US relations with the Middle East are not likely to be restored. Ever
Mideast partners have heard Biden say he will support Israel no matter what. That will help US relations with Israel, but we need to take note of the rest of the region as well, which now hates us.
(Your air strike update for March 8 is the section just below this report)
Link to alkhanadeq report on widespread hatred of the US
Translation with my notes in bold and in [brackets]
PS: When I provide translations of articles appearing in US publications, it is usually because these are important but behind a paywall.
Tuesday 28 November 2023 02:06
The war on Gaza sparked widespread hatred against America
Washington's excessive interference in the Middle East and its military expansion in it portends a threat to Washington, which until recently was trying to reduce its presence in this arena, by implicating it in a way that negatively affects its management of the region and its global policy. The newspaper "Foreign Affairs" says in an article translated by the "Trenches" website that at a time when the Biden administration has doubled additional American weapons and forces to the Middle East, it is not clear whether American policymakers have thought about the cascading effects of amplifying the American security role in the region. How will it be viewed by opponents and allies [It is doubtful that the US has any allies to speak of left in the ME] alike? It added that the Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip sparked widespread feelings of hatred against the United States throughout the Middle East, and there are three dangers that the Biden administration must acknowledge and address: escalation, violent reaction, and excessive expansion.
Translated text:
The war in Gaza, American excessive expansion, and the issue of austerity
The fallout from the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which killed an estimated 1,200 people, has led to what is arguably the most serious challenge to US strategy in the Middle East since the uprisings and civil wars that rocked the Arab world beginning in 2011. [Yes, because in these previous conflicts, the Israeli atrocities were largely hidden by US and Israel censorship. The social media have changed that in unexpected ways.]
The Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip and the massive loss of life it suffered—more than 12,000 Palestinians died as a result, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health [these figures are very low now. At this time, it is estimated that 100,000 civilians have been either killed or injured. Add to that the deliberate killing by starvation] —incited widespread anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East. It prompted Iran's agents to launch attacks on American military personnel in Iraq and Syria. [Yes, and Iran now enjoys the highest approval rating in the Muslim world among all leaders. This fact alone suggests the US will not likely ever have its reputation restored in the region. That portends disaster for US foreign policy. Trump will be hamstrung too if he should be elected. There may no longer be any potential allies there]
How US President Joe Biden manages the actions of Israel, a close US ally, as well as the broader geopolitical repercussions of the war, will have far-reaching consequences for regional stability, as well as for Washington's ability to confront and deter its adversaries in the Middle East and elsewhere. The risks are evident in the rapid influx of additional US military forces into the Middle East over the past month, including aircraft carriers, fighter jets, more than 1,000 US soldiers, and the deployment of air defense systems to US Arab allies such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE [It is not impossible that these air defenses could be used to protect against Israeli attacks].
These moves were intended to signal US determination to deter Iran from seeking to escalate the crisis in Israel by using its network of proxies, such as Hezbollah, to launch attacks on Israel from Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere. But by expanding its military presence in the Middle East, the US risks exacerbating regional tensions and thus inadvertently provoking the very conflict it is striving to avoid. Also, the influx of military equipment and personnel by Washington could ultimately lead to its involvement in open security obligations towards a region in which it was until recently trying to reduce its presence.
The United States' usual security-first approach to the Middle East has proven costly, in terms of material and human losses, and has also turned out to be devastating to the region, having contributed, over the years, to wars and economic crises. [The author’s use of the term “security-first” is naïve.
The US approach can’t be accurately described as “security-first.” Bullying everyone is not a security measure at all. It only makes enemies] As the United States increases its presence again, its military involvement in the Middle East could continue beyond the end of the current crisis and contribute to overextension that would create dangerous gaps elsewhere in the long term, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. In this scenario, the focus on the two-ocean region to counter China would become weak – and key strategic arenas like Taiwan would be left more vulnerable to Chinese aggression. [Typical US foreign policy bias. The main problem for the US Neocon regime is NOT Chinese “aggression.” It is that China might start negotiating with the PRC and the two Chinas might work out friendly arrangement. The war-focused US is scared to death of diplomacy among third parties. It thrives on pitting countries against each other]
Given these risks, Washington's Middle East policy urgently needs a course correction. The path was realistic before October 7 [BIG LIE! Of COURSE it was not realistic. Ever since the crime syndicate called “Israel” was made a nation under US pressure in 1948, the US has been complicit in its atrocities against the Palestinians. For 7 decades, the situation was at the brink of war, with Israel antagonizing its neighbors and invading them militarily], but the Biden administration has not indicated any short- or long-term adjustments aimed at addressing the failures and risks of the current strategy. Instead, it recommitted to a highly security-focused [again, that is a ridiculous choice of adjective. It was MILITARY-focused] approach based on the deployment of ever larger military forces relying on the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries as the basis for a new security bloc led by the United States in the Middle East. [It was a house of cards. At the time when Trump strong-armed US partners into normalizing relations with Israel, polls were showing that at least 80% of street Arabs actually did not want this normalization. It was bound to fall apart because it left the untenable Palestinian issues untouched] Although the consequences of the Israeli war on Gaza remain incomplete, it