Netanyahu demands ‘never second guess me again’ on Hamas


…and during an election year with a sycophantic Congress bent on further embarrassing the President of the United States and in need of deep pockets to fund campaigns to make people believe the unbelievable Netanyahu thinks he has the green light to humiliate the President of the only super power in the world….and he probably does. But he should know, it wasn’t Hamas that broke the ceasefire despite Netanyahu’s protestations.

Ali Abunimah makes two noteworthy claims…not startling when you think of the players involved in these scenarios. The Israelis broke the ceasefire with a raid in southern Gaza and realizing one of their soldiers was captured saturated the area where that soldier was supposedly captured with bombs in an attempt to kill him and prevent him from being a prisoner of war.

In a military communiqué published on its website on Friday, Qassam stated:

After its blatant aggression and violation of the ceasefire, the enemy [Israel] began to spread the lie that the resistance violated the truce. We confirm that over the past twenty days no Zionist soldier had any presence in the eastern area of Rafah. After the announcement that a ceasefire agreement had been reached, the enemy began to move in that area and at precisely 2am made an incursion 2.5 kms east of Rafah. This leaves no room for doubt about the enemy’s intention to violate the truce and infringe on our territory and our defenseless people. Faced with this Zionist advance, at precisely 7am our fighters engaged with the invading forces and caused a large number of deaths and injuries in their ranks.

 

In a statement early on Saturday morning, Qassam explained how it had understood the ceasefire:

We notified the mediators that took part in arranging the humanitarian ceasefire that we agree to a ceasefire with regard to the sites that we target in Zionist cities and towns, but from an operational standpoint we cannot cease firing toward forces that have entered the [Gaza] Strip and are operating and moving constantly. This means that it is possible for any invading force to encounter one of our units and this could lead to clashes……..

So according to Qassam, the operation against the Israeli soldiers was defensive in nature and occurred an hour before the 8:00 am start of the ceasefire.

……

The “Hannibal Directive” captured the Israeli imagination in the mid-1980s, when ongoing incursions and occupation in Lebanon, following the 1982 invasion, confronted the Israeli army with opportunities to experience capture.

Popular understanding of this directive is phrased as “a dead soldier is better than a kidnapped [sic] one” – which was taken to mean that it would be better to kill a captured prisoner of war than have him remain alive.

The political cost to Israeli leaders from a live captured soldier could be seen during the five years Gilad Shalit’s family campaigned for Israel to secure his release and the high price many Israelis felt had to be paid: an exchange for more than one thousand Palestinian prisoners.

Evolving from an order never committed to paper, the directive is ascribed to military leaders Yossi Peled, Gabi Ashkenazi and Yaakov Amidror in 1986……

There was much discussion on Twitter about this being the reason for the shelling of Rafah on Friday morning, including in reports from Ynet’s military reporter Attila Somfalvi, that the words “Hannibal! Hannibal!” were shouted over military communication systems…..

Ouriel Daskal stated outright: “what I deduce from what’s happening in Rafah is that there’s an implementation of the Hannibal Directive. Let’s hope not.”

Moreover, blogger Richard Silverstein reported a few days ago that another soldier was killed in Gaza under the directive.

Israeli investigative journalist Ronen Bergman confirmed in a radio interview, with respect to an earlier incident, that in Gaza the procedure “was tested in practice and apparently the soldiers acted in accordance with that directive.”

 

 

Advertisements

News you won’t see on American television


The seductive Tzipi Livni- NOT!


livniIsraeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni is coming to Washington, DC ostensibly to talk to members of the Bush administration about Gaza, but that’s obviously a  lie, since there is now no longer a Bush administration.  Rather what she’s coming to do is to read the Obama administration the riot act, using the carrot and stick approach.

The Israelis would probably like to have a little more time destroying the infrastructure of Gaza and Egypt as well as make a case for their more ambitious goals for the Middle East, but they want to see if Obama is “down with the program” so she’s coming to test the waters and see what she finds.  On the eve of the inauguration, she’ll probably find indifferent Bush people who wanna’ get the hell out of town, and inebriated Obama people who are ready to paaaaaarrrrtyyyyyyy, except the loyalists to her cause who are always alert to every opportunity and available to undermine US interests for Israeli interests.

She probably is also coming to smooth out the Olmert-Rice rift which is still going on.  Rice has said Olmert’s account of being able to manipulate Bush to essentially embarrass her is fictional while for his part, Olmert hasn’t backed down from what he’s reported to have said, that Rice was shamed into her abstention vote at the UN.  That’s certainly the mood  he meant to convey to his Israeli audience, that he has the power to get whatever he wants from his American client state.  However, Livni is the “good” cop in the power politics taking place between the two countries so she’s coming to make nice with Rice before she leaves so Rice won’t  make problems for the Israeli  “program” further down the road.

Livni is a former Mossad operative so she’ll brief them about what she finds in the Obama crowd that Israel can exploit to further their plans.  She’s packaged nicely, a far cry from the frumpy Golda Meir, but equally as deadly and dangerous.  ‘All that glitters ain’t gold’ and Livni is no exception to that rule.   The timing of her visit to Washington to this observer is far more foreshadowing and ominous than it appears.