47 thoughts on “Israel Attacked Hezbollah Targets in Syria, Censor Prohibited Israeli Reporting – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. ” Israel and Russia have divided up Syria in much the same way that European colonial powers divided up China in an earlier era”

    Oh please. Russia’s involvement is strategic and tangible. America has a ten times greater footprint in Syria than Israel. Israel is barely involved and only extends to keeping her border safe and her Iranian and Hezbollah enemies on the back foot.
    Has there been any proof, whatsoever, in the past four or five months that Israel has supplied any fighting faction with anything? NO.

    1. @ Hopper: Your are, as usual full of it. My reporting and many other journalists have shown that Israel funds, supplies, liases with, and fights on behalf of al-Nusra Islamist fighters. It also provides shelter to families of these fighters in a camp on the border. Just as Israel carved out a sphere of influence in southern Lebanon, it plans to do something like it in Syria. It has Druze and al-Qaeda affiliated proxies there already.

      1. The scant evidence you posted on your blog is dated. I ask if there’s been any proof in the past four or five months of Israel supplying proxies.
        Also, how can you compare Israel’s involvement with that of Russia, the United States, Iran, Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia.

        This is just another of your ‘shaming’ exercises, and an insubstantial exercise, at that.

        1. A RELEVANT COMMENTARY: “Medical Care for Terrorists Will Get You Bombed by the US… Unless You’re Israel” | by Dan Sanchez | October 10, 2015

          [EXCERPT] . . . For a long period, Israeli military medics took in numerous insurgents from Jabhat al-Nusra (the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda) wounded from fighting to overthrow the Syrian government, patched them up, and sent them back across the border to resume fighting. The mainstream media has studiously ignored this story, but it has been amply documented and confirmed .

          Israel tried to justify this by characterizing it as a purely humanitarian policy, much akin to the Doctors Without Borders policy of treating everyone in need, no questions asked.

          However, journalist Asa Winstanley has exposed this as pure propaganda:

          “If that were really the case, Israel would be treating combatants from all sides in the Syrian war and furthermore it would arrest suspected al-Qaeda militants. But in reality, all reports confirm that the Israelis are treating only the ‘rebel’ side, including the al-Qaeda militants that lead the armed opposition in that area of Syria (as indeed they do in much of the country). The key difference that disproves the propaganda line, and proves an active Israel-al-Qaeda alliance is that, after treatment, instead of arresting them, the al-Qaeda fighters are sent back to fight in Syria. There is no chance at all that, in the event that Israel captures injured Hamas, Hizballah or Iranian combatants alive, it would send them back to Gaza or Syria to ‘go on their way,’ as the unnamed Israeli official put it.”

          As egregious as it is, this policy should have been no surprise. Israeli officials have made it crystal clear that they prefer Al Qaeda and ISIS to Syria’s secular nationalist government under Bashar al-Assad. . .

          ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/09/medical-care-for-terrorists-will-get-you-bombed-by-the-us-unless-youre-israel/

          1. ” But in reality, all reports confirm that the Israelis are treating only the ‘rebel’ side, including the al-Qaeda militants that lead the armed opposition in that area of Syria (as indeed they do in much of the country).”

            Asa is wrong.
            Richard posted Vice News videos earlier, and the Israeli Golani resident that the news team interviewed, said that two Syrian pilots were treated and returned to their government after their jet was shot down and they parachuted into Israel.

            Go back and check it you like.

            Asa conveniently omits mentioning that Israel is treating Syrian civilians, including women and children.

          2. @ Hopper: Don’t ever bet against or say Asa Winstanley is wrong about anything. You’ll invariably be proven wrong. I never reported that Israel treated two Syrian government pilots nor do I believe such a thing ever happened. Israel, in fact, has killed a Syrian pilot who strayed for a milisecond into Golani airspace (legally not Israeli, except in Israel’s eyes). For this crime, he was shot down & died. He was shot down well within Syrian territory btw. So much for Israel’s care of Syrian pilots.