is not too early to outline a more sustainable American policy in the Middle East. [Actually, this Neocon-brainwashed author is ignoring the fact that it is really TOO LATE] Most importantly, once the current crisis begins to stabilize [It will never stabilize until the US lays the law down to Israel, but that will never happen. Both Biden and Trump are sold out to AIPAC], Washington must act to quickly withdraw the forces it has introduced into the Middle East and reduce and reorganize the size of the US military presence in the region. [That can hardly happen as long as the Houthis continue to attack US- and Israel-related shipping in the Red Sea and at the bottlenecks of the region, to say nothing of the cutting of the undersea cables] At the same time, Washington must invest in building the capabilities of its regional allies so that they can work together more effectively to maintain stability and manage security challenges with less support from the United States. [What regional allies?? Its undying support for genocidal Israel has sabotaged all its relations with erstwhile allies]
The US response to the current crisis has been rapid and broad. In the wake of the Hamas attacks. Immediately, Biden ordered two carrier strike groups — naval forces each numbering about 7,500 — into the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and sent in a nuclear-capable Ohio-class submarine. In addition to advanced combat and close air support aircraft such as the F-16, F-15, F-35 and A-10; and more than 1,200 additional troops in the region, as well as approximately 45,000 U.S. military personnel stationed throughout the Middle East. The United States has also sent Patriot air defense battalions to longtime regional allies including Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and has deployed at least one high-altitude area defense system in the region. This US military increase represents the first time some of these weapons systems have been deployed in the Middle East since the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. [But let us recall that the street Arabs in these 4 countries have rated the Iranian leadership HIGHER than any other MS leader, including those of Saudi and the UAR! The leaders can no longer publicly show support for the US. Further, Saudi Arabia is no longer the arch-enemy of Iran now that China has arbitrated an agreement between them] This flood of US troops has been accompanied by a large influx of military aid to Israel, in addition to the approximately $4 billion the country receives annually from the United States. (The United States has provided more military aid to Israel than any other country in the world since World War II, amounting to more than $124 billion since Israel's founding in 1948.) After October 7, Biden submitted a request to Congress for a $14.3 billion emergency arms package for Israel — a request that has remained in limbo due to political dysfunction in the United States. [t’s not political dysfunction, it’s common sense on the part of some politicians, who understand that supporting genocide will lead to major blowback]
The rapid and decisive nature of this response stands out, especially given Biden's reputation for sometimes frustrating decision-making and his sharp contrast with the gradualist approach to providing military aid to Ukraine in the wake of the Russian invasion. In contrast to the transparency provided about aid to Ukraine, apparently unconditional arms transfers to Israel were obscured, which sparked consternation in Congress and led to the resignation of a State Department official named Josh Paul, who insisted in a public statement that the extent of Washington's support for Israel "It is not in America's long-term interest."
As the Biden administration doubles down on additional US weapons and troops to the Middle East, it is not clear whether US policymakers have considered the ripple effects of amplifying the US security role in the region and how they will be perceived by adversaries and allies alike. Specifically, there are three risks that the Biden administration must acknowledge and address: escalation, backlash, and overextension.
First, escalation
Although the Pentagon has argued that the deployments since October 7 are intended to prevent a broader war, the US troop surge also seems more likely to spark an escalatory spiral rather than prevent it. Since October 7, attacks by Iranian proxies on US military personnel stationed in Iraq and Syria have escalated, even as the United States has strengthened its regional presence and launched retaliatory strikes on militia infrastructure targets in Syria. [Well, I guess we can’t expect a US regime-linked publication to open up and admit that the US presence in Syria is both illegal and immoral, since the military is not only there illegally, against the will of the government, but is also stealing Syrian oil and wheat, creating a potential backlash that is now exacerbated by the American wholehearted support for genocide] Neither these additional forces nor multiple rounds of airstrikes, including some that reportedly killed militia members, appear to have done much to deter America's adversaries [Well, go figure. The US is the party supporting the Israeli genocide, while the militias are part of the movement to stop it. US policies ignore morality and international law, but now those chickens are coming home to roost in a big way]. Indeed, such attacks have become more brazen. For example, the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen recently shot down a US drone over the Red Sea, and they have been launching strikes targeting Israel since the beginning of the current events. [Note that the author has chosen only the mildest examples here. The Houthis have done a LOT more than just that. US regime-linked media have to downplay the disastrous results of US stupidity]
It is possible that the enhanced US military presence has dissuaded Iran and its proxies from further provocations—but more likely is the possibility that neither Iran nor Hezbollah wants to escalate, as both would lose if a regional war breaks out. [Sorry, no one is dissuaded from further escalations. The author is only trying to justify the senseless US escalation. The Houthis have killed at least 2 Americans very recently in a ship attack, and they continue to cut undersea cables. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has been doing a lot of damage with its rockets, as reported here, here, here, here and a whole lot of other sites, The damage is extensive.]
This calculus could change, especially if Palestinian casualties continue to mount or if Israel chooses to occupy Gaza for an extended period. In a situation where each side's red lines are unclear, the growing US military presence in the region increases the risk of miscalculation and provocation. It also gives hardliners in Tehran and among Iran's proxy groups — who see Washington as a co-conspirator in Israel's military campaign — a justification to continue their military buildup and threaten escalation.
