CIA report: Israel will fall in 20 years

A study conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has cast doubt over Israel’s survival beyond the next 20 years.


The CIA report predicts “an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region.” 

The study, which has been made available only to a certain number of individuals, further forecasts the return of all Palestinian refugees to the occupied territories, and the exodus of two million Israeli – who would move to the US in the next fifteen years. 

“There is over 500,000 Israelis with American passports and more than 300,000 living in the area of just California,” International lawyer Franklin Lamb said in an interview with Press TV on Friday, adding that those who do not have American or western passport, have already applied for them. 

“So I think the handwriting at least among the public in Israel is on the wall…[which] suggests history will reject the colonial enterprise sooner or later,” Lamb stressed. 

He said CIA, in its report, alludes to the unexpectedly quick fall of the apartheid government in South Africa and recalls the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, suggesting the end to the dream of an ‘Israeli land’ would happen ‘way sooner’ than later. 

The study further predicts the return of over one and a half million Israelis to Russia and other parts of Europe, and denotes a decline in Israeli births whereas a rise in the Palestinian population. 

Lamb said given the Israeli conduct toward the Palestinians and the Gaza strip in particular, the American public — which has been voicing its protest against Tel Aviv’s measures in the last 25 years — may ‘not take it anymore’. 

Some members of the US Senate Intelligence Committee have been informed of the report.


The Russian-American conflict in the Caucuses

The decision of Kyrgyzstan to close the American air base was final. Kyrgyzstan announced that this issue will in its parliament. But, it is only considered a gesture because this country is completely controlled by the supporters of its president and it is certain that it will pass.

America established its air base in Kyrgyzstan at the beginning of the war against Afghanistan. 150 million dollars was given to this country as rent for the base.

According to reports, the decision of Kyrgyzstan to close the American Manas Air Base was announced after Kyrgyzstan officials met with Russia. Russia stated that they were prepared to pay 150 million dollars and other perks so that America would not have a base there.

One of the other perks was the payment of a 300 million dollar loan to be paid off with low interest over forty years. Russia also announced that it is prepared to increase this loan to 2 billion dollars.

Although Russia denied its interference into the closing of the American base in Kyrgyzstan, there is evidence that would show their interference beyond any doubt.

The Manas Air Base is very important for America. America uses this base to transfer forces to Afghanistan. The closing of this base could be detrimental for America. There are only two other choices that America could use in order to fly into Afghanistan: Pakistan and Russia. America is never comfortable with Pakistan because of its insecurity, especially since America and NATO caravans have been attacked in Pakistan during the last few days. At this point, Russia suggested to America that they could use their country in their war with Afghanistan. But, this would only occur if America would change their minds in regards to its policy regarding the caucuses and the missile defense system that it wants to place in eastern Europe.

In this state, Russia announced that they would open a new base in southern Russia. This action shows Russia’s desire to increase their influence over the caucus states. NATO has expressed serious concern over Russia’s decision.

Islam Times

US-Russia Tensions Escalate Over Closure of Afghan Supply Base

Manis Air Base

Manas Air Base

The threatened closure of a key Pentagon supply base in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan, with serious implications for the Obama administration’s planned escalation of the US-led war in Afghanistan, has deepened tensions between Washington and Moscow.

The Manas air base, located near the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, is the major air link between the US military and American occupation forces in Afghanistan. Last year, at least 170,000 US military personnel passed through the base on their way to or from Afghanistan, together with 5,000 tons of military equipment. Approximately 1,000 US troops are stationed at the base, together with smaller contingents from France and Spain.

After initially dismissing Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s announcement Tuesday that his government intended to close the Manas base as a mere bargaining ploy (Kyrgyzstan made a similar threat in 2006 but relented after the US increased its rent for the facility), official Washington appeared by Thursday to be treating the matter with deadly seriousness.

