Sixty-one years of Baath Party rule in
Syria came to an end today as the capital Damascus fell out of government control.
After a week of resurgent fighting on three fronts, the forces of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, formerly the al-Nusra Front, an offshoot of al-Qaeda), have entered and taken over Damascus without any sign of army deployments.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad boarded a plane and left for an unknown destination, two senior army officers familiar with the incident told Reuters on Sunday.
President Bashar al-Assad left Damascus at 10pm on Saturday and the army command informed its officers and soldiers of the “fall of the regime”, according to the director of the UK-based Syrian Observatory, Rami Abdel Rahman.
From Russia's RT, we learn: “The plane reportedly carrying President Bashar Assad has disappeared from radar, according to data from the flight tracker Flightradar. Syrian Airlines Ilyushin Il-76T departed from Damascus International Airport, suddenly lost altitude a few minutes later, and then disappeared from radar.” The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps confirmed that the Sunni jihadists had entered Damascus. They also claimed that Syrian forces are withdrawing from the capital.
Damascus International Airport has been evacuated of all its employees and all flights have been suspended, Radio Al Shams said, citing a correspondent.
Earlier, on the outskirts of Damascus, the Sednaya military prison, the most important in the country, was taken, freeing those detained by the government of Bashar Al Assad.
The Sunni militants also announced that they had gained full control of the key city of Homs on Sunday morning after just one day of fighting.
Latakia, Syria's main port city and the Alawite heartland, has remained relatively untouched by this latest conflict, the rebels not having moved any of their forces there.
The rapidity of the Syrian government's collapsed has astounded many, with speculation rife that some kind of back-room deal was reached, allowing Assad's hasty departure and the army's committment to refrain from fighting.
“[t]he last castle of Arab dignity has fallen. The last Arab Republic. The last of the front-line states. The castle was rotten from within. The long-siege made thousands rich and millions poor. Israel is greater (literally) overnight. But nothing is ever as good or as bad as it first appears. Millions of Syrian refugees in Europe will have to return now. I hope that is clear to all. The new leader is a Co-founder of ISIS and STILL has a US government bounty of $10 million on his head (presumably no longer collectible). Syria was a secular republic with large ethnic and religious minorities whose flight will replace the returning refugees."
ER Editor: We have to admit we were sceptical of this claim
at first, including the video and photographic evidence presented.
However, interviews from this year do show there is something wrong,
something naturally droopy about the right side of her mouth when she
pauses her speech. And apparently, according to her on TV, she was
vaccinated at least twice. Politicians were exempt from this requirement
in France.
Marine Le Pen is not the emperor, her National Rally party having been prevented from forming a government in France by a tacit alliance of
the Left, Far-Left, and “Center-Right” last July. But she does appear
to have new clothes. Regrettably, however, her new clothes consist of an
obvious disability. Marine Le Pen is clearly suffering from partial
facial paralysis or Bell’s Palsy: a well-known adverse effect of at
least the BioNTech-Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.
Her obvious disability is, however, being totally ignored not only by
the mainstream media, both French and international, but even in social
media like X – which is even more remarkable and would appear to be
impossible without suppression of posts calling attention to it.
I could cite virtually any recent photograph or video footage of Le
Pen to illustrate my point. Consider, for instance, the photo below.
Or consider the photo below, in which not only the asymmetrical smile but also the eye muscle issue is particularly apparent.
Or the below photo of Le Pen with her young protégé and National Rally party chair Jordan Bardella.
The paralysis on the right side of Le Pen’s face is unmistakable.
It is, needless to say, equally or even more unmistakable in
video footage, as can be easily confirmed in the video extract below.
Or see her July 5th interview with France’s CNews news television here or her July 17th interview with France’s BFM news television here. Try as one might using more favorable camera angles, there is simply no hiding the facial paralysis.
Le Pen’s disability is recent and appears to be getting
worse. There are perhaps some first relatively mild manifestations of it
in 2022. The photo below, for instance, was used in her presidential
campaign in early 2022.
The following photo, by contrast, is from 2017. (Taken from her Facebook page here.)
So, did Marine Le Pen get vaccinated against Covid-19? Well,
yes, by her own admission, she did and also got at least one booster to
boot. In this January 2022 interview with CNews, see says she was “vaccinated three times”. She goes on to explain that her first vaccination was the “equivalent of two doses”.
So, we can infer from this that she initially got vaccinated with the
single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine and then got boosted with one
of the mRNA vaccines.
Is her disability a consequence of her vaccination? Well, who
knows. But the very fact that one is not even allowed to talk about it –
not even allowed to notice it – suggests that it is. If there
were some other explanation, surely the news media would address it and
the public would be allowed to acknowledge that it sees what it sees.
