Notify me of new HIR pieces!
What caused this war?
Triggers have causes, and causes have prior causes...
Historical and Investigative Research - 23 July 2006
There is something curious about the current conflict on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon: it began in Gaza, on Israel’s southern border.
Earlier this month, on 5 July, the Jerusalem Post was reporting on events as follows:
“The IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] has raised the level of alert along the northern border with Syria out of fear that [Syrian] President Bashar Assad would launch a strike against Israel in response to a recent IAF [Israeli Air Force] buzz [fly over] of his palace.
Syrian military forces, IDF officers confirmed Tuesday, have also gone on high alert and the assumption in the IDF is that Assad would order a harsh military response if Israel decided to take additional steps against Damascus in relation to the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit in the Gaza Strip.
The type of [Syrian] response is unknown at this stage but officers said it could be a missile strike on IDF installations or communities in the North. Another possibility, military sources said, is that Syria would use its proxy -- the Hizbullah in Lebanon -- to launch an attack against Israel in its place.”
Hezbollah indeed attacked. So the sequence of provocations immediately precipitating the current armed exchanges appears to be the following:
1) Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip kidnapped an Israeli soldier;
2) Israel reacted against the Hamas masters in Syria;
3) Syria unleashed Hezbollah against Israel;
4) Israel retaliated.
What is the link between point 1 and point 2? When Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in Gaza, why did Israel complain to Syria? The same Jerusalem Post article explains:
“Last week, four IAF [Israeli Air Force] fighter jets buzzed [flew over] Assad’s summer residence in Latakia, Syria, to try to pressure him to persuade Damascus-based Hamas leader Kahled Meshaal to release Shalit [Damascus is the capital of Syria]. Senior defense officials said Tuesday that Israel was considering taking additional steps against Syria as part of its overall effort to retrieve the abducted soldier.”
The terrorist organization Hamas, which controls the West Bank, is being run from Syria.
The attacks from Gaza, too, are Syrian attacks. And according to some Hamas and Hezbollah are now deeply intertwined, stemming from “Hezbollah's role in training the Hamas cadres.”[1a]
Thus understood, the sequence of events is as follows. The genocidal pet, Hamas, bent on the destruction of Israel, staged a provocation that caused Israel to react against the master, Syria. This same Syrian master then used the Israeli reaction as an excuse to unleash its other pet Hezbollah -- another terrorist group pledged to destroy Israel through genocide -- on Israel’s northern border.
Now, if we telescope a bit further back into history, but not very far, the sequence of relevant and causally linked events becomes the following:
1) Israel evacuated Gaza;
2) terrorist attacks against Israel staged from Gaza flourished and escalated;
3) Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip kidnapped an Israeli soldier;
4) Israel reacted against the Hamas masters in Syria;
5) Syria unleashed Hezbollah against Israel;
6) Israel retaliated.
If we examine our new point 1, we find lots of interesting things. For example, when Israel was disengaging from Gaza, it reached an agreement with Egypt that defies belief. On 4 September 2005 the Associated Press wrote:
“As part of an agreement with Egypt, Israel will withdraw its troops from a patrol road along the Gaza-Egypt border, and 750 Egyptian troops will deploy there to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza.
The Israeli Defense Ministry said Sunday the Egyptians would begin taking up positions along the border in the coming days.”
Egypt is a country that in the past has launched wars of extermination against Israel, and yet the Israeli government made Egypt the guardian of Israel’s security along the Egypt-Gaza border after evacuating Gaza. Are you gasping? You should be.
Let us now enlarge the context a bit.
Post-Disengagement Gaza is under the total control of Islamist terrorists dedicated to the extermination of the Jewish people. You’ve got the PLO terrorists, whose controlling core, Al Fatah, was created by a leader of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution (yes -- skeptics should consult the footnote). Or else you have Hamas, created by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that was an enthusiastic ally of the Nazis in WWII. In fact, the father of Fatah/PLO (Hajj Amin al Husseini) was the go-between for the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas's parent organization) and the Nazis -- these are all the same people. Both organizations, Fatah/PLO and Hamas, are pledged in their constitutions to destroy Israel via the extermination of the Jewish people,[5a] and despite the appearance of a public rivalry they are in fact deeply intertwined and eagerly cooperate at all levels. Gaza was given to these people.