“Frankly, we thought it was a negotiating tactic, and we were ready to call their bluff,” an unnamed military official told the Wall Street Journal Thursday. “But it’s becoming clearer that, no kidding, they want us out.”

The strategic importance of the base has become even greater with the Obama administration’s announced plan to send an additional 30,000 US troops into Afghanistan over the next 18 months in an attempt to quell the growing popular resistance to the American occupation. The escalation would nearly double the size of the US military force in the country, which now numbers 36,000. Another 32,000 troops from other NATO countries are also participating in the occupation.

The critical role played by the base has also been underscored by the mounting crisis Washington confronts in relation to its principal overland supply route to Afghanistan from Pakistan—the Khyber Pass—which accounts for some three-quarters of the supplies for US forces. On Monday, resistance fighters blew up a 90-foot iron bridge in the Khyber Pass, severing the route and at least temporarily halting all supplies for US and NATO troops. The attack follows a series of increasingly bold ambushes that have left supply trucks in flames and military vehicles in the hands of the guerrillas battling the occupation.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs Thursday described the base in Kyrgyzstan as “vital” to the US war in Afghanistan and declared that the White House was searching for ways to “remedy” the situation.

“This is something that the US government continues to discuss with Kyrgyzstan officials,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Thursday. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t have other means and other options that we can pursue.”

Asked about the threatened closure of the Manas base, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that it was “regrettable that this is under consideration by the government of Kyrgyzstan,” but insisted that the action would not block Washington from escalating its colonial-style war in Afghanistan.

“We hope to have further discussions with them,” she told reporters at a State Department press conference. “But we will proceed in a very effective manner no matter what the outcome of the Kyrgyzstan government’s deliberations might be.”

Clinton added that the Pentagon was “conducting an examination as to how else we would proceed” given the loss of the Kyrgyz base.

According to unnamed Pentagon officials quoted Thursday by the Associated Press, in the scramble to find replacement facilities Washington is considering reviving its strained relations with Uzbekistan, where the US previously enjoyed the use of a former Soviet air base to supply its operations in Afghanistan. US forces were kicked out, however, after Washington was compelled to cut off military aid to Uzbekistan following a 2005 bloodbath in the eastern town of Andijan, where government troops killed several hundred civilians. Regaining use of the base would entail a rapprochement with Uzbekistan’s dictator Islam Karimov.

Kyrgyz President Bakiyev’s announcement of his intention to shut down the US base followed a meeting in Moscow Tuesday with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Moscow promised an aid package to Kyrgyzstan worth over $2 billion.

The package includes $150 million as a direct grant–an amount equal to the total annual US funding for the country, including money for the Manas base–another $300 million in the form of a loan granted with nominal interest and $1.7 billion pledged for the construction of a hydroelectric plant. In addition, the Kremlin pledged to cancel $180 million in Kyrgyz debt owed to Russia.

The proposed Russian aid package is the equivalent of roughly twice the annual budget and half the total gross domestic product of Kyrgyzstan, whose impoverished population has confronted increasing hardship in the wake of the worldwide financial meltdown.

“At a time of economic crisis, this is serious and important support from Russia [that] will help underpin economic growth in Kyrgyzstan,” declared Bakiyev.

Kyrgyz Prime Minister Igor Chudinov insisted at a press conference Thursday that the timing of the president’s call for the base’s closure, on the heels of the Russian aid offer, was “a mere coincidence.”

“The Russian decision to grant a major loan has nothing to do with the pullout of the US air base from Kyrgyz territory,” declared Chudinov.

For his part, President Bakiyev linked the decision to popular opposition in Kyrgyzstan to the US presence, which was inflamed in 2006 when an American airman shot and killed a Kyrgyz truck driver. He also insisted that when the base first opened in 2001, as the US launched its invasion of Afghanistan, it was seen as a temporary measure.