Consider this Daily Sceptic tweet of
one of my articles featuring the first photo above in the preview. As
of this writing, as can be seen in the screencap below, the reply
counter shows that there have been 10 replies. But, as can be seen from
the blank space below “post your reply”, none of them displays. They are
not hidden behind any clickable barrier like “show probable spam”. They are simply nowhere to be found.
What did X do with them? Did some of those replies contain
allusions to Le Pen’s disability? Is this why there is virtually no
trace of any discussion of it, even in the French-language X-sphere? Has
the X-algorithm been programmed to suppress posts referring to it?
The DNA delusion is the idea that a string of
nucleic acids is responsible for almost all inherited features of an
organism and moreover, that this is an established scientific theory
supported by experimental evidence. Nothing like this is remotely true
and the confusion arises from the conflation of two related but
nevertheless different hypotheses.
The historical roots of the problem lie in the fact that there are
two separate ‘theories’ of inherited characteristics which both use
words such as ‘gene’ ‘, ‘genome’, ‘genotype’ and ‘phenotype’. Sometimes
the words mean the same thing and at other times they have different
meanings, thus allowing conflation of two separate conceptual frameworks
and enabling discussions of the two as if they form a single coherent
and proven theory.
William Johannsen (1957-1927) coined the terms phenotype and genotype in 1909 and referred to a gene
as that ‘something’ which was responsible for inherited
characteristics. No biological mechanism was identified, a gene was
simply some repository of information that would find its ‘expression’
in the formation of a new organism looking fairly similar to its
parents.
“No hypothesis about the nature of this ‘something’ should be
postulated or supported by it .. The word ‘gene’ is completely free of
any hypothesis ; it expresses only the established fact that in any case
many traits of the organism are determined by specific, separable, and
thus independent conditions.” – Wikipedia
Johann Friedrich Miescher (1844-1895) had discovered
DNA in 1869 but after Crick and Watson characterised it as a double
helix in 1953, scientists began to speculate that this could be
something to do with inheritance and evolution. DNA became, without any evidence, to be described as the ‘Book of Life’ or a ‘Blueprint for life’.
In their excitement, scientists began to describe segments of
DNA now as ‘genes’ and to explain that the way that proteins were
created from DNA as ‘expression’.
“Gene expression is the
process by which information from a gene is used in the synthesis of a
functional gene product that enables it to produce end products,
proteins or non-coding RNA, and ultimately affect a phenotype.” – Wikipedia
The
problem here is that DNA sequences are described at best as ‘data’ as
they don’t become ‘information’ until they are interpreted as having
‘meaning’. The interpretation process happens outside of the DNA strand
itself, seems to be at liberty as to which portions of the DNA it
chooses or discards and is even free to interpret the same piece of DNA
in different ways depending upon many factors which are again outside of
the DNA molecule itself.
The concept of information is somewhat abstract. You cannot see information
and so the characterisation of DNA base pairs as ‘information’ is very
much a matter of interpretation itself and rather prejudices the reader
in favour of the thesis that is being put forward.
Since genes are
‘expressed’ differently according to context, one valid interpretation
of this is that the DNA code of a gene is just ‘nonsense (just a sequence of CGAT bases) until it is interpreted functionally‘ – Denis Noble
Denis Noble (1936-) “Many of the problems with
the Modern Synthesis in accommodating the new experimental findings have
their origin in neo-Darwinist forms of representation rather than in
experimental biology itself“ “The concepts therefore form a biased interpretive veneer that can hide those discoveries in a web of interpretation.“
In his paper “Evolution beyond neo-Darwinism: a new conceptual framework”
Noble regards the problems neo-Darwinism as essentially un-fixable as
the whole theory has become experimentally unfalsifiable and “All parts of the neo-Darwinist forms of representation encourage the use and acceptance of the other parts.”
So any part of the theory really depends on the other parts and no
single part has been or could be proved independently of the others.
“Neo-Darwinism
is a gene-centred theory of evolution. Yet, its central notion, the
‘gene’, is an unstable concept. Surprising as it may seem, there is no
single agreed definition of ‘gene’. Even more seriously, the different
definitions have incompatible consequences for the theory..” – Noble
“Of
course, no-one now thinks that there is a simple 1:1 relation (between
genes and traits) , but the language of direct causation has been
retained” – Noble
“In fact, it can be shown that, in the
case of some of the central concepts of ‘selfish genes’ or ‘genetic
program’, no biological experiment could possibly distinguish even
between completely opposite conceptual interpretations of the same
experimental findings” – Noble
Calico cats. It is claimed by some sources that
every cell of the body contains the same DNA and that this DNA is
responsible for determination of the entire phenotype. In the case of
calico cats however this cannot be the case as we can see three
different colours of fur ‘determined’ by the same genes.
