The Ugandans Attack
New in the Website
Turkel and the Ugandans
The Israeli members of the commission were very old. So old that one of them died during the inquiry process and was replaced by a slightly less-old one. That meant all of them were likely to be highly conservative and loyal to the organization paying their salaries, namely the state of Israel. Not that there were any doubts on that; they all were insiders, sons and cousins – and least in their deep pockets - to the Mishpaha Lohemet. The committee served perfectly The Ugandans, a nickname referring to the triad of army officers who participated in Operation Entebbe and that by the beginning of 2011 had finally taken over Israel, effectively running the country. The composition of the committee meant the Ugandans didn’t need to interfere with its operation; the results were assured to please Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, Ehud “Napo(leon)” Barak, and Tamir “Kelev” Pardo, the Ugandan Triad. Cancelling the need for open interference meant the two international observers in the commission investigating the IDF attack on Gaza’s Freedom Flotilla would sign the findings of the committee and claim its work was impartial. Everybody would be happy. Accordingly, on January 23, 2001, the Turkel Commission published a report claiming the deadly May 31 Shayetet 13 commando takeover of the Turkish aid vessel was “legal pursuant to rules of international law,” and that soldiers opened fire in self-defense.
Surprisingly, not everybody was happy. Turkey reacted immediately, saying it was “appalled and dismayed” at the inquiry findings. Simply, the Israeli commission delusions were grave: the soldiers attacked first, self-defense is an unalienable human right, and the attack took place on international waters. The IDF had committed war crimes against a civilian ship.
The Ugandans knew beforehand Turkey wouldn’t be happy. The commission results meant Israel would neither apologize for the crime nor pay indemnification to the victims and their families. A more sensible path would have been for Israel recognizing partial blame and agreeing on the Turkish terms. Yet, the Ugandans chose – again – for violence. Why?
Gaza and Al Jazeera
Why would Israel purposely alienate its strongest ally in the region? The blocking of an insignificant amount of raw materials and goods couldn’t be of strategic significance. The obvious sacrifice of this relationship meant Israel didn’t consider Turkey as essential; the importance of the event was in its inflammatory qualities. Both events – the attack ad the report on it – were also highly seditious toward the Palestinians. In parallel to the release of the report, Israel warned Gaza that heavy retaliations would follow any rockets attack. Coincidentally, Al Jazeera released documents claiming the Palestinian authority – in other words Fatah, the PLO – was ready to make significant concessions to Israel in exchange for a peace agreement. The last were so preposterous that they were probably fake, as Fatah claimed. All these create the impression the Ugandans are pursuing a new war against the Palestinians.
After the savage Israeli attack on Gaza known as Operation Cast Lead, the United nations defined the State of Israel as a terror inflicting organization. Do the Ugandans want to surpass this achievement? Do they want to obliterate the memory of Genghis Khan under their own bestiality?
When analyzing the actions of the Israeli Administration it is useful to keep in mind Orwell’s 1984. There, wars are used to keep people’s minds distracted from the real issue: systemic human rights violations by their government. Such governments lose their legitimacy. In Israel, these violations are so horrific (see The Cross of Bethlehem) that they demand an unprecedented amount of distracting wars. Moreover, the oligarchs make substantial profits from war (again, see The Cross of Bethlehem), they must produce and provide war machines, healthy commissions end up in their sickening deep pockets. But that can’t be all in the current event.
On January 24, it was announced that Hezbollah has secured the support from a majority of the Lebanese parliament to nominate its candidate for prime minister. These are bad news for Israel.
Shortly before that, on December 15, 2010, the Lebanese Army announced it dismantled two Israeli espionage sites watching on Beirut from Jabel Snin and Jabel Baruch. Two weeks before that, Lebanon placed a formal denounce at the UN Security Council against Israel after the existence of the devices was exposed by the Hezbollah. The devices included watching equipment and signals sending and receiving communications gear; it could be activated from afar. It was hidden under fake rocks in a mountainous area (see pictures. Israel panicked. At 6:30 PM of the same evening, the Israeli air force made low flights over Tyre and apparently destroyed a similar espionage in the area. Similar flights took place along the Zaharani River. The IDF is clearly losing even its relative advantage in the intelligence area, rendering the Hezbollah even stronger than when it humiliated the IDF in the 206 and 2009 wars.
Probably, the Ugandans predict a new war against Hezbollah in the near future. Under the circumstances, they want to distract the Israeli public of this terrorizing option with the help of a mini-war: attacking Gaza as a tranquilizer. This would help to disguise another related event: the mini-war would keep the IDF mobilized and ready to move into Lebanon when the real event begins. Would the next war with Hezbollah be the last one? Would the New Exodus begin after it?
My articles on the web are my main income these days; please recognize my efforts in writing them by donating or buying a copy of The Cross of Bethlehem, or Back in Bethlehem.