Ruling Bloc Urged Israel to Kill Sayyed Nasrallah

The February 14 bloc insisted on exposing its role in the 2006 Israeli aggression against Lebanon, after some of its figures denied what the head of the Winograd commission said about the existence of a "classified part of the war report which was not revealed so as not to "endanger Israel's security and foreign relations." However, does Eliyahu Winograd need to fabricate these words as some February 14 figures have claimed?

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made an extraordinary effort to ban the publication of his full statement to the Winograd Committee, because of the "sensitive information" it contains pertaining to the war.

"For obvious reasons, the unclassified Report does not include the many facts that cannot be revealed for reasons of protecting the state's security and foreign affairs," the Winograd report said. Israeli leaks have uncovered the context of what is being concealed within the papers of the Winograd report. These leaks confirm that some members of the February 14 bloc had contacted the Israelis during the 2006 war not only to demand they crush Hezbollah, but to liquidate its Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah as well.

On the 19th of July 2007, Israeli political analyst Emanuel Rosen said that a "well informed political source" informed him that Olmert and members of his government "received a letter from the Lebanese government in the last 24 hours of the war asking them not to stop the war before Hezbollah was crushed adding that it is extremely preferable to liquidate Nasrallah." "For the first time, we reveal in this book that moderate Arab states and people close to the Lebanese government have conveyed messages to the Israeli government via different sides demanding Israel continues the war until Hezbollah was completely crushed," said Avi Issacharoff in his book "Spider Webs, The Story of the Second Lebanon War." For his part, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman was even clearer about these contacts. He said: "I was at the United Nations Headquarters during the war and you cannot imagine how many Arab foreign ministers and ambassadors came to me and told me to complete the mission and eliminate Hezbollah."

Facing attempts by the February 14 bloc to acquit Israel from a premeditated war in 2006, Israeli political and military officials confirmed Israel had prepared for the war and that it initiated it not to gain back two captured soldiers, but to crush Hezbollah.

"Israel initiated a long war, which ended without its clear military victory," article 11 of the Winograd report said. Amir Peretz, who was Defense Minister during the war said: "Is there really someone who believes that the kidnapping of those two soldiers is what led to the war, of course not. If we had not waged this war, we would have found ourselves a few years from now in front of more dangerous threats than we had discovered."

"Yes, there had been plans. One of these plans was dubbed (Uppermost Waters). It was based on a plan which I personally made years before the war. We trained on it and just before the war were in the process of renovating it," said Eyal Ben-Reuven who was the second in command in the northern region during the war.

Anyway, this is a small part of what was uncovered in Israel. Perhaps what the coming days would reveal about the collusion of the February 14 bloc in the 2006 war could be momentous.

courtesy almanartv

Army Officers Charged over 'Black Sunday' Incidents

12/02/2008 The Lebanese government commissioner at the Military Tribunal, Judge Jean Fahd, charged 79 people, including three army officers, 16 soldiers and 60 civilians, for their role in the 'Black Sunday' incidents that took place on January 27 leaving seven martyrs and 50 injured civilians. The charges included murder, violation of military instructions, possession of unlicensed arms and causing unrest, setting rubber tires and tossing hand grenades. Two officers (Majors) and 11 soldiers were accused of "involuntary manslaughter" for shooting into the crowd during demonstrations against blackout. One officer (Colonel) and five soldiers were charged with violating military orders. 60 civilians were also charged with causing unrest as well as attacking soldiers, 53 of them in absentia. According to the charge sheet, six of the martyrs were killed by army bullets. However, a probe is still underway to determine who killed Ahmad Hamza, the Amal movement officer of coordination with the Lebanese Army, who was shot in the back while trying to pacify the situation. Hence, the first phase of the investigation into the Black Sunday crime is over. If convicted, those charged could be sentenced from 5 years in prison to capital punishment. The file would now pass from the Government Commissioner to the Examining Magistrate to issue an indictment. The case would be submitted to the permanent military court. The sheet of charges did not mention the snipers who were caught on camera during the demonstrations, yet the families of seven martyrs and the injured will not have their wounds closed before the final results and the verdict. ( It is interesting to note how far the various parties in Lebanon willing to go and commit themselves to other external elements for the sake of power and at the expense of their Arab unity.)

The French Government's hypocrisy, Islam and Holocaust revisionism (2)

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:44:29
A Second Open Letter to France's Ambassador to the US by Paul Grubach

Faurisson was severely injured in a nearly fatal attack on Sept. 16, 1989.

