Israel vs The Arab States Part 4 (of a 4 Part Series)

The 2003 War

After the end of the 2nd Gulf War, which ended in February 1991, the US imposed UN sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions were having a severe negative impact on the Iraqi population, including a shortage of medicines and food. Under pressure from Saudi Arabia, the Rockefellers relented, and agree to form a mechanism to solve this.  The program terminated following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the assumption of sovereignty by an interim Iraqi government on June 28, 2004, and the lifting of Saddam-era U.N. sanctions. The Oil-for-Food Program (OIP), established by the United Nations in 1995 (under  was established to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to boost its military capabilities. Security Council Resolution 712 of 19 September 1991 confirmed that Iraq could sell up to US$1.6 billion in oil to fund an Oil-For-Food Program. After an initial refusal, Iraq signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in May 1996 for arrangements to be taken to implement that resolution.

The Oil-for-Food Program started in December 1996, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997. Sixty percent of Iraq’s twenty-six million people were solely dependent on rations from the oil-for-food plan. The program used an escrow system. Oil exported from Iraq was paid for by the recipient into an escrow account possessed until 2001 by BNP Paribas bank, rather than to the Iraqi government. The money was then apportioned to pay for war reparations to Kuwait, ongoing coalition and United Nations operations within Iraq. The remainder, the majority of the revenue, was available to the Iraqi government to purchase regulated items.

The UN is a Rockefeller entity. The 2nd key point is that David Rockefeller had assumed that the Secretary General of the UN , Boutros Boutros-Ghali  aka BBG, was going to nominate a Rockefeller bank-Chase Manhattan- was going to be the bank that would handle this Iraq escrow account. To his surprise, the account was given to BNP, a French bank within the Rothschild orbit.

Chase Manhattan is the key oil bank of the Rockefeller family. BNP is the key oil bank within the Rothschild family. In geopolitics, the financial entity that controls a nations money and finances controls teh future destiny of that nation. In this case, the possibility of the “future control” of Iraq could slip from Rockefeller (US) control to the Rothschild (Britain + France). Knowing the determination of the Rockefeller family to control “all the oil, everywhere”, David Rockefeller had to break this potential problem.

But first, he fired BBG for letting this deal go to his chief global rival. Then the Rothschild-controlled colonies in Africa put up a big noise, insisting that a new UN Secretary General be from Africa. David looked around within the UN apparatus, and the name of Kofi Annan came up. Thus, this is how Kofi became the next Secretary General of the UN. Kofi Annan of Ghana is the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations.  The first Secretary-General to be elected from the ranks of United Nations staff, he began his term on 1 January 1997.

 On September 14, Saddam Hussein emerged from a cabinet meeting, and stated that from now on, Iraq’s oil sales would be transacted in Euros, and not “in the currency of the enemy”. He did not it then, but he had just signed his death warrant.

After a decade of preparations, the euro was launched in 1999. For the first three years it was an “invisible currency”, only used for accounting purposes and electronic payments. Coins and banknotes were launched on 1 January 2002, and in 12 countries the biggest cash changeover in history took place. It rapidly took over from the former national currencies and slowly expanded behind the rest of the EU. David would not allow any other currency but the dollar to be used in oil transactions. A plan was thus enacted to destroy the euro and Iraq.

Within a month of Saddam’s announcement, using derivatives, a key Rothschild bank in New York-JPMorgan, went bankrupt. Within a few days, Chase Manhattan bought it. What was the significance of this? When the Federal Reserve System-America’s central bank- was formed in 1913, both the families owned it; the Rothschilds owned about 63 %, while the Rockefeller Group owned 37 %. These shares were held by various financial entities within the family’s networks of power on Wall Street. As such, the Rothschild family had a dominant say on the vector of US financial trajectory. JP Morgan owned about 17% of the Federal Reserve System. With the takeover of a bankrupt JP Morgan in October 2000, the Rockefeller Group owned 54 % (37 + 17) of the Fed, and they began to call the shots as far as Fed policy went. As we know by now that the Rockefeller family motto is “competition is a sin”! Even though this motto was applied initially in the oil business, it also extended to other areas- in business and on Wall Street.

 A plan was hatched to destroy the Euro – a competing currency. It was at this point that the plan was finalized. This was the scheme to reduce interest rates, grant bonds to those who would not qualify anyway, then package this and sell it to European banks. Along with this, the rating agencies gave these bond packages high ratings. Add to this, the derivative aspect, where bets of various sorts were made around this scheme. In October 2008, this whole fraudulent scheme blew up. Over the next few years, when the dust settled, we find that the greatest financial losses accrued to foreign banks- mainly the Euro=zone banks, the majority of them within the Rothschild orbit. To date, EU banks have not recovered from this disaster. And, that’s how the Rockefeller Group brought down the viability and strength of the Euro – a “COMPETING CURRENCY”.

The US attacked and invaded Iraq in March 2003. By June 2003, Iraq oil sales began, this time using the dollar. Because of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein on the Rockefeller’s petro-dollar system, he was executed. Both his sons were killed by US troops in Mosul in the summer of 2003. We have witnessed the fate of those who tried to buck the petro dollar system. The Shah of Iran tried, and he was toppled. Ghaddafi of Libya tried and he was brutally killed. Both Iraq and Libya were destroyed in the ensuing chaos. South Africa took part in the first attempt (in 1975), along with Iran. What is the result? South Africa underwent two threats- one external – the war in Angola, and internal-the Soweto riots in 1976, which would end in a black-majority government in 1994. Every nation that tried it, paid a heavy price.

Now, here comes the best part. After the 2nd Gulf War ended in mid-1991, sanctions and many other restrictions were placed on Iraq. But, Iraq was going to overcome this within a decade, and would become even stronger. This is what the Rothschilds feared, as Iraq posed the greatest threat to Israel. Its people could not be suppressed. A second try had to be done, but this time, the Western forces had to go into Iraq, and destroy it. Further, it was time to cripple Iraq’s potential threat to Israel, by dividing the country into 3 parts. Since Israel did not have the military power to do so, it found a way to drag America in to do its dirty work for them. And they found the answer; get Saddam to stop using the dollar in its oil transactions. And, Saddam Hussein foolishly fell for this trap. And, we all know the result. Iraq invaded, destroyed, Saddam executed, and much effort was put into the scheme to divide Iraq into 3 parts. The ISIS plot nearly worked to bring this about in 2014-17, but Iran stopped it.

We now move to the next war fought against an Arab state- this would be the last war that Israel would fight directly against an Arab state till now. It was a war between Hezbollah and Israel. The target was Syria.

The 2006 War – Israel vs Syria

The Syrian army has been involved in Lebanon since 1976. Mainly playing the role of balancer between contending Lebanese factions, Syria has its own strategic, political and security interests in Lebanon. In 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon to expel the PLO and establish a pro-Israeli regime, the Syrian forces were defeated and forced to withdraw from Beirut and large parts of Lebanese territory. Damascus, however, was able to regain the upper hand. With help from its Lebanese allies, Syria thwarted the May 17, 1983 Israeli-Lebanese agreement and supported the Islamic and Lebanese national resistance against Israeli occupation. In 1985, Israel withdrew its forces from most of southern Lebanon to its self-imposed “security zone” along the Lebanese-Israeli border, an area that has remained occupied and embattled until today. In 1987, Syrian forces reentered West Beirut to end heavy fighting between the   Amal Shia movement and other more or less pro-Syrian forces and to establish Syrian control. In 1988, they reentered the southern suburbs of Beirut to end the fighting between the rival Shi‘i factions Amal and Hezbollah. During and after Israel’s April 1996 Operation Grapes of Wrath, Damascus reestablished its political role in Lebanon and obtained, once more, international acknowledgment of that role.

 After the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the resistance forces in Iraq began its guerilla warfare against US troops. The heartland of the resistance was Western Iraq, namely the Anbar province, which bordered Syria. Through this border came arms, funding and manpower. The US threatened Syria many times, even imposing various laws and sanctions, but to no avail. Russian-supplied arms reached the resistance in Iraq through these channels.

 And, so, a plan was drawn up. Blow up Lebanon in order to shut down this supply route to Iraq. A second objective, which was strategic in nature, was to bring about a New Middle East. Recall that the Pentagon had drawn up plans to attack and invade seven Arab countries in the first decade of the 21st century. These countries are Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya and Sudan. These plans were drawn up at the end of 2000, not long after Saddam’s announcement. And, under instructions from the Rockefeller Group. Syria was the next target after Iraq. Lebanon had to be devastated for Syria to fall. And, this is how it came about.

The Project for a “New Middle East”

Map of the Middle East

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”

Note: The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

The map would make sweeping changes throughout the region such as:

Israel: has an opportunity to expand its borders, once the region is broken up.

Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq All lose territory to create a Free Kurdistan.

Free Kurdistan: New state created for the Kurds.

 Iraq: To be divided into three states (Shi’ite, Sunni, and Kurd).

The Kurdish State: Includes Iraqi Kurdistan, which comprises Kirkuk and part of Mosul, as well as parts of Turkey, Iran, Syria, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

The new Baluch state, or “Free Baluchistan:” Will be founded on part of south-eastern Iran and part of southwestern Afghanistan in the area called Baluchistan, which is inhabited by Baluchs, most of whom are Sunni Muslims.

Under the plan for remapping the borders of the Middle East, some countries will lose land and others will expand by annexing lands at the expense of those which are to shrink, with a scenario that appears something like the following- a number of objectives can be discerned, the most prominent of which are:

The fragmentation and weakening of the Arab region, making it easier for the United States of America to dominate its markets and its petroleum, (70% of world’s proven oil reserves and 45% of its natural gas); and it would consolidate Israeli hegemony over its small and weak neighbors, which would force some of them to appeal to the Hebrew state for protection. The draining away of strength from Islam – or as its supporters would call it, Islamic awakening. In this way, sectarian conflicts would remain between countries in the region, rather than being directed at or fought against the United States on its own land, or against American interest in other countries. Keep in mind this map is nearly 17 years old and does not reflect recent developments such as the Arab spring, the Syria war, the Yemen civil war, rise of Islamic State, or the current genocide in Gaza, or even the expulsion of the US from Afghanistan.

Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of “divide and conquer.” Other examples are Sudan, DRC, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan.

The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region. A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel.

Dear reader. Now you have an idea of the game-plan of the 2 families to break up the Middle East, and take control of the region’s oil and gas. Now America does not need this oil and gas. Rather, the plan is to take control of these oil and gas fields, and then deny them to its economic rivals. The terms and conditions that New York will demand of Europe and Asia will be such, that to give in, means surrendering their economic, political, and financial independence. These countries realize that, thus, one will see an increasing involvement by the military forces of the countries that would most likely be negatively impacted by America’s grip over their energy sources.

At the time of the Iraq War in 2003, there appeared a project called the “Greater Middle East”.  This redrawing of the map of the Middle East is part of a strategy to put US military boots on the ground in control of all the major oil and now the natural gas of the Middle East. The purpose was to control the economies of China and the European Union and to directly be able to blackmail those countries. As Henry Kissinger said back in the 1970s, “If you control the oil, you control entire nations or groups of nations.”

Dick Cheney, before he was a Vice President, in 1999 gave a very interesting speech to the institute of Petroleum in London. He outlined the perspective for the next twenty years of how much oil the world will need, how much decline there will be from old oil fields and how many new ones will have to be discovered. And there he said: “One place in the world with the largest reserves of oil is under control of the Middle East nations – Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. The problem is that those oil reserves are controlled by the governments”. In other words, he said that we, the United States, have to take away the control over that oil from the governments and put it into private companies’ hands like BP, Shell and others. So the idea is to control that oil and, because of the growing importance of natural gas for the EU, to control the gas.

Therefore, this is what the Greater Middle East project is all about. It is a plan for redrawing the map, creating a unified Kurdistan as a geopolitical pivot that will allow Washington to control all the surrounding countries and destabilize Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, which play a very crucial role in the whole project. The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.” This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military road map” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that “what we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East and not going back to the old one.” 

The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s speech on the “New Middle East” had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon –which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London– have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel.


   Rafik Hariri was a Sunni Lebanese businessman and politician.  Rafik Hariri, Lebanese businessman, politician, and philanthropist who, as prime minister of Lebanon was instrumental in rebuilding the country after its protracted civil war. If he was murdered and blame put on Syria, it would force Syria to leave Lebanon, and pull out its military presence in that country. This would make it easier for Israel to attack Lebanon, under the pretext of hitting Hezbollah. A broken Lebanon would be easy to control. This control would enable the 2 families to then move onto destabilizing Syria. That was the plan. Let’s see how this all played out. His assassination in 2005 fermented political tensions between Lebanon and Syria, leading ultimately to the withdrawal of Syrian forces which had occupied the country since the civil war.

The 2006 Lebanon War, also called the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War and known in Lebanon as the July War and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon, northern Israel and the Golan Heights. The conflict started on 12 July 2006, and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect in the morning on 14 August 2006, though it formally ended on 8 September 2006 when Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon. Due to unprecedented Iranian military support to Hezbollah before and during the war, some consider it the first round of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, rather than a continuation of the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Although the war lasted some 34 days, both the US and Israel refused a cease-fire offer by Hezbollah. But, with the IOF experiencing very heavy losses, it was only when the war was in the last week, did Israel and the US pleaded for a cease-fire. After a few days, Hezbollah agreed. The conflict was precipitated by the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid. On 12 July 2006, Hezbollah fighters fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence. The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two Israeli soldiers were abducted and taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon. Five more were killed in Lebanon, in a failed rescue attempt. Hezbollah demanded the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel in exchange for the release of the abducted soldiers. Israel refused and responded with and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon. Israel attacked both Hezbollah military targets and Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut’s Rafik Hariri International Airport. The IDF launched a ground invasion of Southern Lebanon. Israel also imposed an air-and-naval blockade. Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the IDF in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions.

The conflict is believed to have killed between 1,191 and 1,300 Lebanese people, and 165 Israelis. It severely damaged Lebanese civil infrastructure, and displaced approximately one million Lebanese and 300,000–500,000 Israelis.

 On 1 October 2006, most Israeli troops withdrew from Lebanon, the remains of the two captured soldiers, whose fates were unknown, were returned to Israel on 16 July 2008 as part of a prisoner exchange. Hezbollah claimed the war was a “Divine Victory” while Israel considered the war a failure.

Cross-border attacks from southern Lebanon into Israel by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) dated as far back as 1968, and followed the Six-Day War; the area became a significant base for attacks following the arrival of the PLO leadership and its Fatah brigade following their 1971 expulsion from Jordan. Concurrently, Syria began a 29-year military occupation in 1976. During the 1978 South Lebanon conflict, Israel failed to stem the Palestinian attacks in the long run. In the 1982 Lebanon War, Israel invaded the country again and forcibly expelled the PLO. Israel withdrew to a borderland buffer zone in southern Lebanon, held with the aid of proxy militants in the South Lebanon Army (SLA).

The invasion also led to the conception of a new Shi’a militant group, which in 1985, established itself politically under the name Hezbollah, and declared an armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. When the Lebanese Civil War ended and other warring factions agreed to disarm, both Hezbollah and the SLA refused. Ten years later, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon to the UN-designated and internationally recognized Blue Line border in 2000.

The withdrawal also led to the immediate collapse of the SLA, and Hezbollah quickly took control of the area. Later, citing continued Israeli control of the Shebaa farms region and the internment of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah intensified its cross-border attacks, and used the tactic of seizing soldiers from Israel as leverage for a prisoner exchange in 2004. All told, from summer 2000, after the Israeli withdrawal, until summer 2006, Hezbollah conducted approximately 200 attacks on Israel—most of them artillery fire, some raids and some via proxies inside Israel. In these attacks, including the attack that precipitated the Israeli response that developed into the war, 31 Israelis were killed and 104 were wounded.

In August 2006, in an article in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh claimed that the White House gave the green light for the Israeli government to execute an attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Supposedly, communication between the Israeli government and the US government about this came as early as two months in advance of the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others by Hezbollah prior to the conflict in July 2006.

 Israeli PM Olmert stated that “Israel had been preparing for such a war at least four months before the official casus belli: the capture by Hezbollah of two Israeli soldiers from a border post on 12 July 2006.”

At around 9 am local time on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah launched diversionary rocket attacks toward Israeli military positions near the coast and near the border village.

In response to the Hezbollah feint attacks, the IDF conducted a routine check of its positions and patrols, and found that contact with two jeeps was lost. A rescue force was immediately dispatched to the area, and confirmed that two soldiers were missing after 20 minutes. A Merkava Mk III tank, an armored personnel carrier, and a helicopter were immediately dispatched into Lebanon. The tank hit a large land mine, killing its crew of four. Another soldier was killed and two lightly injured by mortar fire as they attempted to recover the bodies. Hezbollah named the attack “Operation Truthful Promise” after leader Hassan Nasrallah’s public pledges over the prior year and a half to seize Israeli soldiers and swap them for four Lebanese held by Israel: Nasrallah claimed that Israel had broken a previous deal to release these prisoners, and since diplomacy had failed, violence was the only remaining option. Nasrallah declared that “no military operation will result in rescuing these prisoners.The only method, as I indicated, is that of indirect negotiations and a swap [of prisoners]”

Dahiya doctrine: This doctrine entered into Israel’s military doctrine, which is genocidal. Because Israel was refusing to conduct a prisoner swap with Hezbollah, they went all out in bombing the area that they suspected where IOF prisoners were located. So, they opted to bomb the whole area, killing 100s of civilians, hoping that these Israeli prisoners would also be killed. This doctrine has been carried out many times since then. We witnessed this in graphic detail in the current Gaza war.

Satellite photographs of the Haret Hreik, a Hezbollah-dominated neighborhood Dahiya district of southern Beirut, Lebanon, before and after 22 July 2006. The neighborhood is home to Hezbollah’s headquarters.

During the first day of the war the Israeli Air Force, artillery and navy conducted more than 100 attacks mainly against Hezbollah bases in south Lebanon, among them the regional headquarters in Yatar. Five bridges across the Litani and Zahrani rivers were also destroyed, reportedly to prevent Hezbollah from transferring the abducted soldiers to the north. Attacks from land, sea and air continued in the following days. There is “little evidence” that the Israeli Air Force even attempted, much less succeeded in, wiping out the medium- and long-range-rocket capability in the first days of the war. He dismissed the whole claim as an “absurdity” and a “tale”.

Hezbollah long remained silent on this episode of the war. On the sixth anniversary of the Lebanon war Hezbollah chairman Hassan Nasrallah claimed that Hezbollah had known that the Israelis were collecting information on the rocket platforms and launchers and managed to move them without being detected. Most of the locations attacked by the Israeli air force were therefore empty.

Areas in Lebanon targeted by Israeli bombing, 12 July to 13 August 2006

During the war the Israeli Air Force flew 11,897 combat missions, which was more than the number of sorties during the 1973 October War (11,223) and almost doubles the number during the 1982 Lebanon War (6,052).

The Israeli artillery fired 170,000 shells, more than twice the number fired in the 1973 October War. A senior officer in the IDF Armored Corps told Haaretz that he would be surprised if it turned out that even five Hezbollah fighters had been killed by the 170,000 shells fired. The Israeli Navy fired 2,500 shells.  In response, Hezbollah sunk an Israeli naval ship- a fact rarely reported in the Western media!