“Kyrgyzstan met the wishes of the United States and offered its territory for the antiterrorist struggle, which was a serious contribution to the struggle,” he said. “We talked about a year or two, but now it has been eight years. We have repeatedly discussed the questions of the economic compensation to Kyrgyzstan with our American partners, but have not been able to come to understanding at this point.”

Kyrgyz officials said that the US would have 180 days to close the base and withdraw all personnel once formal diplomatic notes were exchanged communicating the government’s decision. While the parliament was to have voted on the measure Friday, government officials announced Thursday that it would not take it up for at least another week.

The denials of the Kyrgyz government notwithstanding, it is clear that the decision to close the Manas base is driven by Moscow’s opposition to the US military presence in a region that it has for centuries regarded at its sphere of influence.

These tensions flared into the open last August, when the US-backed regime in the former Soviet republic of Georgia sent troops into the break-away region of South Ossetia, triggering a Russian military response that ejected Georgian forces from both South Ossetia and the Black Sea breakaway region of Abkhazia. Moscow subsequently recognized the independence of both territories.

Fueling the conflict is the US policy of incorporating Georgia and Ukraine into the NATO alliance, the drive to set up a missile-defense system on Russia’s borders, and the attempt to ring Russian territory with military bases in Central Asia and the Baltic states.

At issue is the growing rivalry between Moscow and Washington over control of the region’s strategic energy reserves, a key objective that underlies the US war in Afghanistan just as much as its intervention in Iraq.

For its part, the Russian ruling elite, despite the recent financial losses resulting from falling energy prices, clearly sees the reestablishment of Moscow’s influence in the former Soviet republics as decisive for its interests and worth significant investments.

The regimes in Central Asia have attempted to exploit this rivalry to their own advantage, tilting in one instance towards Russia and in another towards the US in an attempt to extract the most favorable deals.

The deal between Moscow and Kyrgyzstan is part of an increasingly aggressive challenge by the Kremlin to US interests.

The day after the announcements of the aid package and the intended base closure, Russian President Medvedev announced during a summit meeting of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) a plan to establish a 10,000-strong rapid reaction force composed primarily of Russian paratroopers to “rebuff military aggression” in the region and combat “terrorism.”

“These are going to be quite formidable units,” Medvedev stressed. “According to their combat potential, they must be no weaker than similar forces of the North Atlantic alliance.” The force would reportedly include token units from other former Soviet republics, including Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. There were indications that Moscow sees the Manas base as a potential headquarters for the force, once it is evacuated by the Americans.

The Russian government has also indicated it intends to set up air and naval bases in Abkhazia, a plan that drew protests from the US State Department and NATO.

In addition to the aid to Kyrgyzstan, Moscow also this week signaled it would act favorably on a $2.77 billion loan to neighboring Belarus, while Medvedev signed a deal with Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko to set up a joint air defense system, an apparent response to the US missile-shield scheme in Eastern Europe.

Finally, Cuban leader Raul Castro secured a $354 million aid package during an eight-day visit to Moscow, the first high-level contact between Russia and Cuba since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, which ended decades of Soviet subsidies to Havana. It is evident that Moscow sees renewed ties with Cuba—90 miles off US shores—as a rebuke to Washington’s own interventions in the former Soviet republics.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said that Moscow had several days earlier given a “positive response” to US requests to transport nonmilitary supplies across Russian territory to Afghanistan.

“We hope that we and the United States will hold special and professional talks on this issue in the near future,” said Karasin. “We will see how effectively we can cooperate.”

But this kind of “cooperation” is precisely what Washington has attempted to avoid. It has sought to preclude any Russian influence over the fate of Afghanistan and weaken Moscow’s power throughout the region.

The quest for non-Russian supply routes for the Afghanistan occupation is linked inexorably to the strategic goal of finding non-Russian routes for the transport of the oil and gas wealth of the Caspian Basin, thereby placing it under US domination.