            Israel is treating Syrian fighters almost exclusively. If there are any civilians treated they are either related to fighters or have some arrangement that persuades Israel it’s in its interest to treat them. Israel never does anything for purely altrustic motives and especially not in the case of Syria.

        2. @There is absolurely no evidence Israel has changed its policies toward Syria. Perhaps Isrsel has become more adept at hiding its activities. But not changed them.

          Israel’s ongoing air attacks against Syrian targets & support for al Qaeda affiliates are certainly on a par with other interventions there. Though that disturbs the hasbara narrative saying Israel is “neutral” in the fight.

          1. Russia: Troops on the ground and military aid.
            Iran: Troops on the ground w/combat deaths and military aid.
            Hezbollah: Troops on the ground and 1,000+ combat deaths.
            Saudi Arabia: Massive funding of rebel groups.
            United States: Funding of rebel groups and hundreds of millions of dollars in air sorties against ISIS.

            Israel: Treats wounded neutrally and may have supplied non-lethal materials to rebel groups, or Syrian Druzim, operating on it’s immediate border.

            Yup. Right on par.
            Yup. Israel is ready to sit down at the table and carve up Syria just like an imperialist power.

          2. @ Hopper: Liar. Israel isn’t treating the wounded “neutrally.” It’s only treating the same al-Nusra fighters it funds and supplies. It has launched massive air attacks on Syria 8 times in the past year or so destroying military targets and facilities. It has assassinated at least two IRG generals and the son of Imad Mugniyeh in Syria. It may also have assassinated a Russian general in Syria several years ago. It has also assassinated at least two Syrian generals. It also has sent its own commando units into Syria to liaise & train Syrian fighters. Why did you leave those inconvenient facts out of your list??

          3. ” @ Hopper: Liar. Israel isn’t treating the wounded “neutrally.”

            The Vice News video you linked said that Israel treated Syrian government pilots and FSA.
            Now where is the proof the Israel has ‘funded’, al Nusra?

            “It has launched massive air attacks on Syria 8 times ”
            Correct. Air attacks on Hezbollah positions too close to Israel’s Syrian border (2nd front?), and retaliatory attacks on Syrian government positions.

            Where’s your proof that Israel is training Syrian rebels?

            Again. Where’s the proof that Israel has provided Syrian rebels anything beyond humanitarian aid, in the last four to five months?

          1. @ Hopper: Virtually every senior cabinet minister said clearly & publicly that Jews should arm themselves and kill Palestinians. THere were slight variations in what they said in terms of when & under what conditions they should do so. If Yaalon didn’t advocate killing Palestinians, then Bennett or some other monster did. Not to mention that simply telling Israelis to arm themselves and kill Palestinians exponentially increases the prospect of killing/wounding civilians, as has happened on numerous occasions.

            I read the site you cited. The author of the article simply got it wrong.

            First, I wrote an entire post on precisely the Yaalon speech Winstanley wrote about. He did indeed promise to kill Lebanese civilians on a wide scale (yes he promised to kill them if they’re near military targets, but he promised to kill them on a much broader scale as well). Not only that, he suggested that Israel wasn’t quite ready to use nuclear weapons against its enemies, but implied that it might be in the near future. When a defense minister intimates that he is prepared to use nuclear weapons do you think he’s prepared to kill civilians on a wide scale or not?

            Yaalon is an Israeli version of Dr. Stangelove. ANyone seeking to defend or mitigate his poisonous words is fighting for a lost cause.

    2. Hopper: “America has a ten times greater footprint in Syria than Israel.”

      Demonstrably untrue.

      According to Obama the “USA footprint in Syria” will amount to exactly 50 Green Berets.

      The total “Israeli footprint in Syria” currently stands at over 20,000 Israeli carpet-baggers and army camp followers, all protected by a very large proportion of the soldiers of IDF Northern Command.

      Indeed, the “IDF footprint in Syria” would greatly exceed to total number of Russian troops on the ground.

      Hopper: “Israel is barely involved and only extends to keeping her border safe and her Iranian and Hezbollah enemies on the back foot.”