But this is not all: a Pentagon study declared that, without Gaza, Israel cannot survive. In the jargon of the military, Gaza is strategic.
So. We have the following:
A) The government of the Jewish state took a territory indispensable to Israeli security, Gaza, and cleansed it of its Jews (made it judenrein, as the Nazis would say), giving it to genocidal organizations tracing their roots to the WWII Nazi extermination of the Jewish people; and then
B) the government of the Jewish state asked Egypt, a country that has launched anti-Jewish wars of extermination in the past, to “prevent arms smuggling into Gaza,” which is to say, it asked it to stop arming the spawn of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, across the ‘border.’
What are we to make of such facts?
As with any set of facts, we should propose a theory to explain them. Those who defend the view that the Israeli government is patriotic do not have a very good theory because it generates all sorts of absurdities (and absurdities are the things to avoid in a theory). So the hypothesis I defend is that the Israeli government has been corrupted by those who once again are attempting to destroy the Jewish people. This hypothesis does account for the facts, and that is always a virtue in a hypothesis.
Once you adopt my view lots of otherwise crazy things begin to make sense.
For example, about the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit, “Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, chief of the Israeli military, said during a news conference hours after the raid that… ‘There is no doubt that this caught us by surprise.’”
The way he speaks you get the impression that Dan Halutz ordered an investigation to determine whether or not he himself had been caught by surprise, and this investigation concluded that he was caught by surprise, leaving Dan Halutz “no doubt” that he was indeed caught by surprise. But why? Why was he caught by surprise? Because Dan Halutz cannot anticipate that genocidal terrorists spawned by the Nazi Final Solution, once in full control of Gaza, will team up with the Egyptians to escalate their terrorist violence? But then “Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz” should not be “chief of the Israeli military,” should he?
He should be fired.
Of course, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz has not been fired because Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz works for the same Israeli government that ordered the Gaza Disengagement. In fact, Halutz was appointed to head the entire Israeli military on 1 June 2005, right in the middle of the Disengagement process, and he carried it through. Halutz is careful always to sound like a hawk, and this often makes Israeli patriots quite glad; but in fact Halutz’s ‘hawkish’ statements always appear designed to deal a propaganda blow to the Jewish state, and his behaviors have dealt a grave material blow to Israeli security.
Given that Halutz is one of the architects of Israel’s disintegration, the fact that he is now retaliating against Hezbollah suggests that perhaps Hezbollah’s recent escalation was simply too much terrorism too soon, putting the corrupt Israeli government -- which cannot be completely immune to Israeli opinion if it is to remain in power -- in a bind. Thus, we have seen the Israeli government do what some of us thought it might never do again: retaliate against the terrorist enemies of the Jewish state. This has a number of consequences that we will analyze in this series and which contribute to making the process of destroying Israel a bit difficult to get back on track.
But whose grand strategy is it that now faces a bump in the road? Who is it that has corrupted the Israeli government?
If we telescope a bit further into the past, the sequence of relevant and causally linked events becomes:
1) The US ordered the Israeli government to evacuate Gaza (and northern Samaria, in the West Bank) and give it to the terrorists;
2) Israel evacuated Gaza (and Northern Samaria)
3) terrorist attacks against Israel staged from Gaza flourished and escalated;
4) Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip kidnap an Israeli soldier;
5) Israel reacts against the Hamas masters in Syria;
6) Syria unleashes Hezbollah against Israel;
7) Israel retaliates.
It is the US ruling elite that is ultimately preparing Israel's destruction. Or at least this hypothesis is consistent with HIR’s documentation of a century’s worth of US foreign policy toward the Jewish people and state. (And consistency with the facts is always a virtue in a hypothesis.)
Up next I will examine the possibility that Syria’s itchy trigger finger is compromising what I believe is the US ruling elite’s carefully planned strategy for the destruction of Israel.
Footnotes and Further Reading
 Standoff in north as Israel Syria raise alert level, The Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2006, Wednesday, NEWS; Pg. 8, 372 words, Yaakov Katz Ap Contributed To This Report.