The explanation given is that the DNA somehow contains
sufficient information to create all three colours but that other
developmental and ‘epigenetic’ factors are responsible for the
geographic distribution of the colours. To put it more clearly, DNA is
not the determinant of the coat pattern.
Similar considerations apply to eye colour: Heterochromia
XX/XY chromosomes. There is a strong statistical
correlation between say XY karyotype and a male phenotype but
correlation is not causality. In the paper by DelaChapelle
a patient with XX chromosomes had a male phenotype, could function
sexually and could produce sperm. The sperm were not viable and he had
some feminisation of body shape.
In this case then something has ‘gone wrong’ with development
and this is reflected in the karyotype. What we can say however is that
most the information required to create a male human being is not
dependent upon a Y chromosome. So where is this information held or how
is it generated?
“Human ‘XX males’ are sterile males whose chromosomes seem to be those of a normal female.” – Page et al. (If the end result is a male then what is it about the chromosome that is particularly ‘female’?)
Control of sex development “Most of the
knowledge on the factors involved in sexual development came from animal
models and from studies of cases in whom the genetic or the gonadal sex
does not match the phenotypical sex.” – Anna Biason-Lauber
Sexual development is in two stages:
Sexual determination – gonad development at 3 weeks
Sexual differentiation – phenotypical development influenced by hormones from the gonads
“Generally speaking, factors influencing sex determination are
transcriptional regulators, whereas factors important for sex
differentiation are secreted hormones and their receptors.”
Interesting that there is actually no mention of genes,
chromosomes or DNA in this sentence. It is observed that women who take
testosterone do in fact develop masculinised features but nobody
believes that testosterone contains sufficient information to create a
male phenotype so it must be the case that both phenotypes are possible
regardless of karyotype. Chromosomes are therefore responsible for
neither sex determination nor differentiation.
From the paper we find also that a female phenotype can arise from XY chromosomes: “Patients present with normal female external genitalia, streak gonads, and XY karyotype“
DNA damage can result from both normal metabolic activities and environmental factors resulting in tens of thousands of
individual lesions per cell per day. Many of these lesions cause
structural damage to the DNA molecule and can give rise to mutation and
altered gene expression. Wikpedia
To rephrase: “Human DNA is continually changing“.
In
fact identical twins have different DNA by the time they are born and
they will continue to diverge throughout life. Each of us has
potentially different DNA in each cell of our body. (Stefan Lanka)
The
characterisation of altered DNA as ‘damage’ suggests that there is a
semi-stable ‘known’ sequence of DNA that has been altered and that can
therefore be ‘repaired’. But if DNA is the definitive repository of
genetic information then how can this be so? Where is the backup data
kept?
Organisms are very good at buffering themselves against genomic change.” – Noble.
In other words, we maintain our structural integrity somewhat independently of the content of our DNA.
So how do DNA forensics work?
We can infer from
watching CSI that some part of the changing genome is stable enough to
represent a single individual after being extracted from dried up blood.
This sequence is sufficiently different from other people for
identification but similar enough to family members to recognise them as
such. Amazing.
“The forensic laboratory has no control over the amount of evidence
left at a crime scene or the insults to which the biologic material may
have been subjected. The analysis performed therefore must be validated
carefully and documented extensively before use. Also, the interpretation will often be scrutinized more stringently than routine clinical testing.” – Weedn
A Human chimera is someone with a distinct subset of cells that have a different genotype from the rest of the body. (Wikipedia)
.So a female for example can incorporate cells from a male twin and
live quite happily without realising it – until they get a DNA test that
is..
The Dutch sprinter Foekje Dillema was expelled from the 1950
national team after she refused a mandatory sex test in July 1950; later
investigations revealed a Y-chromosome in her body cells, and the
analysis showed that she was probably a 46,XX/46,XY mosaic female.
In 1953, a human chimera was reported in the British Medical
Journal. A woman was found to have blood containing two different blood
types. Apparently this resulted from her twin brother’s cells living in
her body. A 1996 study found that such blood group chimerism is not
rare.
In 2002, Lydia Fairchild was denied public assistance in Washington
state when DNA evidence appeared to show that she was not the mother of
her own children. A lawyer for the prosecution heard of a human chimera
in New England, Karen Keegan, and suggested the possibility to the
defence, who were able to show that Fairchild, too, was a chimera with
two sets of DNA, and that one of those sets could have been the mother
of the children.