      Ahem. Did you say “border”?

      Israel refuses to accept that it actually has a “border” there, Hopper.

      Something to do with all those carpet-baggers and camp-followers, their rapacious greed for that land, allied with Israel’s delusional belief that if it can just sit its Big Fat Arse on the Golan Heights for long enough then – and it is never explained how – the Syrians will just sorta’, you know, forget that this territory actually belongs to Syria…..

      1. Israel annexed the Golan Heights, same as the United States annexed Texas.

        Syria is a ‘failed State’ whose borders, not to mention people, are moving.
        Sorry, Yeah Right. You can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

        Deal with it.

        1. @Hopper: Not so fast, my man. When the US annexed the southwest from Mexico, there was no such thing as international law. The US had to face no one who might oppose its will. Today, international law would force the US to pay a very heavy price if it tried such an approach. And it wouldn’t. Because it would not want to face the opprobrium.

          Further, Israel is not the United States no matter how much you might wish it to be so. Israel needs the support of outside powers to exist. The US does not. That means that Israel cannot, in the long term, get away w conquering territories to which is not entitled under international law. Israel may not have to renounce the Occupied Territories or the Golan today or tomorrow or a year from now. But eventually it will be forced to do so.

          1. RS: ” When the US annexed the southwest from Mexico, there was no such thing as international law”

            I don’t think you have your American History correct, Richard.

            If I remember this correctly the TEXANS fought for and won their own independence from Mexico, becoming a fully-fledged independent state.

            That’s a perfectly legitimate method of state succession i.e. a successful rebellion against the current sovereign, leading to a treaty where that (ex) sovereign agrees to your independence.

            The USA then came along and made an offer to the Texans to join the Union, and the Texans agreed.

            Again, that’s perfectly legitimate: a sovereign state is perfectly at liberty to agree to merge with another state. It is one of the perks of “sovereignty”.

            But the key is always “an agreement”.

            In the case of the Texas Republic that agreement is the Treaties of Velasco.

            In the case of Texas joining the Union the agreement was a formal offer from the Congress which was approved by a referendum of Texans (plus, of course, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo wherein the Mexicans agreed that Texas Wasn’t Theirs At The Time Of Incorporation Into The Union)

            But in all and every step the USA can point to a piece of paper that contains the signatures of all the principle parties.

            Israel can show nothing of the sort, except a stupid bill in the Knesset that attempts to play the crudest and most transparent sleight-of-hand.

            Just goes to show what a Zionist considers to be “negotiations” i.e. a “negotiation” is when all the Zionists go into a huddle and decide amongst themselves what bald-faced lie they are going to present to The Rest Of The World.

          2. @Yeah, Right

            ‘TEXANS fought for and won their own independence from Mexico, becoming a fully-fledged independent state.’

            By Texans, you mean the American colonists who’d just migrated to the Mexican State of Tejas? American colonists who were chattel slave owners and killers of Native Americans and would be war criminals.
            Those Texans?

          3. Yep. Those Texans. The ones who managed to gain the signature of the President Of Mexico onto a treaty.

            Now, care to show me the equivalent document in Israel’s possession?

          4. @Yeah Right

            “Yep. Those Texans. The ones who managed to gain the signature of the President Of Mexico onto a treaty.

            False. There was never a treaty signed by the President of Mexico.

            There was a Treaty of Valasco, signed by Mexican general Santa Ana, while he was being held prisoner by the Texans, but that treaty was never recognized by the Government of Mexico.

          5. Hopper: “There was a Treaty of Valasco, signed by Mexican general Santa Ana, while he was being held prisoner by the Texans, but that treaty was never recognized by the Government of Mexico.”

            Indeed true, and that led to friction between the USA – who did recognize that treaty and therefore conducted its foreign policy accordingly – and Mexico (who refused to ratify that treaty, and therefore insisted that this was an internal matter).