Second, the backlash
The new US military influx could generate unexpected challenges. Such as undermining relations with key American allies and partners such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and others.
Washington has long relied on providing security guarantees and military assistance as the core of its engagement in the Middle East. But the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the waves of anti-Americanism sweeping the Arab world, and the real disagreement between Arab governments and Washington over Israel's prosecution of its election campaign, risk eroding the bedrock of US-Arab security cooperation - especially as the US military presence in the region becomes more visible, dramatic and controversial.
At the very least, Arab states will want to conduct any future security cooperation more discreetly, and Washington may find its freedom of action increasingly constrained by the need to protect US forces operating in partner countries [I wonder if this author realizes that there are hardly any partners any more. The US presence in Iraq and Syria are both illegal and unwanted. So are they partners. Jordan was a partner but the Jordanian people staged one of the biggest marches in the world in protest to the Israeli genocide. Let’s face it, though Israel has committed atrocities against Palestine for over 7 decades, most of the catastrophes were carefully covered up. But the advent of social media has brought a lot of dirty laundry out into he open – even as Israel has stepped up its inhumane actions. It’s a perfect storm for the US-Israel cabal]. In more extreme cases, allied regimes may suspend certain activities, such as joint exercises, or halt some defense purchases. Although no country will sever its ties with the United States, the conflict undoubtedly overturns many of the Biden administration's assumptions about its partners, and complicates the relationships that the United States has come to rely on in the region for military access and the protection of American economic interests. Although broader great power competition with China and Russia should not be the primary driver of U.S. policy in the region, it is possible that regional partners will turn to Beijing or Moscow if they find cooperation with Washington too troublesome. [They are already doing just that]
This renewed American position in the region could herald the United States returning to its “bad habit,” a rereading of its usual strategy of relying on large American military deployments and arms transfers to ensure the region’s security against external threats. This approach did not make the area safer. Instead, decades of US military intervention have exacerbated regional rivalries and fueled arms races that exacerbated local conflicts, not to mention the disastrous fallout from the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which included hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS).), and the deterioration of the United States' global reputation. Moreover, years of unconditional US security assistance to partners in the Middle East have often encouraged these regimes to act in ways that have severely undermined regional stability and human rights including, for example, Saudi Arabia’s support for the Yemeni government in its war against Iran-backed Houthi rebels, or the UAE’s intervention in the conflict in Libya.
Looking beyond the region, the more Washington is forced to deploy its forces and move weapons and equipment to the Middle East, the greater the risk that it will become stretched thin in ways that make it unable to fulfill its commitments and deter adversaries elsewhere — especially in the Indo-Pacific region, where the U.S. faces an increasingly assertive China. [We have gotten used to call China “increasingly assertive,” but the fact is, the US is many times more assertive than any other country. This is crass disinformation]
Many of the weapons systems most requested by Washington's partners in the Middle East — such as Harpoon missiles and Patriot air defense systems — are also systems that Taiwan desperately needs to bolster its defenses against Chinese aggression. [But who is the most aggressive?: Taiwan and its US defender or the PRC] Likewise, many of the US naval and air forces now deployed in the Middle East would likely be needed in the event of a conflict in the Indo-Pacific region. Over time, extended deployments to the Middle East could erode these systems, rendering them unusable [Many military systems already are unusable. Almost all “defense” spending is on new hardware, very little on maintenance] — and the United States short of resources — if a crisis occurs in Asia. These trade-offs will only grow if the conflict between Israel and Hamas swells to include Iran, where the United States may feel pressure to provide Israel with long-range offensive missiles [If Israel decides to challenge Iran to a missile war, that could prove fatal for Israel. Iran has threatened to wipe Tel Aviv and Haifa off the map if it crosses a red line] if larger numbers of American forces and systems remain in the region's theater in the long term. [And speaking of China, there is a strategic partnership between China, Russia and Iran. Will China allow Iran, a key player in the BRI, to lose a major conflict?]
Third, overextending
The rupture caused by the Hamas attack provides an opportunity to develop a more sustainable, less risky American approach to the Middle East. The current crisis makes clear that as long as Washington maintains tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East, the chances remain high that the United States could be drawn into a long and costly regional conflict, even when it has few interests at stake. To avoid this outcome, the United States needs to reduce and reorganize its military presence in the region. Without this downsizing, the United States cannot break free from the legacy of its ill-fated security-first approach [Read war-first approach]. Examples include the small contingents of US forces still in Iraq and Syria. Their stated military goal—the permanent defeat of ISIS—is open-ended and largely unachievable [No, its stated goal is fake and dishonest], but keeping these forces in place indefinitely requires the continued deployment of more troops and more advanced systems to protect them, draining U.S. military resources with little tangible benefit.
