested in three main aspects: diversion, steering and holding back:

. . . Diversion:
Fighting Anti-Semitism has been strategically inserted at the CORE of the Palestinian struggle, and made to be an essential part of it:
By highlighting and placing the “Jewish concerns”, “Jewish problems”, “Jewish interests”, “Jewish peace groups and activists”, “Jewish suffering”, “Jewish hopes” and “anti-Jewish racism” at the heart of the debate, rather than the fundamentals of “Palestinian oppression”, “Palestinian concerns”, “Palestinian problems”, “Palestinian interests”, “Palestinian resistance”, “Palestinian dreams”, “Palestinian hopes” and “anti-Muslim racism”.
Another focus is the promoting of “Israeli” peace camp way beyond their real size, importance and effect, giving them a prime value and prominent platforms to advance their agenda which in almost all groups fall very short from fulfilling the minimum requirement of justice
As they celebrate these groups -who are in fact an integral part of the colonial zionist project, inadvertently, they would be beautifying and glossing over the face of an army of conquest and presenting an illusive fake image of the occupation -who consist of both extremist as well as less extremists, or the so called “peace groups”.
Furthermore; some activists happily attach and emphasize the word “Jewish” or “Jews” to any good organizations, honourable ideologies and positive actions: “Jews for peace”, “Jews for justice”, “Jews against zionism”, “Jewish voices for peace”, “Jews are at the helm of social justice and intellectual progress”…etc ,while at the same time they get incensed if the word “Jews” or “Jewish” is used factually to describe some negative actions, immoral /supremacist ideologies or corrupt organizations.
Moreover, under the pretext of fighting anti-Semitism, they engage in downplaying, suppressing, ignoring or dismissing information that exposes the role of “Israel” lobby, or the problematic and extremely serious aspects of racism, supremacy, financial corruption, media control, political manipulation and intimidation within the Jewish-zionist community, or worse, they might even go as far as accusing with anti-Semitism, those who raise eye brows or dare to question such pervasive ideologies, infiltration and control.
As such, they would be neglecting the alarming outcome of such silent or vocal dismissal, which might be inescapably viewed as passive complaisancy if not active complicity.
Another observation, is that some anti-zionists supporters would be more than willing to debate with, hold civil discussions and dialogue with zionists of all shades (soft and extreme), with the pretext of hoping to enlighten them and win them to our camp, YET, they are fanatical objectors of engaging other Jewish supporters, they boycott, isolate and even label with anti-Semitism those supporters who go all the way in their support of Palestine; because they advocate the right of Palestinians and Palestinians alone to lead the struggle and shape their future, they dare to blow the whistle on and bring to light the racism and supremacy that exist within some branches of Judaism, and they dare to underline, criticise and disapprove the colossal influence of the Jewish-zionists in the Western political sphere
In the meantime, and as a consequence to this diversion and muddle, and instead of purely focusing on the Palestinian struggle, the solidarity movement finds itself spellbound, orbiting the trajectory predicament of (is it anti-Semitic? does it hurt the sensitivity of “Jewish people”?)

As a consequence:
“Comparing Palestinian suffering to the suffering of Jewish people becomes a taboo, as it would upset “their sensitivity” and hurt their feelings”.
“Palestinians need to understand their fears”.
“Palestinians ought to give them time to comprehend that the theft of another country is wrong as they are traumatized by the holocaust”.
“Palestinians must appreciate the magnitude of their pain and as such must break it very gently and very s…l…o…w…l…y to the zionist oppressors that they are actually engaged in holocausting and ethnically cleansing them!

The insistence on the implant of “anti-Semitism” and the “holocaust” at the heart of the Palestinian struggle, and the false contention that organized anti-Semitic activities is alive and kicking is of course a grotesque deception, an absurdity when you contemplate the level of prosperity and influence many Jewish groups and lobbies have achieved all over the Western world since the end of WW2.
This insertion serves many purposes:
Firstly: to protect and perpetuate the concept of “Jews are eternal victims”, which in turn belittles the unrelenting ongoing suffering of the Palestinians compared to the “unique”, “millennia-old” Jewish suffering.
Secondly: to hoodwink the naïve “progressives” to focus on the sparse “anti-Jewish prejudice”, and by doing so detracting them from focusing on the alarmingly widespread anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hatred.
Thirdly: to legitimize the very core of the Zionist ideology; by validating their dogma of “Jewish nationalism” and endorsing the idea of the necessity for a Jewish “homeland” (be as it may, at the cost of another nation).
Fourthly It justifies the final takeover of some/entire lands of Palestine as an obligation to compensate, protect, and secure the future of Jewish people. Under the ploy: “Their eternal suffering needs to stop and they undeniably deserve to get their own land and self determination”
Influenced by the agenda of supportive Jewish anti zionist groups, the aims of the solidarity movement and the perimeters of argument for Palestine ends up confined and defined primarily by the “unique” case of racism “Anti-Semitism”, and its omnipresence materialization, the holocaust. That evidently, pushes the Palestinian cause to the periphery.
Supportive organizations of Palestine find themselves obliged to express disdain of anti-Semitism, before even asserting its support of Palestine.