This is a Second Open Letter to France's Ambassador to the United States by Paul Grubach February 8, 2008

Ambassador Pierre Vimont Embassy of France in the United States 4101 Reservoir Road, NW Washington, D. C. 20007

Dear Ambassador Vimont

As you are undoubtedly aware by now, Holocaust revisionist scholar Dr. Robert Faurisson will probably stand trial for comments he made at the Iran Holocaust Conference of December 2006. Allegedly, he violated France's Gayssot Act, a statute passed in 1990 that prohibits any public doubt about the alleged Jewish Holocaust.

There is a new development to this ongoing story that I would like to bring to your attention.

On January 24, Dr. Faurisson was taken into police custody for questioning and a search of his house was carried out. In my last open letter to you of January 15, I brought attention to the hypocritical double standard of the French government.

In September 2006, high school teacher Robert Redeker made a scathing attack upon the Prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion in the center-right daily Le Figaro. Because of threats to his life, he was forced to go into hiding.

The French government immediately came to his defense, offering him police protection and a public statement on his behalf. In reference to Redeker's case, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called the threats to his life "unacceptable," and added: "We are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others, of course." (See The New York Times, 30 September 2006, p. A 3)

That this is an outrageous lie is demonstrated by the ongoing plight of Dr. Faurisson. In 1991, French "democracy" demanded that Dr. Faurisson be removed from his university chair. In July 2006, French "democracy" again violated his inalienable right to freedom of speech and research. He was convicted of "Holocaust denial" by a Paris court over remarks he made on Iranian television, and was given a three-month suspended prison term and he has to pay 18 000 euros.

Clearly, as the cases of Redeker and Faurisson show, one has the right to attack and violate the sacred beliefs of Muslims, but one has no right whatsoever to question and repudiate the Holocaust doctrine, one of the most sacred beliefs of Jewish-Zionism. The sacred belief and taboo of the Jewish people is enshrined in law in France. If you contest the Holocaust, you are prosecuted and persecuted.

However, the sacred beliefs of Muslims are not enshrined in law. If you attack Muslim beliefs, this is depicted as an expression of "freedom of speech." Once again, this is evidence of a hypocritical double standard. I have come across another case which further bolsters my point.

Do you recognize the name of the French Jewish writer, Marek Halter? He co-founded the so-called "anti-racist" group, SOS-Racisme. There is an interview of him in the February 11, 2005 issue of the English edition of The International Jerusalem Post, (pp. 9-11).

Halter claims that France's rapidly growing Islamic population is too frequently incompatible with democracy. Let me give you two of his direct quotes. Halter stated: "All of a sudden we realize that they [Muslims] are not a small minority anymore and that the way most of them practice their religion is not compatible with French democratic principles." He also stated: "Muslims threaten to weaken a French democracy that no longer knows how to impose its rules without seeming oppressive."

In April 2007 the European Union made inciting racism and xenophobia crimes throughout its 27 member states in a landmark decision. Even before April 2007, when Halter made these statements, inciting racism and xenophobia in France were outlawed.

That is to say, Halter made these statements when these "racism and xenophobia" laws were on the books. A French prosecutor could cogently argue that Halter's statements incite hatred and xenophobia against Muslims, and thus, the man should be prosecuted. After all, he is stating that Muslims as a group threaten to weaken and even destroy French "democracy."

This will cause people to hate Muslims. Your so-called French "democracy" allows him to make anti-Muslim statements. Yet, Robert Faurisson is put on trial by this same French "democracy" for making statements that contest and debunk Holocaust orthodoxy.

Do you see my point, Ambassador Vimont? France grants "freedom of speech" to Jewish people like Marek Halter who criticize and attack Muslims. Yet, "democratic" France denies freedom of speech to non-Jews like Faurisson who question and debunk the orthodox view of the Holocaust.

If France was truly a democracy as former Prime Minister de Villepin claims, it would defend Dr. Faurisson's right to freedom of research on the Holocaust. That is to say, there would be no "limits in advance" or "prewritten conclusions" about his Holocaust research.

After all, France grants freedom of research for atheists and others who deny the existence of God or attack the Islamic and Christian religions.

If the French government does prosecute and imprison Dr. Faurisson for his Holocaust revisionist views, this will only demonstrate to the world the truth of his arguments. The French government cannot disprove his Holocaust revisionism with reason and science, but must resort to oppressive laws and prison sentences in its attempt to silence truth.

Sincerely, Paul Grubach

A copy of this letter has been sent to Press TV