Israel launches new form of terrorism with its exploding pager attacks in Lebanon

Israel worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. Recent exploding pager attacks in Lebanon killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children.

Israel has launched a new form of terrorism according to former CIA director Leon Panetta, which he says will have far reaching “repercussions” throughout the world.

The terrorist campaign is said to have killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children, who are not engaged in the fighting against Israel.

Describing last week’s wave of remotely detonated pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon, Panetta told CBS News on Sunday:

“This has gone right into the supply chain. When you have terror going into the supply chain, it makes people ask the question, ‘What the hell is next?’ This is a tactic that has repercussions, and we really don’t know what those repercussions are going to be.”

Panetta’s remarks, reported in the Times of Israel on September 23, referred to revelations that Israel had spent 15 years preparing the attacks, infiltrating mobile device supply chains to transform handheld electronics into remotely triggered bombs.

An indication of how far-reaching these repercussions will be was given by Panetta, also the former U.S. Secretary of Defense.

“The forces of war are largely in control right now,” Panetta continued, warning that the “ability to place an explosive in technology that is very prevalent these days” has brought the world into a new “war of terror,” in which anyone with a mobile electronic device may be targeted without warning.

“Mark my word, it is the battlefield of the future,” said Panetta, echoing reports that state “Israel’s pager attacks have changed the world,” leaving “us all vulnerable.”

The New York Times report presented a stark conclusion:

“But now that the line has been crossed, other countries will almost certainly start to consider this sort of tactic as within bounds.”

“It could be deployed against a military during a war or against civilians in the run-up to a war.”

The attacks conducted by Israel have been largely reported to have targeted members of Hezbollah. The examination of the facts tests the claim that the pagers were detonated solely against a “military” in this case. The United Nations has already condemned the tactic as a war crime.

Copycat attacks?

With the initial wave of attacks often presented as a “James Bond” style flash of brilliance, later reports considered the possibility of “copycat” attacks.

Philip Ingram, a former senior British military intelligence officer, told Britain’s inews, “There are real risks of copycat actions. A large organized crime group could do something like this.”

Yet the planting of explosives and ball-bearings in pagers requires a degree of coordination beyond the capability of non-state criminals. Ingram explained, “However, something of the scale and sophistication we have seen this week is really only the purview of a nation state actor.”

So far, only the nation state of Israel has dedicated its resources to the transformation of personal devices into instruments of death.

A war crime?

The attacks have been reported to have killed and injured thousands of “Hezbollah members,” giving the impression of a targeted wave of sophisticated assassinations of enemy soldiers. Yet two children were among the 37 dead, with a UN report showing a diplomat was killed in what it termed an act of “murder” and “a terrifying violation of international law.”

“Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices … inevitably violate humanitarian law,” the report said, by “failing to distinguish” between civilians and combatants.

The Jerusalem Post reported that only “a majority” of the thousands injured and killed “were members of the group,” which is an admission that civilians were indeed targeted.

In addition to the “war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks,” the UN report pointed out that “[h]umanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects,” and that “It is also a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians, including to intimidate or deter them from supporting an adversary.”

What is Hezbollah?

Hezbollah is not merely a military organization. It also runs supermarkets, provides education and healthcare, and has a political wing, with members elected to over a third of Lebanon’s Parliament. It is designated as a terrorist organization in its entirety by the United States, with various European nations reserving that label for its military wing alone.

The New York Post’s claim that “thousands of Hezbollah fighters” were injured in the attacks excludes this important distinction between civilian and military members, legitimizing the “horrifying wounds to the groins and hands” of people severely injured whilst at home or shopping in supermarkets.

The U.K.’s Channel Four News was more measured, reporting only that “Hezbollah fighters were among thousands injured” in the attacks, which also took place in Syria and in Iraq.

NPR’s report similarly offered no evidence that any of those killed and injured were in fact combat soldiers, stating, “Many, but not all, of the pagers and walkie-talkies that unexpectedly blew up over two days across Lebanon and in some neighboring countries were in the possession of Hezbollah fighters, functionaries or allies.”

Doctors in Lebanon reported “apocalyptic” scenes, with thousands of patients arriving at once with injuries to their eyes and hands.

A media success with no military goal?

Early reports questioned the military success of the operation, with the New York Times describing it as “a tactical success with no strategic goal.” In an additional report, the Times confirmed the operation was ordered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, September 17.