In 2002, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine described
a woman in whom tetragametic chimerism was unexpectedly identified
after she underwent preparations for kidney transplant. The transplant
required the patient and her immediate family to undergo histocompatibility testing, the result of which suggested that she was
not the biological mother of two of her three children.
The DNA content of semen from an assault case in 2004 matched that
of a man who had been in prison at the time of the assault, but who had
been a bone marrow donor for his brother, who was later determined to
have committed the crime.
In 2008, a man was killed in a traffic accident that occurred in
Seoul, South Korea. In order to identify him, his DNA was analyzed.
Results revealed that the DNA of his blood, along with some of his
organs, appeared to show that he was female. It was later determined
that he had received a bone marrow transplant from his daughter.
Another instance of treatment-related human chimerism was published
in 1998, where a male human had some partially developed female organs
due to chimerism. He had been conceived by in-vitro fertilization. (Note
the assumption here that the female development was caused by
the XX chromosomes in contrast to the sprinter who had plenty of XY
chromosomes but still retained a female body type.)
Evolution is said to be via random mutations of DNA and ruthless natural selection of the resulting (inherited) traits.
However, the thing that is selected for is essentially phenotype and this does not now appear to be very closely coupled to genotype,
with transcription, translation and other epigenetic factors being
equally or even more important. For Darwinian selection to work then,
what is now needed is for these factors to be inherited somehow.
We need transcriptional mechanisms to be somehow encoded in a stable
form and to be passed down the generations – but DNA is assumed to be the genetic material.
Or
as Denis Noble has put it: If we don’t have a model connecting genotype
to phenotype then we don’t actually have a theory of evolution.
Mae-Wan Ho and her husband Peter Saunders have
written extensively about genetics and evolution, reaching similar
conclusions to Denis Noble:
“Much of the problem is that
neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by
observations and experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a
scientific theory at all” – Ho, Saunders
Macroevolution of form and function is ‘decoupled’ from the
microevolution of gene sequences; there is no simple mapping from gene
to phenotype
Useful genetic mutations are not produced at random. Instead the same non-random gene sequences are repeatedly produced by external stimuli.
The intrinsic dynamic structure of the epigenetic system is the source of non-random variations
Information flows from top down and from the cytoplasm to the genes – the opposite way to that of the Central Dogma
Natural selection plays little or no role in evolution especially in the evolution of major novelties
Epigenetic novelties are common to all individuals in a population –
evolution happens to everybody at once and not to a few select
individuals
Fluidity of the genome means that environment and organism are
inseparable. Hence no variant is random with respect to the environment
Physical and chemical forces that generate biological patterns are
independent of natural selection and require their own explanation
Morphogenesis is probably due to electrodynamic forces not ‘hox’ genes
Telegony is a process by which traits from a
previous mate can be passed on to children of later mates. In one
experiment, female flies who had mated with oversized males were able to
pass on that characteristic to offspring of subsequent partners. So
inheritance here is decoupled from the physical presence of DNA. See: Telegony
Summary
The almost magical properties
that have been attributed to DNA actually preceded the description of
the molecule and many have not been verified experimentally.
The
picture painted by school text books, TV dramas and celebrity scientists
is a long way from reality and is not supported by researchers or
academics.
It seems to be typical of many papers on genetics that
you can simply cross out all the references to genes and no real
information is lost. Scientists stick to the idea that DNA contains genetic information
and that all that needs to happen is that the instructions are followed
correctly to get a complete human. However, on reading their own papers
the impression is created that DNA hardly matters at all.
DNA is not the determinant of phenotype.
“Therefore,
nucleic acid cannot possibly contain our inheritance! Ideas such as
epigenetics (the theory of flexible heredity) are only desperate
attempts to somehow justify and keep alive the old model of a material
heredity in the form of genes.” – Stefan Lanka
But if DNA is not the material substance of inheritance then we are left with two burning questions:
What is the mechanism of inheritance?
What is DNA for?
We don’t know how life began and we don’t know how humans evolved,
how development takes place or even how order is maintained once we
reach adulthood. We don’t know how traits are inherited, how they are
encoded or in what substance they persist.
Molecular Biology of the Cell (5th ed.). New York: WH Freeman. p. 963. Lodish H, Berk A, Matsudaira P, Kaiser CA, Krieger M, Scott MP, Zipursky SL, Darnell J (2004).
Created by decree in October 2016, in the midst of a state of emergency, the Secure Electronic Certificate database (TES) realised a project to computerise the biometric data of the entire French population. It is the fusion of the passport and the identity card, and could also contain banking and health data, as well as a digital currency.