Involved in this increasingly bitter dispute and in the Obama administration’s drive to escalate the US intervention in Afghanistan is the threat of a far wider and potentially catastrophic military conflict between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.


Bush’s Last Bullet: Why the US Attacked Syria

Bush hunting

Bush hunting

The sovereignty of an independent, stable country that has carried out many constructive moves in recent months and weeks, which could have surely contributed to the stabilization of the Middle East, has been violated, its borders breached and its civilians killed.

But when the country targeted is Syria, an Arab country, and the perpetrator is the US military, then, somehow things are not as appalling as they may seem.

The US raid on a small farming community near the Iraq-Syria border on October 26 is being treated differently than the Russian attack on Georgia in August 2008. The latter was vehemently condemned by every last leading US official, who specifically decried Russia’s violation of international law, laws governing the sovereignty of nations, and the destabilization of a whole region. Few in the US government, and fewer in the ever-willing mainstream media, dared offer any alternative reading to what truly triggered the conflict. For example, Georgia’s initial violent attacks on South Ossetia, killing many Russian citizens and peacekeepers, seemed a negligible fact.
full article:

Dawn of a new era in global politics



Within a period of less than 30 years, Muslims have consigned one superpower—the Soviet Union—to the dustbin of history and are about to deliver the other—the US—to the same fate, together with its regional surrogate, Israel. The achievements against the US are particularly remarkable because the mujahideen have had little or no external help. Defeat of the Red Army in Afghanistan in 1989 should have led to a “peace dividend” for Muslims, but it did not. Instead, their sacrifices freed the captive peoples of Eastern Europe and led to the emergence of the US as the “sole superpower”. Far from being grateful, US elites immediately set out to crush the emerging power of Islam. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the direct result of this mindset. Thanks to the valiant resistance of Muslims and the monumental stupidity of American rulers, the US itself is on the verge of a massive military defeat, coupled with economic meltdown.

The West in general and the US in particular have historically plundered the resources of other peoples to build their own societies. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, executed under the rubric of the “war on terror”, have also been aimed at plundering the resources of these regions. Afghanistan is a conduit for access to the resources of Central Asia, while control of Iraq’s oil has been the main aim of for US aggression there. Neither appears achievable now.

The rise and fall of civilizations is a constant in history. Every great power ultimately declines, often as a result of the destructive germs it carries within it. Even if we are charitable and call America a civilization — some would call it barbaric, given its horrible record — its demise has come more quickly than that of any earlier civilization. Contrary to the claims of American propagandists that the twenty-first century is theirs, the US’s glory has lasted less than a decade.

full article:

Anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim attitudes rise in Europe

Hijab Bomb

Hijab Bomb

Anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim attitudes have been rising nearly in tandem in several European countries, apparently reflecting concerns over immigration, globalization and economic ills, according to a new international survey.

Anti-Jewish feelings were particularly strong in Spain, Poland and Russia – with negativity up significantly since 2006, according to the Pew Research Center’s polling. Anti-Muslim views were also strong in those three countries, as well as in Germany and France.

“There is a clear relationship between anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim attitudes,” said the report from Pew, released Wednesday. “Publics that view Jews unfavorably also tend to see Muslims in a negative light.”

Negative views of Muslims were also strong in several Asian countries: Half or more of the Japanese, Indians, Chinese and South Koreans surveyed said they had negative impressions of Muslims.

Negative feelings about Jews were somewhat less strong, from 32 percent in India to 55 percent in China, with Japan and South Korea falling in between.

The survey also underscored rising concerns in several predominantly Muslim countries, including Indonesia, about a struggle for dominance between Islamic fundamentalists and those favoring  modernization.

In Europe, negative views of Jews and Muslims were strongest among older people, the less educated and those of the political right.