The wave of heavy airstrikes on Lebanon which followed the detonation of pagers and walkie-talkies have also been reported as strikes on Hezbollah. With up to 500 killed, including 35 children, Reuters warned “tens of thousands of civilians” had begun to flee Southern Lebanon. The same report repeated Netanyahu’s address to the Lebanese people, in which he stated, “Israel’s war is not with you, it’s with Hezbollah.”

Yet the claim that Israel’s attacks are destroying Hezbollah’s military capability have been strongly challenged.

“This is bunkum,” said Alastair Crooke, who lives in Lebanon. The former British diplomat explained to Judge Andrew Napolitano that most of those targeted in the pager attacks were not military members at all.

Secondly, he says, Hezbollah’s missiles are buried deep underground, rendering the airstrikes practically useless in destroying them.

Crooke’s blunt dismissal of these claims follows questions asked about the military purpose of both stages of Israel’s assault on Lebanon.

Israel has ‘no plan for peace’

Israel’s pager attacks have been recognized as a logistical and media victory by intelligence experts, but reports have also shown they have had no effect on Hezbollah’s war-fighting capability.

Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA officer who served in the Middle East told the Washington Post, “This is the most impressive kinetic operation I can recall in my career.”

“The scope was staggering.”

Yet the Post’s report goes on to cite White House and Israeli insiders expressing doubts over the move – and also concerning Israel’s apparent lack of any clear strategy at all.

“Some officials have questioned how much the United States should support Israel if that conflict spirals into a broader war that drags in the Americans even further,” said the Post, citing one anonymous “inside American adviser.”

“The U.S. will have to decide how much they want to do to help Israel, and I don’t know what the answer to that is,” said the source, who would only speak unidentified due to the “sensitive” nature of openly questioning U.S. support for Israel. The source went on:

“[The U.S. will] likely continue to supply Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself, but there are serious voices in the administration who wonder, ‘Israel did this to themselves – why should we help them?’”

As the Post also notes, “Israel did not inform its most important allies in Washington in advance, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Israel has neither confirmed nor denied it was responsible for the attacks.

Questions over Israeli grand strategy have persisted for months. In July, the Washington Post reported that Israel “has no plan for peace,” with no end in sight to its war in Gaza. In the wake of the pager attacks, Bronwen Maddox of the U.K.’s Chatham House concluded in a report filed from the Lebanon border, “The Hezbollah pager attacks prove that Israel has no strategy for peace.”

‘What’s the point?’

Additional reports also doubted any military rationale behind the attacks. In an article showcasing “Israel’s James Bond-style operation” former IDF officer Dr. Ahron Bregman asked, “What’s the point?”

Suggesting the goal was towards a media – and non-military impact – Bregman continued: “This Israeli operation will be at the heart of future Hollywood films, and for good reason, but let’s dive into the more grim reality.”

Bregman says in the absence of any “Israeli tanks” to follow up the attacks, their purpose may be to provoke a response from Hezbollah which “legitimizes” a major war.

“The Israelis are trying to humiliate Hezbollah – forcing it to react forcefully, which will give Israel the international legitimacy to embark on an all-out war with its sworn enemy.”

Warning of the dimensions of this conflict, Bregman, senior teaching fellow at King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, said, “These are dangerous days. It might be that we are marching into a big, regional, Middle Eastern war involving not only Israel and Hezbollah but also the likes of Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, as well as Shia militias in Syria and Iraq.”

Both waves of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon have been of questionable military value. Both have left the combat power of Hezbollah largely intact. The same cannot be said for the lives of those destroyed in them.

The White House is reportedly frustrated with Israel’s actions, seeing them as attempts to provoke a retaliation from Hezbollah and even Iran which would spark a regional war. According to the Washington Post, “U.S. officials also noted with angst that, for nearly a year, the White House and allies have worked to tamp the flames in Lebanon.”

Israel appears to be desperate to fan these flames. Its often insinuated goal is to draw the United States into a regional crisis the White House says it has been working to avoid.

With no plan for peace, Israel has worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. In the absence of any strategy beyond escalation, Israel appears now to be openly seeking to internationalize its war by any means at its disposal.

Related Topics:#FrankWright #LifeSiteNews IsraelExplodingHezbollahPagers IsraelHezbollah NewFormOfTerrorism?

Up Next

BC Conservative leader regrets getting COVID shots, says mandates were about control

Don't Miss

Are gender interventions helpful? First do no harm!: David Zitner for Inside Policy

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power

Business / 6 hours ago

Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste

Business / 7 hours ago

Trump says he expects ‘great relationship’ with Carney, who ‘hated’ him less than Poilievre

conflict

Why are the globalists so opposed to Trump’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine?