The biometric registry comes in addition to mass surveillance by cameras that will be installed in municipalities and whose endowment will amount to 100 million Euros for the next year. This generalised registry allows the identification of each individual at a specific point and time.
Digital identity arrived a week after Macron's election in 2022. The approved decree authorises the creation of an electronic identification means called the “Digital Identity Guarantee Service” (SGIN) and repeals a previous one from 2019 that authorised an electronic identification means called “Certified online authentication on mobile devices”.
This device is the starting point of the “Smart City-Technopolis”, a connected city that monitors 24 hours a day with security deviations due to the multiplication of sensors, cameras and terminals.
All these techniques were tested irregularly with facial recognition in Nice, the pilot city of future smart cities. Today, widespread surveillance extends to 3,460 French municipalities.
The government has published the subsidies for secure titles (DTS) paid to the 3,460 municipalities equipped with a fingerprint collection device. The subsidy ranges, depending on the municipality, between nine thousand and three million euros.
The subsidy is granted to all municipalities equipped with a DR (fingerprint collection device) installed on January 1 of this year. Its total amount is 100 million euros. This is a financial incentive for municipalities that offer digital identity certification.
The first consequence of the Israeli massacres in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen is not the one we expected.To this day the criminals in power in Tel Aviv are continuing their conquest with the weapons they are given.The transformation came first in Israel itself and in the Jewish diaspora, forcing the IDF to accept an unwritten ceasefire in Lebanon, while benefiting from Washington’s help to move the fighting to Syria.The Ukrainian and Lebanese fronts have merged and moved to Syria. Thierry Meyssan December 3rd, 2024 (leer en castellano)
In recent years, the Israeli peace movement has been dismantled, a conflation between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism has been maintained, and finally the narrative of the clash of civilizations has been spread. These three errors prevent us from seeing and understanding what is happening in the Middle East.
The peace movement of Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, no longer exists. Its goal was to make Israel the spiritual and moral center of all Jews, a neutral state on the model of Switzerland, with international security guarantees, and a permanent symbolic international presence. Goldmann, who had denounced the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem rather than an international tribunal (which fact allowed the revisionist Zionists to mask their relations with him), negotiated a just and lasting peaceful coexistence with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and with that of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat. Goldmann was even arrested in Israel.
The historian Bernard Lewis was an advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu when the latter was Israeli ambassador to the UN. In 1957, he dreamed up the the "Clash of Civilizations" strategy for the National Security Council of the United States (of which he was a member). This idea was about presenting an inevitable confrontation between Western and Islamic civilizations, then Chinese civilization, and so on, in order to justify successive Western wars. His assistant, Samuel Huntington, a former collaborator of the South African secret services of apartheid, popularized this strategy, in 1993, by giving it the appearance of an academic observation. And he was paid by the CIA for this propaganda work. Although his work is an intellectual mishmash that does not stand up to analysis, it has seeped into our minds. This stupid theory is used today by Benjamin Netanyahu to justify his wars on “seven fronts” in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen. Yet the same Netanyahu allowed himself to be photographed in September 2014 at the Ziv Medical Center in Zefat visiting 500 Al-Qaeda officers who were being treated in Israel [1]. Thus, it is possible to come to an agreement with jihadists when they massacre civilians in Syria, but not to come to an agreement with Palestinians when they demand a state.
Benjamin Netanyahu congratulates his al-Qaeda allies, hospitalized in Israel, for their fight against the Syrian Arab Republic.
Natan Sharansky [2], who was Deputy Prime Minister under General Ariel Sharon, created the narrative that it was the Palestinians as a whole and not some Israeli leaders who were refusing peace. Then, he invented the idea that Iranian revolutionaries wanted to throw all Israeli Jews into the sea (while Jews live peacefully in Iran and are represented in Parliament). Finally, he organized an international media campaign to create a confusion between “nationalism”, “Zionism” and “revisionist Zionism”, which would then equate “anti-Semitism” with “anti-Zionism” (from this perspective, the Israeli daily Haaretz would be anti-Semitic). In 2004, Sharansky wrote with Ron Dermer, a dyadic book, The Case for Democracy, to assure us that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Dermer became Israel’s ambassador to the United States (2013-2021), then Minister of Strategic Affairs (2023 to today), a position in which he organizes the fight against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement in the world.
Natan Sharansky continues his work discreetly today, both in the United States and in Ukraine where he was born, via the Institute for the study of global antisemitism and policy (ISGASP). This American association is abundantly funded by Ron Dermer’s ministry. It is the organization, for example, that organized the hearings at the Congress of the rectors of the major universities to force them to repress the demonstrations against the massacres in Gaza for anti-Semitism.