The United States can reduce its military presence in the Middle East gradually and without leaving regional partners in fear of abandonment, although such a reduction may need to wait until current hostilities in the region stabilize. [All rational partners of the US know that the US WILL abandon them eventually when the going gets rough. Witness Afghanistan, Ukraine] First, as an easy starting point, the additional forces and platforms sent to the region since October 7 should be redeployed. Second, most or all US forces should be withdrawn from Iraq and Syria. US deployments to these two locations appear to be fueling regional escalation by Iran and its proxies rather than deterring it. [Amen!] Moreover, U.S. military commanders noted that U.S. partners in Iraq and Syria are now leading effective operations against ISIS on their own [Well, not exactly on their own. Syria depends a lot on Russian forces and Iraq receives critical help from the Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces - Al-Hashd al Shaabi], indicating that there is less need [typical US LIE! There is NO need not LESS need!] for a continued U.S. ground presence in these locations and reducing the risk of an ISIS resurgence. » In the absence of American forces. [If there were a need for US military defense against ISIS in Iraq, as US media claim, then Trump would not have seen it necessary to assassinate Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander, of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), or in Arabic, Hashd al-Shaabi, and leader of the Iraqi militia Keta’ib Hezbollah. The ONLY reason these valiant and very competent and able fighters were killed is because the groups they led were Iran-backed, and the only reason that is unacceptable to the US military elites is that Israel has created an enemy out of Iran because that country refuses to recognize Israel or defend its interests, and we can now, after Oct 7, 2022, see why this crime syndicate posing as a nation does not deserve international recognition and does have an obligation to return the stolen land to the Palestinians. Iran was right all along and the genocide-supporting US elites were, and are, wrong and reprehensible]
Such a reduction would also reduce the risk of military overextension, and create space for Washington to develop a more integrated economic and political approach to the region. With less U.S. military intervention [Again, the author is dishonestly suggesting that the US MUST have some military involvement in the Middle East, and the “respected” publication Foreign Affairs is again making a misleading suggestion. The US public is used to reading this kind of tripe and most will buy it without question] the United States will have more time and resources to redirect its Middle East policies toward diplomacy, community engagement, and economic statecraft — tools that will help address emerging challenges, including climate change and the clean energy transition, that peoples are grappling with in the region. [Now, THAT is the biggest whopper in this whole article. The Palestinians are dying of hunger and the Syrians are dying for oil and petroleum products desperately needed to cook their food and power their cars, and these delusional Western writers who know NOTHING about the real people in the Middle East and their existential problems, imagine they are sitting around mulling solutions to climate change and clean energy! THIS is the kind of ROT that we Westerners are fed every stinking day in our dumbed-down culture of abysmal ignorance! And this then is why the US is failing on all fronts. We simply don’t understand the little guy and his REAL problems. Instead we project our political interests onto them and rush to “aid” them with bombs and the weird ideas of Klaus Schwab.]
Moreover, Washington can compensate for its diminished presence and greater support of the region against Iranian influence by doing more to reduce the dependence of regional allies and partners on the United States [They don’t depend on us. They want us OUT, Period]. Washington must enable regional actors such as Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other US partners to create alliances that address high-priority regional security needs and manage regional tensions with limited US involvement [That sounds nice, but behind this wishful thinking is the hope that these thoroughly Westernized and pro-Empire and pro-colonialized countries will manage their region according to US interests. However, their more productive and pragmatic relationships with Russia and China will inevitably lead them away from the Western predatory trajectory and free their people from the US obsession with the genocidal Israel]. This approach would not only reduce the burden on U.S. forces, but would also mitigate broader security risks from the backlash against the U.S. military presence in the region and create a more stable foundation for the U.S. relationship with these countries. [Too late]
Accordingly, Washington's focus will need to shift away from expensive arms transfers and efforts to build interoperability with U.S. forces toward activities that help regional partners operate independently with the large arsenals they possess. And to do so alongside their neighbours. [Sounds compassionate and understanding, doesn’t it? But the focus is still on the military. The US elites realize that they have to make minor changes, but their military goals never change. They know that Europe and the Middle East need more autonomous leadership but you will note that they never suggest that the US goals – suppressing China and Russia and supporting the Washington empire – are never questioned. It is acceptable for Europe, for example, to arm itself, but it is understood among the elites that the US will never swerve from its goal of destroying Russia and containing China and maintaining US primacy. And the same applies to the Middle East. The list of “regional actors” named by the author all have a history of loyalty to US interests. Thus it is clear that the author and his/her cronies in the State Department and Pentagon fully expect to keep their hands on the helm of Middle East politics, one way or the other.