Published on April 26, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

The narrative over Ukraine reveals not only how hard the war economy will fight to rescue its system from peace, but also how the hardest sell these days is hard reality.

The Trump administration’s moves toward peace in Ukraine – and elsewhere – have attracted widespread criticism from within and without the globalist establishment.

As the U.S. government now threatens to “walk away” from Ukraine if its seven-point peace plan is rejected, a new battle line is being drawn between permanent war and propaganda – and the urgent reality demanding radical change from the globalist business as usual.

Trump has proposed an immediate ceasefire, no NATO membership for Ukraine, and for Russia to keep the territories it has taken during the war – with the U.S. to recognize Crimea as Russian. The proposal for peace has been met with outrage, and even accusations of betrayal. Yet the peace deal appears to be a simple recognition of reality. What’s the problem?

Dan Davis’ deep dive into Ukraine

In his deep dive of April 23, Dan Davis helps to explain why reality is so controversial and the mention of peace akin to treason. He joins German journalist and academic Patrik Baab to show how the pro-war faction in the U.S. and Europe have fought their own line in the media for well over a decade.

Davis, whose appointment to a National Intelligence post was recently sabotaged by another war faction – that of the Israel lobby – has learned the personal consequences of contradicting the globalist war narrative. So has Baab – who was fired from his academic post in 2022 for the crime of journalism.

Baab had traveled to Donbass to research a now published book he discusses with Davis. Titled On Both Sides of the Front, it informs his discussion of the “NATO-backed Maidan coup” in 2014 and the media campaign which has sold this war to Westerners as yet another defence of democracy abroad – as in Iraq. According to Foreign Policy, Ukraine is a magical democracy which “still functions without elections.”

Having arrived at the time of the Russian-backed elections in Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Baab was accused on his return to Germany of having “legitimized” the votes and was dismissed and smeared in the German press.

Both Davis and Raab give important context to U.S. threats to “walk away” from Ukraine if a peace deal is not settled, showing the reason why “two different stories” are so often told “about the same events.”

Reality vs. fantasy, or life and death

In Western politics and media, one side is invested in the war and the other is not. This can also be seen as the factions of fantasy versus reality.

EU Chief Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen famously claimed in 2022 that Russia was cannibalizing “refrigerators and washing machines” to harvest microchips for its war machine, with the UK defense minister saying in early 2023 that Russian soldiers had been reduced to fighting with shovels. In the media, Ukraine’s victory was only a matter of time – which was money. Yours.

To keep this money flowing, the Western audience whose taxes provide it must be convinced there is good reason to keep sending it to Zelensky, who cannot pay it back.

U.S./NATO started the war

As Baab explains, the reason why the global faction arranged this war was nothing to do with Ukraine – the objective was to collapse and balkanize Russia. This would give the globalist British state and its pro-war EU partners a new lease of geopolitical life, as well as shoring up their crippled economies with command of Russia’s near limitless natural resources.

A global war industry

Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken ran WestExec – a profitable war business consultancy, one of many which monetized forever war through influence peddling.

Former under-secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who managed the 2014 coup in Ukraine, has her own family business of war. It is called “the Kagan-industrial complex” after her husband arch-neocon Robert Kagan and his brother Frederick – whose ISW urges escalation in the talking points it supplies to pro-war outlets in the mainstream media. This network runs public relations for the wars its members start. Nice work if you can get it.

Russia has won

This is the reality behind the slogans of “Slava Ukraini” and the framing of the war as the defense – and inevitable triumph – of “democracy.” This fantasy narrative is now collapsing. Why?

In reality, Russia has won the war. As Baab points out, “Putin won the war. That means the West has to meet Putin’s proposals.”

This reality is a problem for the Western media which has sold every disastrous war of the last century as a win and a sacrifice in the defense of democracy. It is also a problem for the liberal-global elite, whose political capital is invested in the defeat of Russia.

U.S. will ‘walk away’ if no deal

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio – together with Vice President JD Vance – have said that if Trump’s seven-point plan is not accepted the U.S. will “walk away” from Ukraine – as retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor has consistently said they should.

Neither Rubio nor chief negotiator Steve Witkoff attended the London conference on April 23, at which Zelensky predictably rejected Trump’s seven-point peace deal.

Col. Macgregor told Judge Andrew Napolitano it was clear “Zelensky is not going to agree” to the proposed deal.

Why? It is based on reality. Macgregor agrees that the U.S. should walk away – reminding viewers “this war would never have happened had we not mightily supported this regime we helped into power in 2014.”