            The matter was settled – as is usual in that age – by war, resulting in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

            Again, I have to stress that point: annexation can only legally take place via an agreement, and in the case of Texas – while messy because of the refusal of one party to ratify an earlier agreement – the matter was, indeed, successfully concluded on the basis of an international treaty that U.N.A.M.B.I.G.U.O.U.S.L.Y. determined who had sovereignty over that territory i.e. everyone, including the Texans and the Mexicans, agreed that the United States of America was the sovereign power.

            Compare and contrast.

            Q: Who claims sovereignty over the Golan Heights?
            A: Syria does.

            Q: Anyone else?
            A: Nope.

            Q: Not even Israel?
            A: Nope. It merely claims the “right” to apply its own laws there.

            Q: Where did that “right” come from?
            A: By an act of domestic legislation in the Knesset.

            Q: But how can a domestic law be an international treaty?
            A: Bingo. No, it can’t be so, no, it isn’t.

        2. Hopper: “Israel annexed the Golan Heights,”

          No, actually, it didn’t.

          You might want to actually read the Golan Heights Law, because nowhere in it does it mention the word “annexation”, nor does it claim anywhere that henceforth the Golah Heights will be “Israeli territory”.

          There is a very fundamental difference between claiming:
          a) It’s Now Mine! Mine! All Mine! (that’s “annexation”)
          b) From now on I’ll treat it *as* *if* it were mine, even though nowhere am I claiming that it *is* mine (that’s “The Golan Heights Law”)

          They are two very different claims, and to this day even the hardest of hardliners in the Knesset understand that they are doing nothing more – nor less – than playing a kindergarden game of “Let’s Pretend” with themselves.

          This is easily demonstrated by referring to the 2014 Basic Law: Referendum.

          Its very first line begins with: “Should the Government decide to ratify an agreement, or sign an agreement, according to which the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel shall no longer apply to territory in which they currently apply,”

          Note the very careful wording: it isn’t referring to “Israeli territory” (which would require “annexation”), but instead it is referring to territory where “the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel” currently apply (i.e. to those territories where Israel plays “Let’s Pretend” with itself).

          Sorry, but that’s the honest truth.

          Hopper: “same as the United States annexed Texas.”

          No, not at all the same.

          The USA doesn’t simply claim that it “applies the laws, jurisdiction and administration” of the USA to the state of Texas.

          No, the USA claims much, much more than that.

          As in: the USA insists that Texas ***is*** one of the States Of The Union and, therefore, “Texas” is, indeed, “US territory”.

          That’s a very big difference, and it is the difference between “sovereignty” (which the USA claims w.r.t. Texas) versus mere “jurisdiction” (which is all that Israel claim w.r.t. the Golan Heights).

          Honestly, Hopper, do you know **anything**?

          1. Yeah, because newspaper reports NEVER get it wrong, do they?

            Here’s a tip: the text of the Golan Heights Law is online, and available for all to read.
            Here’s another: the 2014 Basic Law: Referendum is also online, anyone can read it.

            So go and actually read the *original* text, and note the wording, and then think for yourself.

            It’d make a change, because you are very obviously a person who lets Other People Do Your Thinking For You.

  2. There is no supposedly moderate Free Syrian Army. It is merely a conduit for feeding CIA/Saudi weapons to ISIS/Daesh/whatever. This is confirmed by US FOI releases and US military statements. The US is continuning to arm ISIS. It dropped 50 tones of weapons in the ISIS-controlled east of Syria a while ago. ISIS is a proxy forcew for US regime change.

  3. Another comparison is the Thirty Years War. Same blend of sectarianism, great power interests, and military entreprenurialism. Hope it won’t last thirty years this time.

  4. The source of this news seems to be the London based Observatory of Human Rights.

    That’s a one man operation ,spewing nonsense for 3 years.

    So that leaves your source as the only one left.

    For your information,Hezbollah doesn’t need to move weapons in “convoys”.

    They control big parts of the Syrian-Lebanon border ,and that includes large amounts of tunnels.

    There are also strong indications Russia started bombing targets in the south of Syria,and around Qualamoun since a few days.

    And any claims by Turkey are notoriously untrustworthy.