At no point in this skewed analysis does the author betray any understanding of the implacably dawning pluripolar/multipolar world order that no Western or Washington-linked influencer can conjure away with weasel words. And it is this new concept that forms the focal point of Middle Eastern thinking. Until Foreign Affairs starts showing some faint understanding of the multipolar world order, there will not, cannot, be any meaningful change in relations with other countries. The Middle East will just drift farther and farther out of Washington’s grasp]
In the past, US efforts to form regional security alliances in the Middle East have failed due to ideological and intra-Arab rivalries, with the long-standing dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar being the glaring example, as well as diverging perceptions about how best to manage the Iranian threat directly or through its. [As long as the West insists that Iran is a threat rather than a piece of the necessary machinery to bring peace, this author can beat their gums until the end of time and no understanding will be achieved. This piece of long-winded verbiage showcases what is wrong with US official thinking, which only endeavors to bring the world to its side but never attempts to move an inch in the direction of the other]. Even if the United States decides to reduce its presence in the region, these tensions are likely to persist, but the United States can overcome them by emphasizing narrower forms of cooperation, especially on high-priority issues where interests align, such as maritime security and air defense [here again, the proverbial hammer only sees nails. The US ONLY sees military solutions. Maritime security is a not-so-subtle suggestion that all Middle East countries must stop the Houthis. But in fact, the people (street Arabs) are fully in harmony with the Houthi aim of using attacks on vessels in the Red Sea to deter the Israeli genocide. This author is ONLY focused, as usual, on giving the homicidal Israelis full rein and stopping the only people who bravely oppose and resist the Israeli crime syndicate] Washington could also consider encouraging the formation of so-called “mini-alliances” — small groups of three to five countries with limited goals — that countries in Southeast Asia have used successfully to manage regional security issues, such as piracy and illegal fishing, on their own without relying on United States or China. [The Houthis are NOT pirates and are not acting illegally. They have a right to protect their partners in Palestine who are threatened with annihilation. The failure of this US-linked author to understand this shows that the US is incapable of changing course in any meaningful way and will continue on to the cliff’s edge]
These changes would constitute a major shift in US policy in the Middle East, away from a US-led security-heavy model towards a more balanced approach that carries fewer risks of escalation or overextension and allows regional powers to take the initiative. [Theoretically, the locals could take the initiative, but it they stray too far away from US or Israeli interests, they will be forcefully reined in just as all independent-minded actors have been in the past, like Ghadaffi or Saddam. Except that this heavy-handed approach may no longer be politically possible]
This new approach will not be a guarantee against future regional security crises, but it will protect Washington's military and diplomatic flexibility, reduce the likelihood of Washington becoming embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and preserve greater military capacity for other national security priorities. However, if Washington fails to change course, it may end up taking a familiar path in the Middle East. [The problem with this essay is West-think, which is a mind trap set in large part by Israel, and so far, judging by the failure to identify the real problem, Washington-linked intellectuals are caught in it permanently. There can be no happy ending as long as official Washington keeps on this path]
Writer: Editorial room
**
The next two reports are your daily air strike update for Mar 8, 2024
Translation with my notes in bold and in [brackets]
https://ria.ru/20240308/trevoga-1931901054.html?rcmd_alg=slotter
08.03.2024
An air alert has been declared in four Ukrainian oblasts
An air alert was announced in Sumy, Poltava and two other Ukrainian oblasts
MOSCOW, March 8 - RIA Novosti. An air alert has been declared in the Sumy, Poltava, Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts of Ukraine, according to the online map of the Ukrainian Ministry of Digital Transformation.
According to the map, the alarm in the Sumy oblast sounded at 13.59 Moscow time. In the other specified oblasts, the alarm was announced at 14.57.
Earlier on Friday, the alarm was announced in a number of oblasts of Ukraine, after a while it was canceled.
**
The Russian army launched a massive attack on the AFU facilities in the Odessa and Kharkiv oblasts
Now about the course of the special operation. Massive strikes on the military rear of the Armed Forces of Ukraine continue. Last night, facilities in the Odessa and Kharkiv oblasts were hit. In just a week, 34 strikes were carried out with high-precision long-range weapons against facilities where unmanned boats [very important because it unmanned boats are the weapons used to attack Russian ships in the Black Sea fleet] were being prepared, as well as ammunition and fuel depots, and locations of foreign mercenaries.
During the week, the loss of manpower amounted to about seven and a half thousand militants. Among the downed Western missiles and aerial bombs, the French Hammer appeared in the summary for the first time.
And this is what the Ministry of Defense also told us.
Igor Konashenkov [Head of the Department of Information and Mass Communication of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation]
In the Donetsk sector, the losses of the Armed Forces amounted to more than 1970 servicemen, 11 tanks, 17 armored combat vehicles, and 47 vehicles. Ten AFU field ammunition depots were also destroyed.
At Avdiivka, the enemy lost over 2,860 soldiers, seven tanks, including two Abrams made by the United States, 34 armored combat vehicles, 47 vehicles, 20 field artillery guns, a HIMARS MLRS launcher made by the United States and a Strela-10 SAM combat vehicle.
In the Kherson area, enemy losses amounted to more than 295 soldiers, two tanks, 22 vehicles, nine field artillery guns, as well as two HIMARS MLRS launchers manufactured by the United States.
During the week, 24 Ukrainian servicemen surrendered.
**
Our sincerest thanks to JS for this. And I will add that the US support of these atrocities is a reflection on us, on who we are.
History will record that Israel committed a holocaust
Genocide isn’t just mass murder. It is intentional erasure. Of histories. Of memories, books and culture. Erasure of potential in a land. Erasure of hope in and for a place. Erasure is the impetus for destroying homes, schools, places of worship, hospitals, libraries, cultural centers, recreational centers and universities.
Genocide is intentional dismantling of another’s humanity. It is the reduction of a proud, educated, high-functioning ancient society into penniless objects of charity, forced to eat the unspeakable to survive; to live in filth and disease with nothing to hope for except an end to bombs and bullets raining on and through their bodies, their lives, their histories and futures.