It goes without saying that Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, Natan Sharansky and Ron Dermer are not "Zionists", but "revisionist Zionists".
A reshuffling of the deck in the Middle East
In this atmosphere of widespread lies, the positions of each community in the Middle East are changing. This is a consequence of Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to conquer the north of the Gaza Strip and the south of Lebanon. Gradually, all political actors, including Israeli Jews, have realized that Israeli military operations have nothing to do with the stated goals: the liberation of Hamas hostages and the return of Israelis in the north of the country to their homes. The Netanyahu coalition is continuing the colonial project of Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940): the creation of an empire in the Levant, from the Nile to the Euphrates.
This project has no connection with the ancient Kingdom of Jerusalem, which consisted only of the holy city and its immediate suburbs, but aims to restore the ancient Assyrian empire as Jabotinsky’s patron, Benito Mussolini, wanted to restore the ancient Roman empire.
A response to the challenge of a new fascist wave of conquest in the Levant was behind the words of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the joint summit of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, on November 11 in Riyadh, as well as those of the editor of the Israeli daily Haaretz, Amos Schocken, at the conference Israel After October 7th: Allied or Alone?, on November 27 in London.
All the protagonists agree on this observation, even if most avoid referring to the historical links of Jabotinsky and his disciples with the fascists and Nazis. However, Westerners still refuse to open their eyes and instead treat this conflict as if it were ethnic rather than political, as if it pitted Jews against Arabs.
Three elements play a particular role in the change currently underway:
• The victory of Jacksonian Donald Trump in the United States over the Straussian coalition of Kamala Harris. The former intend to substitute trade wars for military wars, while the latter wish to provoke Armageddon.
• The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which have undeniable control of their neighbors’ airspace, are proving incapable of the slightest victory on the ground. They have no discipline and many of their men behave like thugs. In the context of the defeat of the Straussians in the United States, they no longer have as many weapons and are probably short of many of them. Finally, several of its units, which have witnessed the crimes of some of the others, are now on the verge of rebellion.
• The Jewish diaspora, which until now supported Benjamin Netanyahu without flinching, is finally managing to distinguish its support for Israeli Jews from the crimes of their government. Since Netanyahu was indicted by the International Criminal Court on November 21, the solidarity between Jews, which developed over centuries of persecution by the goyim, no longer applies. Many Jewish personalities, who had previously remained silent, have publicly distanced themselves from the crimes committed on the “seven fronts” and against the UN.
Iran has abandoned General Qassem Soleimani’s “Axis of Resistance” strategy, according to which Tehran helps and coordinates all the independent armed groups fighting against the colonization of the region. It refused to help Lebanon during the Israeli invasion, and then a faction in power transmitted to Israel the coordinates of the main military leaders of Hezbollah so that they could be assassinated.
At the same time, Tehran and Tel Aviv have staged their antagonism, each claiming to be ready for a decisive fight. Yet the two Iranian attacks (Operation "Honest Promise" on April 13 and October 1) and the two Israeli attacks (on April 19 and October 26) caused almost no human damage, even if the military of both sides took advantage of them to test the enemy's defenses [3]. A secret agreement between Washington, Tehran and Tel Aviv has become evident.
On the other hand, Tehran has renewed ties with the Iraqi Kurds. President Masoud Pezeshkian went to Iraq in September to meet not only the Talabani tribe, but also the Barzani (pro-Israeli).
In Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of the Shiite community, spoke out to deliver a confused message showing that he no longer knew what to expect from the Islamic Republic.
In Yemen, Ansar Allah, convinced of Iran’s turnaround, took steps to protect its leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, from the fate of Hassan Nasrallah.
In Turkey, as usual, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan explores the various possibilities open to him, without committing himself here or there. After slowly getting closer to his Syrian counterpart, he authorized arms deliveries to the jihadists of Idlib so that they could resume the fight against the Syrian Arab Republic. At the same time, he sent emissaries to talk to Abdullah Öcalan, the founder of the PKK who has been imprisoned since 1978. Whatever the result of those talks, it is unlikely that “Apo” will support NATO and Israel as his movement does today.
Iran’s about-face and Turkey’s double-dealing have suddenly put an end to the euphoria of the BRICS summit in Kazan a month ago [4].
In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad immediately supported the Lebanese and its Hezbollah allies when they were abandoned by Iran. Historically, Lebanon is only a governorate of Syria, and from Assad's point of view, Syria is responsible for the security of the Lebanese. He has therefore both given shelter to hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Israeli bombings and transferred the few weapons he has to Hezbollah.