[1a] "Political and military analysts in Egypt and Israel said the recent events seemed to stem from a growing relationship between Hamas and Hezbollah. While there is no direct evidence of coordinated attacks, several analysts said they believed that the two kidnappings were part of a plan reflecting a trend that began several years ago, with Hezbollah trying to teach Hamas its methods. 'What took place from Hezbollah today, in my opinion, is tied to their relationship with Hamas,' said Dr. Wahid Abdel Meguid, Deputy Director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Egypt. 'Hezbollah developed a strong relationship with Hamas, the most manifest form of this relationship is Hezbollah's role in training the Hamas cadres.'"
 Palestinian leader hopes to resolve border crossing dispute 'very soon', Associated Press Worldstream, September 4, 2005 Sunday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 583 words, IBRAHIM BARZAK; Associated Press Writer, GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip
1964-1967 -- Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors
during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the
US refused to help; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look
at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco
 The most complete documentation on this is here:
Some of this material was originally published here:
 “…as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and '40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and "supreme guide" Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini -- incidentally the later mentor (from 1946 onward) of a young firebrand by the name of Yasser Arafat.”
From the article below you will see that Hamas is proud of the Nazi Hassan al Banna, and you will see that Hamas uses the same propaganda the German Nazis used. You will get a sense for the Hamas worldview.
Comment extra: Islam and Israel: The new anti-Semitism: A document once used by the Nazis to stir up hatred of Jews and long known to be a forgery is once again being circulated, this time by Muslim scholars. David Aaronovitch challenged them, The Observer, June 22, 2003, Observer News Pages, Pg. 26, 1831 words, David Aaronovitch
[ OBSERVER TEXT: ]
WE GOT TO Abdel-aziz al-Rantisi a couple of weeks before the Israelis almost did. Our yellow taxi-bus had taken us down an anonymous side-street in Gaza city, and stopped outside a grey-black four-storey apartment block. There was no decoration on the ground or first floors, just bare concrete steps, with no banisters. One flight up we passed a room in which a sub-machine gun sat, ownerless, on an armchair beside a sunny window. Mr Rantisi was in the room above.
The Hamas leader, a famous hardliner in that organisation of hardliners, was going, I hoped, to answer a specific question. Why, in article 32 of the Hamas covenant, was there an approving reference to a document, an anti-Semitic forgery of the early twentieth century, once described by a leading historian as a ‘warrant for genocide’?
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - supposedly a transcript of a meeting of the world’s top Jews, called to discuss the achievement of world domination - was concocted by an ultra-orthodox member of the Tsar’s secret police, Sergei Nilus in about 1903. By the early 1920s it was being widely circulated in Europe and America, was later taught in the schools of Nazi Germany and is now to be found on any good neo-nazi web-site near you. It is the classic of Holocaust-era anti-Semitism, portraying the Jews as a conniving, Machiavellian race…
So what on earth is it doing in the twenty-first century manifesto of an Islamic movement? The Covenant says that ‘the Zionists’ want an Israel that extends from Cairo to Basra, and then next stop, the world. ‘Their plan,’ says Mr Rantisi’s Covenant, ‘is embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.’
RANTISI IS SERIOUS and measured (he was once a paediatrician [!]). His windows are veiled against surveillance, there is a picture of Hassan al Banna, murdered leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, on the wall. ‘When I first heard about this document [meaning the Protocols of the Elders of Zion],’ says Rantisi reasonably, ‘I didn’t want to believe it, but then I saw what was happening in Palestine, and I could see that it was genuine.’ That is his answer.
There is a great deal to shudder about. The amount of anti-Semitic literature, journalism and television in Arab countries is voluminous. The more sophisticated Arab governments, however, who tolerate this stuff, understand the need to turn a less contorted face to the West, with its anti-racist liberal campaigners. They play it down, or ignore it. It isn’t easy, though.
When you are confronted with the collected anti-Semitisms of the post-11 September Arab world, what is most striking is the weirdness of journalists and politicians raiding the ancient political sewers of old Europe for arguments. Take the example of what is called the ‘blood libel’. This is the old medieval story of how Jews kidnap Christians, kill them and use their blood in arcane rituals [see here for a short historical perspective on Western antisemitism]. We had a spate of these tales in England in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and many Jews lost their lives as a result.