By Susan Abulhawa, The Electronic Intifada, 6 March 2024
https://electronicintifada.net/content/history-will-record-israel-committed-holocaust/45006
What I Witnessed in Gaza Is a Holocaust: Palestinian Writer Susan Abulhawa
We speak with Palestinian novelist, poet and activist Susan Abulhawa, who is in Cairo and just returned from two weeks in Gaza. “What’s happening to people isn’t just this death and dismemberment and hunger. It is a total denigration of their personhood, of their whole society,” says Abulhawa. “What I witnessed personally in Rafah and some of the middle areas is incomprehensible, and I will call it a holocaust — and I don’t use that word lightly. But it is absolutely that.”
Democracy Now!, MARCH 06, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/6/gaza_update
EXCERPT:
Susan, welcome to Democracy Now! If you can talk about what you saw? You have written,
“Some are eating stray cats and dogs, which are themselves starving and sometimes feeding on human remains that litter streets where Israeli snipers picked off people who dared to venture within the sight of their scopes. The old and weak have already died of hunger and thirst.”
…
Back from Gaza, Palestinian Writer Susan Abulhawa Says “Language Is Inadequate” to Describe Horror
Palestinian novelist, poet and activist Susan Abulhawa joins us for Part 2 of her interview from Cairo after two weeks in Gaza. She discusses the impact of “unlimited weaponry” supplied by the United States for Israel to bomb and starve civilians there. “Language is really inadequate and insufficient to capture the enormity of this moment,” says Abulhawa. “What I’ve seen is really a fraction of the totality of this horror.”
Democracy Now! MARCH 06, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/6/back_from_gaza_palestinian_writer_susan
EXCERPTS:
I spoke with a lot of women, in particular, who were recovering in a hospital or were there — or, you know, being with their children who were recovering. The stories they told me are just — are out of like a Hollywood horror film. I mean, there are — I have photos of the backs of men where Israeli soldiers carved pictures, smiley faces, Stars of David, etc., in their skin. These women narrated stories to me of, you know, Israeli soldiers laying them — laying hundreds of women on the ground and then taking their guns with the laser and laughing, and then wherever the laser landed, they shoot.
..
The food that does come in, into Rafah, is primarily canned food. And most of it — and I think you hinted at this earlier, and I’ve seen it and tasted it myself — it is stuff that has clearly been sitting on shelves for decades. And all you can taste, really, is the rancidity, metallic taste of the can.
You know, this is — people schedule their days, they plan their days around trying to get to a single shared bathroom that’s shared by hundreds of other families.
…
People don’t have medicines. People are dying from lack of insulin, which, by the way, Israel has banned from coming into Gaza. And they’re dying from diarrhea, because they’re drinking polluted water, and Israel has also banned water treatment, water filtration systems, even handheld ones, simple personal water filtration systems that, you know, Americans use when they go camping.
**
Good satire
**
Pro-Palestinian protesters to interrupt Biden speech
https://ria.ru/20240308/protest-1931854182.html
**
Link to Khanadeq report on Houthi strike
Thursday 07 March 2024 02:26
Escalation in the Gulf of Aden: Ansar Allah targets an American ship and causes deaths
Targeting the True Confidence ship in the Gulf of Aden
Further escalation is the scene that dominated the vicinity of the Bab al-Mandab area yesterday, where Ansar Allah carried out a qualitative operation targeting the American ship “True Confidence,” which is about 54 nautical miles southwest of Aden, that is, about 100 kilometers, resulting in a minimum of two deaths. In this regard, the military spokesman for Ansar Allah, Yahya Saree, announced that an attack had been carried out on an American ship in the Gulf of Aden with appropriate missiles.
It should be noted that there were deaths as a result of the targeting, for the first time since the start of a series of naval attacks carried out by Ansar Allah against the backdrop of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, foretelling an American response, which vowed to “hold accountable” Ansar Allah for a strike that targeted a cargo tanker that resulted in two deaths. Although Sana'a forces do not control the southern governorates overlooking the Gulf of Aden, they have previously targeted a number of ships in the Gulf of Aden region with extreme accuracy. This is a military message confirming that Sana'a is capable of striking targets in the Red and Arabian Seas from any point in the territory of the Republic of Yemen. These ongoing operations by Ansar Allah practically confirm that the raids carried out by America and Britain are useless and do not affect Sana’a’s military capabilities.
The White House announced that the "True Confidence" ship, which was targeted by the Yemeni Ansar Allah group in the Gulf of Aden, is owned by Liberia and not an American. It should be noted that the official statement conveyed by Brigadier General Yahya Saree confirms that the strike occurred after "its crew rejected the group's warnings." In this context, Muhammad Abdel Salam, the official spokesman for Ansar Allah, said, “The Americans and the British bear the repercussions of their militarization of the Red Sea, and we have repeatedly confirmed that Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of occupied Palestine are the ones targeted for the purpose of pressuring the enemy entity to stop its aggression and siege of Gaza.” America had to respond to the call of the peoples of the world and work to force Israel to stop its aggression, but it chose the option of escalation and expansion of the conflict, contrary to all its claims not to expand the circle of confrontation.
He added, "The Yemeni forces do not target any ship except after warning it not to cross. There are those who comply and retreat, and there are those who refuse and are targeted. We hold America responsible for the repercussions of everything that happens in the Red Sea."