In other words, before being eligible as a supporter for Palestine one must vigorously, repeatedly and at every juncture proclaim his/her innocence from the dreaded charge of anti-Semitism, one must also convey his/her innermost grief and sincere apologies for the “unique” crime of the holocaust, furthermore, one must express sympathy with the victims of the holocaust by wishing them “peace, security and prosperity” on the land they’ve stolen! Then one must confirm his support for equal rights for “both” peoples (criminal and victim, oppressed and oppressor alike)
As such, supportive organizations find themselves cornered into accepting the fallacy and the bizarre depravity that a foreign invader has as much right to the land he subjugated by force and robbed by deceit, as the rightful owner!

Ø Never mind that Palestinians have nothing to do with neither European anti-Semitism nor the holocaust
Ø Never mind that since the end of WW2, there is no real anti-Semitism except amongst those racist fringe groups who are naturally inclined to hate any “other” and everything that is different
Ø Never mind that in most countries of the Western world, Jewish-zionist organizations (secular and religious) have accumulated an inordinate level of power and influence, a reality inconsistent with the claims of “thriving” anti-Semitism.
Ø Never mind that the holocaust is stopped and publicly shunned since over sixty five years ago, yet the incessant, chronic holocaust of Palestinians is ongoing
Ø Never mind that at present, the most vehement form of racism in the West (fomented and inflamed by hasbara zionists) is anti-Muslim hatred and racism
Ø Never mind that the permanent highlighting and celebrating the marginal “Jewish israeli peace camp”, only reinforces the zionist agenda of concealment of truth about their bloodthirsty entity, and gives the false impression of a “balanced”, “democratic” and “civilized” society whose only problem is its corrupt government, and if a change of “israeli” establishment occurs the Palestinian problem would be instantaneously solved.
Ø Never mind that these peace groups (international or “Israeli”) are not representative neither of the international Jewish community nor the zionist Jewish community in occupied Palestine
Ø Never mind that these peace-groups are a tiny minority labelled, ostracised and despised by the pro-zionist Jewish majority, whether in occupied Palestine or outside
Ø Never mind that ALL Zionists share the same aim as anti-zionist groups with regard to this issue of highlighting anti-Semitism. Zionists put enormous amount of resources and energies to the same cause; namely vociferously keeping the issue of anti-Semitism and the holocaust “religion” alive, inserted at the core of the Palestinian struggle, as a charade of “fighting” anti-Semitism when in fact all it does is to distract and divert from the REAL ONGOING holocaust against Palestinians.

2) . Holding back:
Our anti-zionist Jewish supporters opt to impose their views on forms of resistance, limiting the choice of tactics of Palestinians by suggesting that the only path that Palestinians should take in order to achieve their aims is to abandon all form of armed resistance, and confine only to non-violent resistance.

Ø Never mind that Palestine is a nation sitting at the edge of annihilation, virtually abandoned by the international community
Ø Never mind the inconceivable impact of continuous oppression on the psychological health of any human being subjected to such abominable circumstances
Ø Never mind the timeline, of almost one century of being the object of zionist aggression, bloodshed, torture and utter disrespect for life
Ø Never mind the basic human right given to every human being to defend ones’ self when attacked
Ø Never mind the international law which granted an oppressed group or nation to seek its liberation by all means necessary; including armed resistance
Ø Never mind that real historical examples -ancient and contemporary- had shown us time and again that occupied nations have used armed resistance successfully and effectively in order to free themselves from invaders
Ø Never mind that by restricting the resistance with the non-violent tactics they serve perfectly the zionist occupier and create a buffer zone of safety, security and breathing space for him which helps him to continue his aggression without worry, and to persist creating of facts on the grounds without hindrance.