Why did the U.S. do that? “To attack Russia,” Macgregor says, “because the whole idea was to build up a Ukrainian battering ram and hurl it at Russia. Crazy.”

A frustrated and uncharacteristically alarmed Macgregor asks, “Why are we even involved?”

He suggests “the best President Trump can do is say ‘It’s over. I never wanted this. It’s not my war. I’m suspending all aid, I’m pulling out.’”

The former Trump adviser adds, “Well, he didn’t do that. What’s next? I’m not sure.”

“Whatever happens, we look ridiculous. Again.”

Macgregor adds that “at least we have had the sense to walk away. What’s important is to normalize relations with Moscow,” explaining that Zelensky’s claims to Crimea and the Russian regions now absorbed into Russia are “nonsense.”

Trump: recognizing reality?

The Trump administration has offered to recognize Crimea as Russian – as has been historically and actually the case. Trump himself has accused Zelensky of sabotaging the peace deal, as the unelected leader of Ukraine refuses this and other concessions made unavoidable by the fact that Russia has won the war.

“The situation for Ukraine is dire – He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country. I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever.”

Trump laid the blame squarely on Zelensky – saying his impossible demands would simply prolong the killing, as well as resulting in total defeat.

“The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the ‘killing field,’ and nobody wants that! We are very close to a deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE.”

In 2014, Crimeans voted “overwhelmingly” to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. The territory was gifted to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Nikitia Khrushchev in 1954, though its population remained predominantly ethnic Russian.

Trump’s aim, as Alastair Crooke has pointed out, is far bigger than merely ending this war. The overall goal here is a reset of the global order – away from the death cult model of forever war, and toward stabilization and trade abroad to power national renewal at home. As Crooke notes, Trump “is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an ‘industrial concern’ infused with Deep State ideology, centered primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).”

Surrender to Russia?

Reports in the globalist media of a total surrender to Russia are overblown:

Trump countered the narrative of “concessions” to Russia with the stark riposte that Russia’s choice not to “take all of Ukraine” was a significant concession in itself.

As Alex Christoforou of The Duran noted, Trump’s position on Crimea presented the EU with a “choice,” which the globalist Financial Times says was “forced” upon the pro-war bloc.

The EU had a choice, support US or Ukraine. EU chose Ukraine, and rejected Trump's plan for US recognition of Crimea.

The EU rejects the US decision to recognize Crimea.
“Crimea is Ukraine,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told French news agency AFP.

Via FT: "For… pic.twitter.com/cdfWGEoULO

— Alex Christoforou (@AXChristoforou) April 25, 2025

Russians propose alliance with U.S.

So what do the Russians think?

A remarkable response from the Russians shows some of their perspective. On April 16, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) published a call for Washington and Moscow to unite against the EU – and to thwart the moves of the British state to escalate and prolong the war.

According to RT, the statement said, “The US and Russia are natural allies against ‘Eurofascism’ and the tyrannical tendencies prevalent in Western European countries.”

From its beginning, the EU has tended to be a totalitarian entity, ruled over by unelected, globalist-minded bureaucrats and elites determined to crush the unique cultures and sovereignty of its member states. Many have warned that that it was created to be the springboard for a New World Order tyranny.

The SVR sounded an optimistic note, suggesting Russian and U.S. officials are working together to secure peace.

“The agency said that ‘foreign expert circles’ are hopeful that Russia and the US will work together to prevent ‘a new global conflict’ and confront ‘possible provocations both from Ukraine and from the “maddened Europeans” traditionally urged on by Great Britain.’”

As Davis and Baab discussed, neither Steve Witkoff nor Marco Rubio attended the recent London conference on Ukraine – which Macgregor said was pointless due to Zelensky’s refusal to accept reality.

British state vs. Trump peace deal

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has joined the EU in “contradicting” Trump, according to the Daily Telegraph. Starmer says the unelected Zelensky must have a say in any deal – and Zelensky is of course saying no.

The Daily Telegraph blasted Trump’s seven-point peace plan as “surrender, capitulation, betrayal, appeasement,” saying “Trump’s deal” to secure peace “would plunge the world into war” by “rewarding aggression” and “overturning [the] rules-based order.”

War is the rule of the ‘rules-based order’

It was the “rules-based order” which expanded NATO in the 1990s, against George Kennan’s 1997 warning of this “fateful error” – which would provoke war with Russia.