Before the siege that Yemen imposed on the occupying entity, the military rule said that if you wanted to impose a comprehensive siege on a country, you must possess a sufficient number of warships and destroyers, but Yemen broke this rule and was able to impose a comprehensive siege on the Israeli entity while it did not even have one warship, but it used drones and smart anti-ship ballistic missiles, which proved effective and accurate in hitting targets. It also proved capable of bypassing American and Western military technology for monitoring and tracking, as well as its ability to bypass the defenses of destroyers and warships.
Writer: Editorial room
**
Protesters at Biden speech
https://twitter.com/i/status/1765899904918917494
**
Link to alkhanadeq report on lebanon vs israel
Monday 8 January 2024
American intelligence assessment: It is difficult for Israel to succeed in a war against Hezbollah and Gaza together
Resistants in Hezbollah's Radwan Force
This article, published by the American newspaper "Washington Post" and translated by the Al-Khanadeq website, revealed the existence of an intelligence assessment at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which assesses that it will be difficult for Israel to succeed in a war against Hezbollah, amid its ongoing fighting. in Gaza. This article indicated that, based on this assessment and other data, the American administration, led by its President Joe Biden, has been working since the first days of the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle to prevent Israel from igniting a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, for fear of disastrous consequences for the entity [Israel] as a result.
This is what the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, indicated in his speech during the fourth anniversary of the martyrs, the leaders of Victory, on (January 3, 2024), when he said that the strength, greatness, courage, boldness, and steadfastness of the resistance in Lebanon is what prompted the American to advise... The Israelis should not launch a war on Lebanon simultaneously with the war on Gaza, otherwise they will “miss the walls.” Mr. Nasrallah added that the American advice to Israel “is not for the sake of the Lebanese, but for the sake of the Israelis, and that war with Lebanon will be costly and costly and may threaten the entity’s existence.”
Translated text [from English to Arabic, and then here, back into English]:
President Biden sent his top aides to the Middle East to achieve a critical goal: preventing an all-out war between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
Israel has made clear that it considers the regular exchange of fire between its forces and Hezbollah along the border to be untenable, and that it may soon launch a major military operation in Lebanon.
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant said Friday: “We prefer the path of the agreed-upon diplomatic settlement, but we are approaching the point where the hourglass will turn.”
US officials are concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will see expanded fighting in Lebanon as key to his political survival amid internal criticism of his government's failure to prevent the October 7 Hamas attack, which killed an estimated 1,200 people and took about 240 hostages. It will be transferred to Gaza.
In private conversations, the administration warned Israel of a major escalation in Lebanon. If it did, a new classified assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) found that it would be difficult for the IDF to succeed because its military assets and resources would be spread too thin given the conflict between Israel and Gaza, according to two people familiar with these results. A DIA spokesman did not provide any comment.
More than a dozen administration officials and diplomats spoke to The Washington Post for this report, some on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive military situation between Israel and Lebanon.
Hezbollah, a longtime US foe with well-trained fighters and tens of thousands of rockets and missiles, wants to avoid a major escalation, according to US officials, who say the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is seeking to stay away from a broader war. In a speech on Friday, Nasrallah pledged to respond to Israeli aggression, while hinting that he might be open to negotiations on border demarcation with Israel.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is scheduled to arrive Monday in Israel, where he will discuss specific steps to “avoid escalation,” his spokesman Matthew Miller said before boarding a plane to the Middle East. [Oddly, the Biden team does not see pressure on Israel to stop the genocide as an option]
“It is in no one’s interest – not Israel, not the region, not the world – for this conflict to spread beyond Gaza,” Miller said. But this view is not uniformly held within the Israeli government.
Since the Hamas attack in October, Israeli officials have discussed launching a pre-emptive attack on Hezbollah, US officials said. This possibility has faced persistent US opposition because of the possibility of drawing Iran, which supports both groups, and other proxy forces into the conflict – a possibility that could force the United States to respond militarily on behalf of Israel.
Officials fear that a large-scale conflict between Israel and Lebanon could surpass the bloodshed seen in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war due to Hezbollah's much larger arsenal of long-range and precision weapons. “The number of casualties in Lebanon could range between 300,000 and 500,000, which would necessitate a large-scale evacuation of the entire north of Israel,” said Bilal Saab, an expert on Lebanese affairs at the Middle East Institute, a think tank in Washington.
Hezbollah may strike Israel deeper than before, striking sensitive targets such as petrochemical plants and nuclear reactors, and Iran may activate militias throughout the region. “I don’t think it will be limited to these two opponents,” he said.
The threat of a broader conflict continued to grow on Saturday as Hezbollah fired about 40 rockets into Israel in retaliation for the suspected assassination of senior Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri and six others in an airstrike on the outskirts of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, days earlier
In recent weeks, regular shootings between Israel and Hezbollah along the border have become more aggressive, drawing particular criticism from Washington, US officials said.
According to US intelligence reviewed by the newspaper, the Israeli military has struck positions of the Lebanese Armed Forces (Lebanese Army), which is funded and trained by the United States, more than 34 times since October 7, officials familiar with the matter said.
The United States considers the Lebanese Army the main defender of Lebanon's sovereignty and a major counterweight to the influence of Iran-backed Hezbollah.