In response, the IDF destroyed all the roads and bridges leading to Lebanon, then, with NATO, they unleashed the Idlib jihadists on Aleppo, taking and occupying a large part of it. The city was defended by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who withdrew without a fight.
To everyone’s surprise, the Idlib jihadists have state-of-the-art weapons, financed by Qatar, and a plethora of drones operated by Ukrainian operators.
The constants of the revisionist Zionists
A constant in the behavior of the revisionist Zionists is to destroy the material evidence of their lies. Thus, Benjamin Netanyahu had the schedules of his meetings changed on October 7, 2023. He hoped that this would make it easier to deny having helped carry out the attack on his own citizens.
The Israelis know that he helped Hamas, from his appointment as Prime Minister in 2009 until October 7. He assured that his strategy was to favor Hamas to fight against Yasser Arafat’s PLO. His first official decision was to cancel the extradition request of Moussa Abu Marzouk, at the time the highest leader of Hamas, who was detained in the United States. Other events have shown that his objective was not to destroy the PLO, but to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. So in 2018, when the Palestinian Authority stopped paying civil servants in Gaza, he made a deal with Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas military leader in Gaza who was then imprisoned in Israel. He gave money first secretly, then officially via Qatar. In four years, he paid Hamas $2.5 billion so that it could build its network of tunnels and arm itself.
Audrey Azoulay, former French Minister of Culture and current Director-General of UNESCO, delayed the meeting of the commission for the preservation of historic sites to allow the IDF to destroy Lebanese archaeological sites.
In doing so, Netanyahu and Hamas obtained the support of the Anglo-Saxon secret services, faithful to the strategy set out in 1916 by Lord Herbert Samuel, whose son Edwin was a companion of Jabotinsky: to ensure that neither the Jewish state nor the future Palestinian state could ever ensure their security alone.
Another constant in the behavior of the revisionist Zionists is to destroy the archaeological evidence of their imposture. Thus, still in 2009, the second decision of Netanyahu who became Prime Minister was to dig tunnels under the Temple Mount in order to be able to dynamite the Al-Aqsa Mosque. In recent months, he has destroyed all the archaeological remains in southern Lebanon, Crusader or Ottoman, and even tried to destroy the temples of Baalbeck, the greatest sanctuary of the Roman Empire. In doing so, he continued the destruction carried out during the Gulf War of the site of Babylon, or during the Syrian war of the remains of Aleppo and Palmyra. Everything must be done so that the claim to the land, from the Nile to the Euphrates, appears legitimate.
On Nov. 27, a ceasefire agreement
came into effect in Lebanon, bringing a glimmer of hope to the war-torn
region. For the people of Gaza, battered for over a year by relentless
Israeli bombardment and a deepening humanitarian crisis, the news evoked
a bittersweet response. The fleeting sense of joy and relief for their
neighbors to the north, who might soon be able to rebuild their lives,
was overshadowed by their own agony as Israel’s genocidal military
campaign in Gaza continues.
“We are happy for [the Lebanese people],” Asem, a 34-year-old
father of three from northern Gaza, told +972. “No one should endure
what we are going through. But it hurts that the world can act swiftly
elsewhere while we are left to face this genocide alone.”
His sentiments resonate deeply among Gazans. For many of them,
the ceasefire in Lebanon underscores the harsh reality that their
suffering matters less than others. “The world saw what happened in
Lebanon, [and was] able to stop the war there,” said Ruba Makwai, a
25-year-old teacher. “But who will stop the war in Gaza? Who will speak
for us?”
Like over 90 percent
of Gazans, Makwai had to flee her home because of the war. In November
2023, she and her family were forced to leave northern Gaza, after heavy
Israeli bombardments destroyed their neighborhood. Now, living in a
cramped shelter for displaced people in Az-Zawayda in central Gaza with
her mother, siblings, and dozens of others, she finds herself yearning
for a sense of normalcy.
“This morning, I watched videos of displaced Lebanese returning
to their homes. I’ve replayed those videos over and over, imagining
what it would be like to return to our home,” Makwai told +972. “I
imagine myself running to hug my father and brother — I haven’t seen
them in a year. I wish more than anything to experience that moment. But
for us, reality is heartbreaking. Our life is confined to the borders
of these tents.”
Displaced
Palestinians around their tents in Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza
Strip, December 1, 2024. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
‘We have no one to advocate for us’
A key factor complicating efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza
is the lack of a unified Palestinian leadership, which the Israeli
government, under Benjamin Netanyahu, has worked to divide and suppress
over many years, exploiting the resulting vacuum to advance its own
agenda. Gaza’s isolation, coupled with the political chaos, the U.S.
elections, and Israel’s conflict with Lebanon, has left Palestinians
without a clear voice on the international stage.