So what on earth is the blood libel doing in a column in the respected Egyptian mass daily paper Al-Ahram , in a book by the Syrian defence minister and in broadcast sermons from various Palestinian mosques? The libel in question is the 1840 Damascus case, in which several Jews (including a David Harari) ‘confessed’ to the Ottoman authorities - under torture - to kidnapping a priest and stealing his blood.
Holocaust denial is another widespread feature of Arab discourse, but for different reasons. In a school in Gaza, a middle-aged teacher of English interrupted my interview of several of his pupils, and launched into a tirade against the Jews. Were they not behind all wars? Had they not caused trouble wherever they were? Had they not caused troubles even for the Germans? ‘When?’ I asked him. ‘Before the reign of Hitler,’ the teacher replied.
A few blocks away I met Dr Musa Al-Zubut, chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council education committee, who had been trying to go and meet his colleagues in Ramallah for several weeks, but had been prevented by the Israelis. He was explaining why the history books for the new Palestinian curriculum contained no reference to the Holocaust. Zubut said he knew that the Holocaust was ‘of course’ exaggerated. It was not, he said, ‘1 per cent of what we have suffered in Palestine’. Besides, even if every Jew had been killed, what was that to do with the Palestinians?
Is this anti-Semitism? Or is it a profound ignorance about European history? Gaza is bad, but in two days in September 1941 at Babi Yar near Kiev, 34,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen…
Elsewhere in Gaza, some of the most combustible imams preach against the Jews on the basis, they claim, of the Koran itself. A relatively new emphasis on certain passages leads these religious leaders to proclaim the eternal untrustworthiness of Jews, going back to the days of the Prophet. In this country last May, a Muslim preacher from Stratford, East London, was convicted of several counts of incitement to murder, partly based on a taped sermon entitled ‘No Peace with the Jews’. Faisal claimed that his views were merely those of the Koran, which - if true - would be profoundly worrying.
In Cairo I met the film producer Mounir Radhi. A self-proclaimed anti-racist, his last film concerned the relationship between a Muslim and a Coptic boy in a suburb of the Egyptian capital. His next, however, will be about the events in Damascus in 1840. But in Radhi’s project the blood libel has gone through a strange metamorphosis. Father Tomas is still killed by David Harari, but not for his blood. No, now he is murdered to prevent him speaking about a Zionist plot to move Jews from Damascus to Palestine.
Radhi is almost certainly sincere, but his story is nonsense. There were no Zionists in 1840, and Damascus and Palestine were then part of the same Ottoman province. This is just a mutation of the blood libel to suit modern politics, with Jews (sorry, Zionists) plotting to steal land rather than blood. Radhi may be an anti-racist, but he is perilously close to being an anti-Semite.
Still, it is mildly encouraging that Radhi’s film does not show mad Jews eating blood-baked matzohs, in the way that the Syrian defence minister believes they did. (…)
[ OBSERVER TEXT ENDS HERE ]
[5a] The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” That’s worth chewing on for a second, because the PLO could have written the same thing like this: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? This is relatively obvious. Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine,” and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating -- that is to say, exterminating -- “Zionists.”
Hamas is always saying in public that it means to
destroy Israel, but in case that were not enough, article 32 of the Hamas
Charter states very clearly that “Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism
is high treason” (so one may not negotiate with Zionists).
The following article quotes and analyzes the Hamas spokesman's genocidal perspective on the Gaza Disengagement:
 The following is stated in article 27 of the Hamas Charter:
To see how closely Hamas and the PLO have cooperated in the killing of both Arabs and Jews, visit:
 The following piece quotes the relevant portions of the Pentagon study and analyses it in its political context, with links to the original document (to go directly to the Pentagon study, see further below):
< PENTAGON STUDY:
»» This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:
»» And by the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs:
»» And as an appendix in:
 Palestinians Use Tunnel To Attack Israeli Post; 2 Soldiers Killed, One Kidnapped in Raid at Gaza Border, The Washington Post, June 26, 2006 Monday, Final Edition, A Section; A16, 1188 words, Scott Wilson, Washington Post Foreign Service, JERUSALEM June 25
 The following two pieces contain material relevant to the US role in the Gaza disengagement:
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
Hezbollah Hizbollah Hizbu'llah Hizb
What is Hezbollah?
What is Hizbollah?
What is Hizbu'llah?
What is Hizb'allah?