For most of the twentieth century, inter-Arab politics were dominated by the doctrine of pan-Arabism, postulating the existence of “a single nation bound by the common ties of language, religion and history. … behind the facade of a multiplicity of sovereign states“;  and no single issue dominated this doctrine more than the “Palestine question” with anti-Zionism forming the main common denominator of pan-Arab solidarity and its most effective rallying cry. But the actual policies of the Arab states have shown far less concern for pan-Arab ideals, let alone for the well-being of the Palestinians, than for their own self-serving interests. Indeed, nothing has done more to expose the hollowness of pan-Arabism than its most celebrated cause.
Consider, for instance, Emir Faisal ibn Hussein of Mecca, the celebrated hero of the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire and the effective leader of the nascent pan-Arab movement.
Together with his father and his older brother Abdullah, Faisal placed Palestine on the pan-Arab agenda by (falsely) claiming that they had been promised the country in return for their anti-Ottoman rising. In January 1919, he signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann, head of the Zionists, supporting the November 1917 Balfour Declaration on the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine and the adoption of “all necessary measures … to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale.
“ Yet when the opportunity for self-aggrandizement arose, in March 1920, he had himself crowned king of Syria “within its natural boundaries, including Palestine.” Had either option been realized, Palestine would have disappeared from the international scene at that time.
There are two main reasons for the smuggling of strategic weapons to Lebanon: One relates to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the other relates to al-Qaeda and the Salafi jihadist organizations, both of which are parts of the “big bang” that Hizb’Allah is preparing for.
According to sources abroad, Israel attacked Hizb’Allah targets again this week, in the area of the border between Syria and Lebanon. It is widely surmised that the target of the attack was a convoy of heavy vehicles carrying Scud missiles from Syria to Lebanon. These are long range, accurate missiles with the ability to carry a large warhead.
This action is the implementation of Israel’s public declaration repeated time and again, that she will not allow the Lebanese terror organization to get its hands on weapons of mass destruction or strategic weapons that would change the balance of power, meaning missiles that are over a specific weight, range or accuracy.
Hizb’Allah spokesmen claim that the attack was in the area of Syria. This may be true, but then again it may not, because if the attack was outside of Lebanon Hizb’Allah would be less obligated to respond. The organization – which represents itself as defending Lebanon from Zionist attacks – would have had to respond if it was admitted that the attack was inside Lebanon.
Hizb’Allah has another reason to say that the attack was inside of Syria: This might provoke the Syrian army to respond to Israel, contrary to previous incidences when Bashar Asad restrained himself issuing the empty statement that “Syria will respond in the suitable time and place”. However, the Syrian army is engaged at the moment with an existential war, and has no desire or intention to enter into a conflict with Israel during this historic, fateful phase.Read More Here: Hizb’Allah is Getting Ready for the Big Bang
The president of the Israeli regime has supported the United States plans to provide foreign-backed militants in Syria with weapons.
Washington announced last week that it would send arms to foreign-sponsored terrorists in Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad from power after more than two years of uncertainty over the unrest in the Arab country.
In an interview with Reuters, Shimon Peres described the plan as “wise,” saying that the US government had no other choice but to supply arms to Syria militants.
Last week, a US defense official stated that Washington would keep a unit of US Marines on amphibious ships off the Red Sea coast after consultations with Jordan.
The US-based Wall Street Journal had earlier reported that the no-fly zone could be implemented from Jordan.
The answer seems to be: Because Canada was getting ready to sell them 3,000 brand-new military vehicles. Foes “TOW” the line when faced with Raytheon’s missiles. Photo: U.S. Army
Two months ago, we told you about an astoundingly large contract that America’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, or DSCA, was negotiating with the Government of Saudi Arabia. For a purchase price of roughly $1 billion, Raytheon (NYSE: RTN) would produce and ship to Saudi a total of more than 15,000 anti-tank rockets, or more specifically: