Israeli planes struck a Hamas military facility in the central Gaza Strip Friday night, hours after a rocket shot from the Palestinian enclave landed in Israel.
The Hamas facility suffered a direct hit from the airstrike, the IDF Spokesman’s Unit said in a statement, adding that the army held Hamas responsible for any rocket attacks on Israeli territory.
Gaza’s health ministry said two people were injured in the strike.
Ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra told AFP that one person was seriously hurt and the other moderately in the strike on a training facility of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, near El Bureij refugee camp in the centre of the strip.
He did not identify the casualties.
The Palestinian Ma’an news earlier reported that four people were hurt in the attack, which targeted the Nuseirat refugee camp.
The previously unheard of group, operating under the moniker “The Grandsons of the Companions of the Prophet,” said it fired the rocket, which landed in open territory north of the Kissufim crossing, in response to the Jewish state’s “attacks against the Al-Aqsa Mosque” in East Jerusalem.
There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage in the attack.
Two more rockets were also launched in the Friday afternoon volley, landing on the Gazan side, according to Hebrew media reports.
The estimated $150 billion “signing bonus” that Iran will get under Barack Obama’s negotiated “deal” with the rogue Islamic nation will fund “waves of terror,” according to a court filing in a case that alleges the arrangement is simply unconstitutional.
WND reported recently when the lawsuit was filed by activist lawyer Larry Klayman, a veteran of multiple courtroom battles with presidents, including Bill Clinton and George Bush.
He claims, “A president cannot lawfully override or amend a treaty simply by issuing an order, even if he calls it an executive order or some other form of international agreement,” in the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, named as defendants Barack Hussein Obama, Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson of Florida and his congressman, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Fla.
He alleges that the federal officials “acted in disregard of their obligations to uphold the U.S. Constitution” in support of a bill through which the Iranian deal is being ratified.
It explains that the Constitution empowers a president to make a treaty only if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it.
“A president is delegated no other power in the Constitution, outside that procedure, to make any other form of international agreement,” he explained.
However, Klayman asserted, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act signed May 22, 2015, violates the Constitution by changing the method for ratifying treaties, who ratifies treaties and the minimum vote required.
The process, pushed by Obama and adopted in Congress, instead requires both houses to agree on a “joint resolution of disapproval” instead of having two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Senate approve it. And Obama repeatedly has argued that it’s a “deal,” not really a “treaty.”
The judge, Kenneth A. Marra, took the unusual step of posing his own questions to Klayman in the case, regarding jurisdiction and standing, and Klayman responded with his explanation that he had standing to file the complaint because the agreement offers a threat to him.
He explains he’s seeking a declaration that Obama’s pact with Iran, actually negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, is unconstitutional.
Naming his representatives in Congress, Klayman writes that they “have modified and perverted the U.S. Constitution without complying with the amendment process. Defendants are the plaintiff’s representatives who owed a fiduciary duty to uphold his rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution, and protect his rights and security.”
He said they simply changed the “process for ratification” has been changed but that it still will “have a binding legal effect as a treaty.”
Under the constitutional amendment process, he said, “it would fail at being ratified.”
“As a result, plaintiff will face waves of terrorism funded directly (openly) and covertly from an estimated $150 billion ‘signing bonus’ that Iran will receive under the … treaty and the ending of sanctions on Iranian commerce, at home in the United States and while traveling in Israel, in Europe or elsewhere internationally.”
He continued, “Secretary of state John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew and other officials openly admit that Iran will be free to use the $150 billion to fund terrorism against Israel and the United States, to topple countries throughout the Middle East, and to expand Iran’s power throughout the Middle East.”
The Supreme Court, he said, has written about such a dispute: “The president cannot make a treaty or appoint an ambassador without the approval of the Senate. The president, furthermore, could not build an American embassy abroad without congressional appropriation of the necessary funds.”
When Foreign Policy magazine recently claimed, “Turkey Goes to War,” in their article of the same title, what they really meant was “the US goes to war.” That is because the lengthy plan they described in their article is not of the Turks’ creation, but a long-standing US plan committed to policy papers since at least as early as 2012.
The article claims:
Both the United States and Turkey agree that the Islamic State should be driven from its territory along the Turkish border, though U.S. officials only speak of an “ISIL-free zone” while Turkish officials describe a vision for a “de facto safe zone” where displaced Syrians could find refuge from both regime and jihadi attacks.
However, these “safe zones” are precisely what US policy think tank the Brookings Institution has conspired to create over the entire course of the Syrian conflict, under different pretexts – first predicated on feigned “humanitarian” concern similar to the ruse used to justify NATO’s war on Libya in 2011, and now using the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) as a pretext.
Clearly, while the justification for Western meddling constantly shifts with the political winds, the underlying plan to divide, destroy, incrementally invade, occupy, and eventually overrun Syria remains.
In reality the latest pretext, ISIS, was created and to this day perpetuated by US, Saudi, Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish support. ISIS is incapable of sourcing the weapons, cash, and fighters within Syria and Iraq alone, and admittedly receives the vast majority of all three from abroad. In Turkey alone, hundreds of trucks a day pass by Turkish border checkpoints destined for ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq. So overt are these supply convoys that a Deutsche Welle’s camera crew spent a day filming them and interviewing locals describing the daily torrent feeding state-sponsored terrorism just across the border in northern Syria.
If Turkey Really Wanted to Stop ISIS…
Were Turkey serious about ending the ISIS menace, its first order of business should be to stop harboring their fighters in their territory. Stricter measures along Turkey’s borders would be implemented to prevent new fighters from streaming into Syria and joining ISIS’ ranks, and the endless torrent of supplies flowing into ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq, apparently through NATO-member Turkey’s territory, would also be interdicted immediately.
One may notice that Turkey is the virtual port-of-call for all fighters from across the world seeking to join ISIS – whether they are Uyghur terrorists the US and Turkey are trafficking from China, or patsies recruited by Western intelligence services across North America and Europe sent to and from Turkey before carrying out spectacular terrorist attacks back home. In fact, it was to Turkey that one of several of the French Charlie Hebo shooting suspects attempted to flee in an attempt to rejoin ISIS fighters in Syria.
For years now, these options were clearly on the table and at any point Turkey could have exercised them. But Turkey has not. That is because eliminating ISIS is not the objective of this most recent attempt to militarily intervene in Syria, rather the objective is to carve out “safe zones” as described by US policymakers in 2012, from which to topple the Syrian government.
Turkey has no intention of “stopping ISIS.” There are no “moderate” fighters Turkey has to back in its alleged, upcoming military operation. It will carve out Syrian territory in a defacto invasion, and push the front closer to Damascus in a desperate bid to once again shake the resolve of both the Syrian people, and the Syrian Arab Army. It also seeks to shatter the resolve of Syria’s allies who have thus far stood with Damascus. By threatening to carve out Syrian territory in a defacto invasion under the pretense of “fighting ISIS,” when in all reality ISIS will simply be provided with NATO aircover to further build its otherwise inexplicable fighting capacity, NATO hopes to force concessions from Syria’s allies to salvage what would be left after the operation concluded.
The US and Turkey’s planned invasion of northern Syria is a power move born of a frustrated, stalled conspiracy to topple the Syrian government in quick succession after the fall of Libya’s in 2011. A well-calculated power move by Syria’s allies is in order to counter it.
No comments:
Post a Comment