On December 5, 4 shells from Israeli tank fire killed a Lebanese Armed Forces soldier and wounded three others. On December 8, Israeli artillery fire containing white phosphorous hit Lebanese Army installations, wounding a Lebanese Armed Forces soldier who inhaled the harmful fumes. On November 4, Israeli fire on a Lebanese army position in Sarda created “a major hole in the structure of the Lebanese army,” according to US intelligence. Some details of these attacks were previously reported by CNN.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on the Israeli strikes, but the White House National Security Council confirmed that Washington had informed Israel that attacks on the Lebanese army and Lebanese civilians were “completely unacceptable.”
A National Security Council official said the Biden administration had been "very direct and tough" with the Israelis on the issue, and said the injuries and deaths among the Lebanese Armed Forces were unacceptable.
The official also said that the priority is to maintain the credibility of the Lebanese army, and that the international community must do everything it can to support them, because they will be a vital component in any “day after” scenario in Lebanon, when Hezbollah becomes weak and poses less of a threat to Israel.
The official stressed, however, that Hezbollah poses a "legitimate threat" to Israel, and said the Jewish state has the right to defend itself.
An Israeli official told the newspaper that Israel is not intentionally targeting Lebanese Armed Forces positions and blamed Hezbollah for escalating tensions.
Hezbollah began firing into Israeli territory, without provocation, on October 8, and continued to do so on a daily basis, firing thousands of shells, forcing Israel to respond in self-defense, the official said.
A senior administration official said that when Israeli officials first floated the idea of attacking Hezbollah during the early days of the Gaza conflict, American officials immediately raised objections.
Israeli officials were initially convinced that the Lebanese militant group was behind the Hamas incursion, and received bad intelligence that a Hezbollah attack was imminent in the days after October 7, according to two senior US officials. There were deep fears in Israel that the government would not notice signs of another violent attack.
The senior administration official said Biden was on the phone as many as three times a day, in part to dissuade Israel from attacking Hezbollah — a move that would have caused “all hell to break loose,” the official said. Israelis' deep concerns about the threat influenced Biden's decision to travel to Tel Aviv less than two weeks after the Hamas attack, according to a senior official.
The risk of Israel launching an ambitious attack on Hezbollah has never gone away, White House and State Department officials said, but there has been broader concern about escalation in recent weeks, especially since Israel announced a temporary withdrawal of several thousand troops from Gaza. On January 1 - a decision that could open up resources to launch a military operation in the north.
“They have more freedom to escalate,” a US official said.
Another American official said that the forces that Israel withdrew from Gaza could be deployed in the north after sufficient time to rest and prepare for another wave of fighting. But Israel's air force is also exhausted, having carried out continuous strikes since the war began in October, the official said, explaining the Defense Intelligence Agency's assessment that escalation in Lebanon would scatter Israeli forces.
The official said the pilots are tired, and the planes must be maintained and re-equipped. They will face more dangerous missions in Lebanon than in Gaza, where Hamas has few anti-aircraft defenses to shoot down attacking aircraft.
On Thursday, Biden sent his special envoy, Amos Hochstein, to Israel to work on an agreement to reduce tensions on the Lebanese-Israeli border. The near-term goal is to develop a process to begin negotiating a territorial demarcation agreement that could determine where and how the two sides deploy forces along the border in an attempt to stabilize the situation.
American and French officials are in discussions with the Lebanese government about a proposal that would have the Lebanese government control part of the Lebanese-Israeli border, rather than Hezbollah, to help allay Israeli concerns, according to two people familiar with the talks.
“As a result of Hezbollah’s aggression, tens of thousands of Israelis were forced to leave their homes.” The official added that the State of Israel will not return to the situation that existed before the war, in which Hezbollah poses a direct and immediate military threat to its security along the Israeli-Lebanese border.
The White House declined to provide details of the plan.
“We continue to explore and exhaust all diplomatic options with our Israeli and Lebanese partners,” the National Security Council official said. Returning Israeli and Lebanese citizens to their homes and living in peace and security is of the utmost importance to the United States.
US officials acknowledge that Hezbollah is unlikely to agree to a border deal, while dozens of Palestinians in Gaza are being killed or injured as a result of the Israeli military campaign there.
There are different perceptions within the administration about Netanyahu's interest in reaching a negotiated solution to the conflict with Hezbollah. A senior American official said that the Israeli leader's pledge to bring about "fundamental change" to address the border fighting with Hezbollah is merely a threat aimed at extracting concessions from the Lebanese group. Others said that if the Gaza war ended tomorrow, Netanyahu's political career would end with it, which would motivate him to expand the conflict.
Saab, an expert on Lebanon affairs, said: “Netanyahu’s political logic is to rebound after the historic failure on October 7 and achieve some kind of success to show to the Israeli public.” “I'm not sure that going after Hezbollah is the right way to do it because that campaign is going to be much more challenging than the one in Gaza.”
When asked whether political incentives were driving Netanyahu's military ambitions, a senior Israeli government official said only that "the prime minister will continue to take the necessary steps to secure Israel and its future."
Before heading to Jordan, Blinken said that easing tensions on the border is “something we are working on very actively.”
He added: "It is clear that it is a strongly shared interest" among the countries of the region.
Source: Washington Post - Washington post
Writer: Editorial room
**
Russian missiles kill Ukrainian US-supplied HIMARS
Too bad US military reports almost all come from unreliable and mendacious Ukraine sources.