In some countries, including Germany, negative feelings toward Jews had risen along with favorable feelings – fewer people were left undecided.

full article:

Turning Away From American State Terrorism

Elections 2008

Elections 2008

The choice we face in November is very clear. It is a choice to continue to support the US terror war, or to turn away from this path of unlimited destruction. This lie-based war is all about terrorism –whether America actually fights terrorism or promotes its use. To
find the answer to this conundrum all we have to do is turn our gaze to Pakistan.

In Pakistan we find the complete history of the American “war on terrorism,” from its Cold War origins nearly thirty years ago to its present incarnation in the illegal American aggression in Pakistan’s Frontier region (FATA, Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and in American attempts to reignite the Cold War with Russia. The latest cross-border attack against Pakistan in South Waziristan, which involved American helicopters and ground troops, costing 15 villagers their lives, represents the first steps in American attempts to escalate its war into a reasonable facsimile of another world war.

Once again, America claims that its aggression against Pakistan is a legitimate act of self-defense against the “Pakistani Taliban” (TTP,Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan), who, it is claimed, are responsible for America’s faltering war effort in Afghanistan. Wednesday’s
aggression was another attempt to get TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud (branded “public enemy number one” by the US) or one of his top commanders. Mehsud is the key to understanding America’s true role in the terror war, that of state terrorism planner and facilitator, in order to later assume the role of defender against the terrorism it causes.

Baitullah Mehsud assumed control of the TTP from its founder, his infamous cousin Abdullah Mehsud. Abdullah was a prisoner at Guantanamo before being inexplicably released to return to Pakistan, where he founded the new Taliban splinter group. On his second day in S. Waziristan he instigated the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers
from the building of the Gomal Zam Dam, beginning the TTP fight against America’s adversaries in the region.

Setting the pattern for all future American terror attacks, the American media reported that America’s secret allies, the TTP, were “al Qaida linked.” Whenever and wherever the Western media uses the expression “al Qaida linked,” to describe terrorist attacks, they are referring to American terrorism. This is also painfully true about those sinister forces that killed 3,000 American civilians on September 11, 2001. American/”al Qaida” terrorism always targets civilians, even American civilians. Next to the US military, al
Qaida is the greatest killer of innocent Muslims in the world.

full article:

1835: theatre or diplomacy?

United Nations Security Council

Transforming diplomacy to showing off, action to presentation, and pressure to protecting honor are the most important yard sticks of the present age. The issue of resolution 1835 shows all of these. Yesterday morning, the Security Council of the United Nations issued a resolution against Iran. The writers confessed to the fact and the text showed that it was only an emphasis of previous resolutions and that there was nothing new in it. After the resolution was passed, the American who seemed excited immediately tried to clarify the purpose of the P5+1 from this move so that no misunderstanding could remain. Rice, in the first minutes after the resolution was passed, told Reuters that Iran should recognize that the P5+1 is still strong. After her other foreign ministers made similar statements explaining the reasons behind the resolution. David Miliband, who has always been severely against Iran, told a French news agency that this resolution shows that the will of six powers in the world in regards to the Iranian nuclear program has not weakened. Frank-Walter Steinmeier showed his views in a prettier and clearer statement. The press in New York wrote narrated him saying that there was no new sanctions in the resolution against Iran, but it was a move made so that Iran would not become happy over the differences that arose in the P5+1.

Allow me to start the discussion by asking a question: What message should Iran take from the resolution? America, and apparently all of the six nations of the group, want Iran to take the message that the internal differences of the six nations was really a mistake in calculations made by Iran and that all of these countries are united in preventing a nuclear Iran. The recent debates in regards to Georgia and other issues, whatever they are, do not make any difference in relation to Iran. They are still firm in whatever was previously written in resolutions drafted by the Security Council of the United Nations. But, the truth is that 1835 can, in no way, relate such a message. Rather, the opposite. Just as many political analogists in Tehran conclude, the issuing of this resolution and the words that the western politicians said in regards to explaining their actions all show that Iran made the correct calculations. 1835 is nothing but a small Band-Aid placed over the deep wounds of differences that the P5+1 have. It is interesting that western politicians said that their purpose was to prevent Iran from becoming happier. It was a way of coming together despite differences and showing how they will react to Iran not hiding their differences which are clearer than the sun.