    Don’t agree with you on this one.

  5. OT.


    “Govt approves law cancelling parents’ rights”

    Read the article,read the comments.

    This is the ultra Zionist crowd,and even they are in shock.

    Are they losing their mind overthere,and what is the population supposed to do?

      1. From the article:
        “It would hand over vast power to social workers, who will be able to initiate proceedings against parents who, in their opinion, fail to respect a list of ten “children’s rights” enumerated in the bill.
        These rights include the right “to physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development and to develop their talents and personal abilities” as well as “the right to be educated to a life of responsibility in society and respect for the basic rights of all people regardless of race, sex, religion, nationality or origin.”
        So the State can take away children whom they consider are educated to believe in all kind of supremacism. It seems like a joke, doesn’t it ?

        1. @ Deir Yassin: A very sick joke. The State gets to determine what is proper parenting & can summarily abrogate parental rights when they conflict with the views of the State in the person of the child welfare authorities. Guess which society this starts to remind me of??

      2. Just like the Mufti gaffe,it does open up discussion on certain issues that will ,and should,come back to bite 1897 Zionists.
        In the comments under the article there’s ultra-Zionists mentioning the Yemeni babies,and one even reminding that babies that went to the US perished in nuclear experiments for the US Army.
        There’s so much censored history around 1897 Zionism over the last century,and many Jews have written about it.
        It might open the door to revisiting these many revolting episodes of 1897 Zionist history ,so the world,and especially Israeli’s ,can see what 1897 Zionism is ,and that it should disappear.
        More and more sites,where discussion on subjects like who’s really behind 1897 Zionism,the role of 1897 Zionism in WW2,Eugenics in Israel etc,,was forbidden are opening their commentsections for frank discussion,
        And it’s these subjects that have Hasbara Central more in a jam than Israeli’s genociding Palestinians.
        I think that the best way to destroy 1897 Zionism is to be honest and frank on it’s real history,and show it to Jews worldwide..
        Zionist Jews themselves have to be woken up,they have to see what they’re part of,and where it’s going.
        Just like this new law on parents’ rights seems to shock ultra-Zionists and have them openly discussing leaving Israel for the sake of their children.

  6. If this report is true then Russia’s behaviour is inexplicable. Which makes me think that it isn’t true.

    The Russians are determined not to commit their own ground troops into battle, they make no bones about that. Which means that they need “local” troops to fight for them on the ground, and the most disciplined and effective of those is Hezbollah.

    Russia therefore needs Hezbollah in its camp far, far more than it needs to pander to the paranoid aggressiveness of Netanyahu and his government.

    Surely the risk for the Russians in coming to an agreement that allows Israel to conduct such strikes is that Hezbollah will turn around and shout “Hey! What gives? Do you want us to concentrate on the head-loppers, or don’t you?”

    The very first thing that Hezbollah would have demanded from Russia is a commitment from Putin that their supply line won’t be cut i.e. a guarantee from Russia that it won’t allow Netanyahu to take advantage of their attention being directed elsewhere in order to slip in a few cheap shots at their expense.

    If Russia can’t/won’t give those guarantees then Hezbollah would be well advised to pick up its bat and ball and head home.

    Putin must know that, so it would be inexplicable for him to give a nod and a wink to Israel – if for no other reason than that he can’t trust Netanyahu as far as he could throw that roly-poly excuse for a human being.

    1. @Yeah Right: You’re arhuing based on Syria being a unitary entity with a coordinated strategy to maintain the cohesiveness of the country. That is not the case. Hezbollah does not operate in areas of the country where Russia does. It operates in along the Israeli Lebanon border. Russia focuses on areas where Turkish affiliated groups are situated.

      Hezbolllah is closely affiluated with Irsn.in Syria. Bit i have seen little evidence that Hezbollah has close relations with Russia militarily or otherwise. Don’t forget thay Russia has very little use for Islamists given its issues in Checnya & the Caucuses.