The combined effect of the massive air and artillery bombardment on Hezbollah capacity to fire short-range Katyusha rockets on northern Israel was very meager. According to the findings of the post-war military investigations the IDF shelling succeeded only in destroying about 100 out of 12,000 Katyusha launchers. Northern command had prepared a list before the war on potential Hezbollah targets, identified by the Israeli intelligence, to be struck in case of renewed hostilities. By the fourth day of the war the IDF ran out of targets, as all the 83 targets on the list had already been hit. A high-ranking IDF officer told reporters off the record that the Israeli chief of staff Dan Halutz had ordered the air force to destroy ten 12-story buildings in the Southern suburbs of Beirut for every rocket that fell on Haifa.

Large parts of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure, however, were destroyed, including 640 kilometers (400 miles) of roads, 73 bridges, and 31 other targets such as Beirut’s  International Airport, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 25 fuel stations, 900 commercial structures, up to 350 schools and two hospitals, and 15,000 homes. Some 130,000 more homes were damaged.

Hezbollah rocket attacks

During the war, the Hezbollah rocket force fired between 4,000 and 10, 000 rockets at a rate of more than 100 per day, unprecedented since the Iran–Iraq War. About 95% of these were 122 mm Katyusha artillery rockets, which carried warheads up to 30 kg and had a range of up to 30 km. An estimated 23% of these rockets hit cities and built-up areas across northern Israel, while the remainder hit open areas.

Cities hit were as well as dozens of towns, kibbutzim, moshavim, and Druze and Israeli-Arab villages. The northern West Bank was also hit.  Some 250,000 civilians were evacuating the north and relocating to other areas of the country.

Hezbollah rocket attacks also targeted and succeeded in hitting military targets in Israel. The Israeli military censorship was, however, very strict and explicitly forbade Israel-based media from reporting such incidents. After the initial Israeli response, Hezbollah declared an all-out military alert. Hezbollah was estimated to have 13,000 missiles at the beginning of the conflict.

Ground war

Hezbollah engaged in guerrilla warfare with IDF ground forces, fighting from well-fortified positions, often in urban areas, and attacking with small, well-armed units. Hezbollah fighters were highly trained, and were equipped with flak jackets, night-vision goggles, communications equipment, and sometimes with Israeli uniforms and equipment. An Israeli soldier who participated in the war said that Hezbollah fighters were “nothing like Hamas or the Palestinians. They are trained and highly qualified. All of us were kind of surprised.

During engagements with the IDF, Hezbollah concentrated on inflicting losses on the IDF, believing an unwillingness to absorb steady losses to be Israel’s strategic weakness. Hezbollah countered IDF armor through the use of sophisticated Iranian-made anti-tank guided missiles . According to Merkava tank program administration, 52 Merkava main battle tanks were partially and fully destroyed. Israel had suffered about 500 dead soldiers, while Hezbollah suffered less than a 100 killed.


We have been through the five major wars that Israel fought against its next door Arab states. Just to clarify, we do a mini time-line.

1956 Suez War – Israel vs Egypt: The US never gave a go-ahead for Israel. Result was a loss for Israel

1967 June War – Israel vs Syria, Egypt & Jordan: The US gave Israel the green light for this: to cut Nasser down to size.

1973 October War – Israel vs Egypt and Syria: This was a US war, a Rockefeller war, and whose conductor was Henry Kissinger. The aim of this was to usher in the petro-dollar, and to take Egypt out any future conflict with Israel.

1990/1 2nd Gulf War – US + Israel vs Iraq: The aim of this war for Israel to cripple Iraq’s capacity to pose any future threat to Israel’s expansion, as it had to cater for tens of thousands of Russian Jews immigrating to Israel.

2003 3rd Gulf War – The US vs Iraq: This war was waged in order to topple Saddam Hussein, invade and occupy Iraq and bring Iraq back into the dollar orbit.

Why this is important?

It relates to the current war in Gaza. We have read in the previous titles that this is a “GAS HEIST” and a “CONSOLIDATION PLAN” that would benefit the Rockefeller Group. As for the Rothschilds, any chance to eliminate Palestinians is welcomed anytime. But, we see that the plans of both families are not working. Worse, the world has seen the true face of tyranny. Our next article deals with this title – Israel vs Palestine.

Leave a Reply

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

Posts by Month