Kennan predicted that moving NATO’s borders 300 miles eastward would make conflict with Russia inevitable, describing it as “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

This was no error. The collapse and plunder of Russia and its absorption into the global empire appears to have been the intention all along.

War has been the rule on which the rules-based order is based, as independent journalists have reported for years. This is why it is no surprise to hear the remnants of that order in Europe and in Britain demonize any attempts at peace – as treason.

British state determined to prolong war

The British state is determined to escalate and prolong the war. GrayZone journalist Kit Klarenberg has documented the consistent efforts of the UK Deep State to do so and returned this week with a report detailing how a secret government unit has been directing military operations in Ukraine and in Russia – supporting a strategy of continuing the war even after any ceasefire.

Does Trump have a plan?

Despite Colonel Macgregor’s complaint that he sees “no grand strategy” in the Trump administration, it is clear that the old one is dissolving. As the Trump administration’s peace proposals show, the one which will replace it relies on securing normalized relations – and trade – with Russia, instead of a perpetual march to world war trailered in Western media as inevitable.

The Trump administration has invited howls of outrage for its “surrender” to Russia in pursuing direct negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, as well as over its secret talks from before day one with Iran to avert a major conflict planned by another war faction: the Israel lobby.

The move away from the economic model of the liberal global system is a move away from an economic model of permanent war. This forever war model is waged against your Christian civilization at home in the mass media and the culture it transmits, as much as its business model bombs nations abroad.

Significant interests are being mobilized to prevent this move. Trump needs a win on the domestic front in this perilous moment of the detransition from globalism. The U.S. can no longer afford these foreign commitments – it is facing financial, moral, and diplomatic bankruptcy as the fantasy project of world domination hits real life limits.

The narrative over Ukraine reveals not only how hard the war economy will fight to rescue its system from peace, but also how the hardest sell these days is hard reality.

conflict

Trump tells Zelensky: Accept peace or risk ‘losing the whole country’

Published on April 25, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Donald Trump warned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he risks losing Ukraine entirely if he continues resisting a peace settlement. Trump said Moscow is ready for peace, but Kyiv’s refusal to recognize Crimea as Russian territory could derail the effort.

Key Details:

Trump said Zelensky “can have Peace or… lose the whole Country” and claimed Russia is ready to make a deal.
Zelensky reiterated Ukraine’s refusal to recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea, a key sticking point in current peace talks.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is frustrated and warned peace efforts may end if no deal is reached this week.

Diving Deeper:

President Trump issued a blunt warning to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday, saying the Ukrainian leader must choose between accepting peace or facing the collapse of his nation.

“He can have Peace or… fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” Trump posted on Truth Social. The statement followed Zelensky’s firm declaration that Ukraine “will not legally recognize the [Russian] occupation of Crimea,” a stance at odds with a proposed peace plan under discussion in London between U.S., British, and European officials.

Trump blasted Zelensky’s comment as damaging, declaring, “Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion.” The president added that such rhetoric undermines delicate peace negotiations.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said, “I think Russia is ready,” referring to a peace deal, but questioned whether Ukraine is. Kyiv reportedly signed on to a Trump-proposed ceasefire more than a month ago. Trump hinted that progress has been stymied by Zelensky’s reluctance to compromise.

Despite Russian officials signaling a desire to prolong negotiations—with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissing Trump’s efforts as “futile”—Trump maintained optimism, stating, “I think we have a deal with Russia… we have to get a deal with Zelensky.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump’s patience is wearing thin. “President Zelensky has been trying to litigate this peace negotiation in the press, and that’s unacceptable,” she said, calling for closed-door diplomacy. “The American taxpayer has funded billions… enough is enough.”

Trump, 78, has consistently criticized Obama for allowing Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea to go unanswered. Now, under the Trump administration’s push for peace, a senior official revealed the U.S. is considering recognizing Crimea as Russian territory—a reversal of longstanding American policy based on the 1940 Welles Declaration.

Still, Trump refrained from criticizing Vladimir Putin directly, instead blaming Zelensky for inflammatory statements. “He has nothing to boast about!” Trump said, referencing a heated Feb. 28 Oval Office exchange with Zelensky and Vice President JD Vance.

“I have nothing to do with Russia,” Trump wrote, “but have much to do with wanting to save… five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week.”

Trump warned that time is running out: “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE.”

With London talks underway and pressure mounting, officials hinted that if no agreement is reached this week, the U.S. could walk away from its efforts in Eastern Europe. Asked whether Trump is ready to give up, Leavitt said, “Not by the end of the day today… but the President… needs to see this thing come to an end.”