This leadership vacuum deepened with Israel’s assassinations of prominent Palestinian political figures. The killing of Ismail Haniyeh in July and Yahya Sinwar
in October — key players in negotiations and decision-making — further
undermined diplomatic momentum to reach a ceasefire. While U.S.
President Joe Biden suggested the assassination of Sinwar could bring
Gaza and Israel closer to an agreement, Netanyahu leveraged it to
intensify his military campaign against Gaza.
“The assassinations leave us leaderless,” Adel, a Palestinian
journalist, told +972. “We are without a father or representative. We
have no one to advocate for us as Netanyahu’s plans move forward.”
Given Netanyahu’s past political maneuvers, some believe that
the ceasefire in Lebanon may actually be a dangerous sign for Gaza.
Youssef Salem, a Palestinian activist and lawyer, wrote
in a Facebook post that the ceasefire in Lebanon “will lead to
increased political and military focus on Gaza in the coming period,”
but that this focus is unlikely to bring relief. Instead, it signals a
potential intensification of Israeli aggression, as the war-torn enclave
becomes the sole target of Netanyahu’s military strategies.
Regional actors, particularly Iran, further complicate the situation. While Tehran positions itself
as a champion of Palestinian resistance, many Gazans feel that its
involvement in the war only serves its own strategic interests.
Parts of an Iranian missile that fell near the Beit El settlement in Ramallah in the West Bank, October 1, 2024. (Flash90)
“They talk a lot about liberating Palestine,” Adel noted. “But where is their help when our children are dying?”
Iran’s support for Palestinian factions like Hamas and Islamic
Jihad has provided Israel with a pretext for its devastating military
operations in Gaza. Yet Tehran’s rhetoric is not matched by tangible aid
or intervention. For ordinary Gazans, Adel argues, this disconnect
breeds resentment and a sense of betrayal.
“We are caught between forces that do not care about us: Iran stirs things up, Israel attacks us, and the world watches.”
Gaza overshadowed
The longstanding divisions between Palestinian factions have
posed significant challenges to the broader Palestinian cause. Yet, for
the people of Gaza, their suffering transcends political rivalries. “We
are human beings first. Isn’t that enough reason for the world to act?”
asked Aya Shawa, a 31-year-old activist.
Her words reflect the growing frustration within the besieged
Strip — not only toward their oppressors, but also toward allies like
Qatar, who are perceived as turning away from Gaza.
For years, Qatar played a crucial role in helping Gaza survive Israel’s nearly two-decade long blockade, providing humanitarian aid, mediating temporary ceasefires, and funding rebuilding efforts. However, recent comments by Qatari officials,
who cited lack of seriousness from “both sides” as reason for
suspending the country’s role as mediator in the ceasefire talks, have
left Gazans feeling betrayed and further isolated on the international
stage.
U.S.
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken holds a meeting with the Qatari
Amir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha, October 24, 2024. (Office of U.S.
Secretary of State/Wikimedia Commons)
“How did Qatar equate Gaza with Israel?” asked Aya Shawa. “Is
it logical to put us, the oppressed, on the same level as the occupier?”
Qatar’s diplomatic shift reflects a broader regional trend: as
Israel’s war in Gaza grinds on, Palestinians’ plight is increasingly
overshadowed by other events and political priorities. Israel’s invasion
of Lebanon in September temporarily redirected media attention away
from Gaza; now, the renewed fighting in Syria’s civil war threatens to
do the same. And rather than working to resolve the immediate
humanitarian crisis, many diplomats and politicians are instead
prioritizing the questions of Gaza’s governance and control in the
“day-after” scenario.
For the people of Gaza, having already endured 14 months of
war, over 44,282 deaths, looming famine, and the destruction of
countless homes, schools, and hospitals, this is an ominous sign of
things to come. “We are not just numbers,” Aya reiterated.
“We are people with dreams, families, and hopes for a better future. But
the world doesn’t see us that way.”
The ceasefire in Lebanon serves for many in Gaza as a reminder
of what they long for, and what is seemingly beyond their reach. As
displaced Lebanese begin returning to their homes, Gazans are left with
little more than the hope that their suffering will one day end. The
question that haunts them is a simple one: “Who will stand with us to
stop this madness?”
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(12%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(79%25).png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(66%25).png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(69%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(88%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(85%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(83%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(83%25).png){kind=tracking}