If we go a little bit back in the past the issue will become clearer. After the latest developments in Georgia where the west and Russia stood up, face to face, for the first time after the Cold War, the cooperation of the P5+1 felt a shock in regards to Iran. Some Russian and European sources wrote in the first days that the first sacrifice of this situation, before Georgia, will be the P5+1’s efforts for cooperation in quelling Iran’s nuclear program. A few days after the fighting the analysis was seen in almost all of the world’s media that great diplomacy has ended and Russia will not longer continue its cooperation with the west, including in regards to Iran’s nuclear program. Inside Iran, although America’s efforts to create divisions in the Caucuses were rebuked, but nobody believed that the problems in Georgia would take Russia out of the western camp and make them join with Iran. Almost all people inside Iran believed that Russia has always dealed with Iran and will continue to do this. They benefit from this and this is exactly what happened. Meanwhile, it is not necessarily because of Russia’s resistance, rather it is mostly because of the successful and effective resistance of Iran that the pressure on Iran has increased and sanctions of become more severe. The Georgia issue was only a small aid to this process.

full article:

Self-Defense for Me, Not You!

Israeli nuclear site

Israeli nuclear site

Suppose that you and your neighbor were not on friendly terms. One day you saw a large cannon in his front yard, pointed in your direction. Hmm. Concerned, you sought to obtain a similar weapon for yourself, and were not surprised to learn that your neighbor objected to such a move on your part.



You were astonished, however, to learn that people hundreds – even thousands – of miles away also objected. Your acquisition of such a weapon, they claimed, was a provocation. Several of them stopped doing business with you, even though you had not as yet acquired any weaponry, and they urged others to take the same action. You have difficulty understanding how it can be a provocation for you to arm yourself, but not a provocation for others, via sanctions of some sort, to slowly starve you to death.

Today this situation prevails in the Middle East, with Iran being the nation suspected, but certainly not proved, of developing nuclear weapons. Horrors!

There are nine governments with nuclear weapons: U.S., Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Russia has the most, with 5830, followed by the U.S. with 4075. Israel has 100–200, according to estimates. Israel isn’t particularly forthcoming about its nuclear arsenal, or whether or not it is actively developing nuclear weapons. It is Israel, of course, that expresses the greatest concern about Iran’s possible development of nuclear devices.

Well, that’s understandable. Iran and Israel are hardly on good terms. Mutual suspicion is to be expected. We could easily sympathize with Israel’s accumulation of a nuclear arsenal as a response to one possessed by the Iranians. But it’s the other way around. It’s the Israelis who have a nuclear arsenal, but few are sympathetic with the Iranians desire to have one, too.

full article:

A Practical confrontation between Russia and America

Russia and America are on the path to a major confrontation as a result of Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia and Moscow’s response. This situation does not only affect Georgia, but it effects the wider area of the Caucus and the International scene. In this situation the two countries (America and Russia) are trying to present a new form of confrontation with each other by using other countries.

 The United States has had the plan for a missile shield for a long time and put Georgia at war as an excuse to speed up the process. The result of this was that Poland accepted America’s strategy of a missile shield giving more kudos to America. A few days ago America and Poland’s foreign ministers signed a deal implementing America’s missile shield plan – taking the first serious step towards confrontation with Russia. American officials in the Pentagon and White House officially stated that these measures were taken in order to confront the threats by the Russian military.

 In order to confront this, Russia who had similar plans, announced its plan to put a missile defense system in Syria. While the west and the Zionist regime put pressure on Damascus in any way that they can, the Russia president, being invited by Bashar Asad, the Syian president, officially announced their clear confrontation with the west on the same day as Poland and America signed their deal.

full article:

« Older entries