3) . Steering:

The end of the struggle and the future solution -as defined by our anti-zionist Jewish supporters- must be either “two states” with 1967 borders, or “one SECULAR state, for TWO peoples”:
With the pretext that “no one can change the facts on the ground”, “they are there now and nothing can be done about it”, “this kind of colonization happened before and some natives have lost their homelands to invaders”, “migration of populations is a normal human thing”, “Jewish people have the right to a homeland and self determination”, “we cannot solve an injustice by creating another injustice”

Ø Never mind that one of these people is an invading impostor “nation”
Ø Never mind that the fraud “nation” had ethnically-cleansed the indigenous nation and caused it an inconceivable amount of suffering and horror for over a century
Ø Never mind that this imposer “nation” gathered itself from all corners of the planet and illegally implanted itself replacing the authentic nation
Ø Never mind that this impostor “nation” claims the ownership of the land on falsified mythical ground
Ø Never mind that a fake “nation” have no right to exercise its “self-determination” at the expense of another authentic nation
Ø Never mind that other previous historic colonisations happened centuries ago and we have no time-machine to go and fix them, yet what is happening in Palestine is happening NOW before our eyes, it can be stopped and reversed
Ø Never mind that “never again” is used very conveniently and becomes obsolete when it comes to Palestinians
Ø Never mind if the majority of the authentic inhabitants of the land –namely the Palestinians- might actually aspire to have their own choice of future government, and might like to exercise their freedom to choose their representatives whom might not be to the liking of their anti-zionist supporters, but may rather be genuine and natural representation of their authentic culture and civilization of the ME
Ø Never mind that the goals of the anti-zionist here, yet again, coincides and fits perfectly with the goals of zionist; namely, ensuring and securing the PERMANENT stay of the invaders in the land of Palestine

Let me be clear:
  • The road to Palestine does not pass either through Nazi-Germany or through Auschwitz for that matter.

  • Fighting the zionist occupiers of our land does not begin with fighting anti-Semitism

  • Palestinians do not have to “convert” to the holocaust “religion” in order to gain “salvation” and liberation

  • No decent human-being would demand to live on STOLEN land and still claims to have some humanity

  • No decent human-being could claim that the perpetrator should have the same rights as the victim

  • Palestinians are under no obligation to hold back their march for freedom, to curtail their aims or to smother their rights for the sake of accommodating and not offending their Jewish supporters

  • Palestinians are always grateful and appreciative of the hard work and dedication of all their supporters whomever they are, however, Palestinians have NO obligation to adopt the aims and objectives of the anti-zionist Jewish supporters instead of their own

  • Dismissing the Palestinian voice as radical, reactionary, intolerant, or unreasonable, and requiring the Jewish-anti-zionist validation to have legitimacy to speak for Palestine, contradicts basic concepts of human rights and does not do justice to Palestinians.

  • Palestinians have the ultimate right to choose their strategy and tactics of resistance that they deem most suitable for achieving their freedom, reinstatement of rights, and aspirations

  • Those tactics should not be manufactured or imposed upon them, leading in effect to more protection of the occupier and sheltering him from pain and from facing the consequences of his actions.

  • Palestinians have the ultimate right to choose their vision for their future, of FREE Palestine including the type of government, the writing of constitution, the construction and implementation of their legal and juristic system, which stems from and corresponds to their ethics and reflects and protects their culture.

  • Palestinians have the ultimate right to make the final decision on who is allowed to stay in liberated Palestine and who is not, using the legal procedure of their own choice.

  • The future of the Palestinian struggle and the aim of liberation of Palestine should not be designed to shield the occupier from paying the full price of his crimes; including the punishment of all those who participated in transgression, and the deportation of the illegitimate Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants who colonized Palestine forcefully and were engaged in acts of aggression against Palestinians including serving in the IOF

  • All refugee and their descendents have the unconditional right to come back home, they, the rightful indigenous owners are also entitled to the reinstatement of ALL confiscated (stolen) land and property, compensation for all their losses over the many years of exile and they are also entitled to Palestinian citizenship wherever they are.

  • The aims and dreams of most Palestinians are not confined to the change of zionist regime or the vacuous declaration of abandonment of zionism by the Jewish-zionist occupiers, but rather to the FULL Liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all their rights

  • It is the privilege of Palestinian to decide who should stay in their homeland and who’s not.

  • After a century of terror, theft and crimes, had the Zionist shown any signs of remorse, respect or willingness to be decent guests, had they embraced with open arms the hospitable people of Palestine rather than destroying them with fire-arms; they might have had a chance to be accepted and forgiven. Not any more, as far as I am concerned. They have lost that opportunity

For all the above, I repeat; the strategy of liberation requires emancipation