      1. I take those points, Richard.

        But Hezbollah is indisputably involved in the joint command room that is operating out of Latakia, and Hezbollah troops are definitely involved in the current offensive around Aleppo.

        It simply is not credible to suggest that Hezbollah is operating inside Syria independently of Russian overall command.

        Putin isn’t Obama, he has no interest in attempting to corral a herd of cats. He has ONE unified command, and all the groups who are fighting on Assad’s side are represented in that joint command room.

        And I don’t understand your last paragraph: Hezbollah may be sectarian, sure, it is, but it most definitely is a nationalist movement that has no pan-Islamic ambitions i.e. it is in Syria because – in its view, which to them is the only opinion that matters – the NATIONAL interests of Lebanon would be put in very grave peril if Assad (a secularist, note) is overthrown by those who really are “Islamists”.

        Look, I don’t doubt that your source is genuine when he “confirms” this story. But he may well be simply repeating scuttlebutt that he has heard and which he believes to be true, which is not at all the same thing as it being true.

        But, honestly, it doesn’t ring true, because for it to be true would require Putin to be a backstabbing sack o’ s**t.

        No, that’s Netanyahu. Putin sounds for all the world like someone who says what he means and means what he says.

  7. I hope you didn’t spam my OT comment.

    You should really read the comments under the article on the new proposed law.

    it’s too weird.

    I read this site often to get a feel of what’s going on in settler fantasy land,and they’re going crazy over this one.

    What the heck is going on there,have they lost their mind?

    Do they want civil war or something?

  8. “Read the comment rules. Do NOT cite rightist propaganda or media sources here”

    Opinio Juris is rightist propaganda!!


    1. @Hopper: The post title was “When the Left shoots itself in the foot.” Hence it is an attack on the left, which is why you like it.

      After a review, I should correct myself about this site. I do know Kevin Heller’s work, who is the author of that post. While I respect some of his views, he got Asa Winstanley’s post completely wrong and I will tell him so.

      1. As Heller points out, not only does Asa Winstanley get the Yaalon interview wrong, Asa doesn’t understand international humanitarian law (IHL), which is even worse.

        1. @Hopper: given a choice betwern accepting Asa Winstanley or Kevin Keller as authorities on international war crimes, I pick Winstanley hands down.

          Nor do I accept any claims Heller makes about international laws of war.

          I do think it’s curious that neither you nor Heller related to Yaalon’s talk about the use of Israeli nuclear weapons. Do you think when Israel uses such weapons it will not kill civilians?

          1. “Hopper: given a choice betwern accepting Asa Winstanley or Kevin Keller as authorities on international war crimes, I pick Winstanley”

            Heller was a Jurist with the International Court of Justice. He was the appointed counsel for the Serbian war criminal, Radovan Karadzich.

            Asa Winstanley is a journalist.

            And to be clear, Heller is no fan of Israel. He is a full-throated supporter of the BDS movement.

          2. @Hopper: He)er8ght hell I might be a good person for Yaalon to consult as he may need legal representation at The Hague in the near future.

            The issue of killing civilians in Lebanon as an international war crime is far different than defending Radavan Karadicz for Serbian war crimes.

            As far as i know the Serbian didn’t threaten his enemies with nuclear weapons. Nor did Heller, if he served the role you claim succeed in keeping his client out of prison. Again, Heller is simply wrong about Winstanley & wrong about Yaalon.

            You are now done in this thread. Move on.

  9. Re Israel’s involvement with ISIS and other ‘rebel’ groups, have you come across the case of Colonel Yussi Elon Shahak who was allegedly captured with ISIS units in Iraq?

    I came across this via FARS news, but have not seen it reported anywhere else in the MSM. It would. if confirmed, be an important confirmation.

    Does anyone have any recent coverage?

    1. Most info on this alleged capture you can find on Veterans Today,in articles by a reporter named Nahed Al-Husaini.

      For what it’s worth….

        1. Absolutly right.

          Still,these sites obviously have an agenda of disinfo,so you can have an idea of what they want you to believe.

          If they say “don’t look here.look there”,you know where to look.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link