Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”

October 15, 2011 “Global Research ” Under the Obama Administration the United States has  expanded the “long war” into Africa. Barack Hussein Obama, the so-called “Son of
Africa” has actually become one of Africa’s worst enemies. Aside from his continued support of dictators in Africa, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) was unhinged under his watch. The division of Sudan was publicly endorsed by the White House before the referendum, Somalia has been further destabilized,  Libya has been viciously attacked by NATO, and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is going into full swing.

The war in Libya is just  the start of a new cycle of external military adventurism inside Africa. The U.S. now wants more military bases inside Africa. France has also announced that it has the right to militarily intervene anywhere in Africa where there are French citizens and its interests are at risk. NATO is also fortifying its positions in the Red Sea and off the coast of Somalia.

As disarray and  turmoil are once again uprooting Africa with external intervention, Israel sits silently in the background. Tel Aviv has actually been deeply involved in the
new cycle of turmoil, which is tied to its Yinon Plan to reconfigure its strategic surrounding. This reconfiguration process is based on a well established technique of creating sectarian divisions which eventually will effectively neutralize target states or result in their dissolution.

Many of the problems afflicting the contemporary areas of Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Latin America are actually the result of the deliberate triggering of regional tensions by external powers. Sectarian division, ethno-linguistic tension, religious differences, and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States, Britain, and France in various parts of the globe. Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia are merely a few recent examples of this strategy of “divide and conquer” being used to bring nations to their knees.

The Upheavals of Central-Eastern Europe and the Project for a “New Middle East”

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up to the First World War. In the wake of the First World War, the borders of the multi-ethnic states in the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn and reconfigured by external powers, in alliance with local opposition forces. Since the First World War until the post-Cold War period the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe have continued to experience a period of upheaval, violence and conflict that has continuously divided the region.

For years, there have been advocates calling for a “New Middle East” with redrawn boundaries in this region of the world where Europe, Southwest Asia, and North Africa meet. These advocates mostly sit in the capitals of Washington, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. They envisage a region shaped around homogenous ethno-religious states. The
formation of these states would signify the destruction of the larger existing countries of the region. The transition would be towards the formation of smaller Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like states, which could easily be managed and manipulated by the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and their allies. 

 The Manipulation of the First “Arab Spring” during World War I

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret
Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.

In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be
analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being
manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

The Yinon Plan

The
Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution
in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.




Note: The following map was drawn by Holly Lindem for an article by Jeffery Goldberg. It was published in The Atlantic in January/February 2008.
Map Copyright: The Atlantic, 2008.


Note:
The following 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 Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the
South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to
leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means to balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi
and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim
Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their
displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the
U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It is now being reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be the resettling of the
Christian communities outside of the region so as to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations. This falls into accordance with the Yinon Plan.

Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets:

(1) ethno-linguistics;
(2) skin-colour;
(3) religion.

It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an
attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a
broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Israel and the African Continent

The Israelis have been quietly involved on the African continent for years. In Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, the Israelis helped build a separation security wall like the one in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. In Sudan, Tel Aviv has armed separatist movements and insurgents. In South Africa, the Israelis supported the Apartheid regime and its occupation of Namibia. In 2009, the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlined that Africa would be the renewed focus of Tel Aviv.

Israel’s two main objectives in Africa are to impose the Yinon Plan, in league with its own interests, and to assist Washington in becoming the hegemon of Africa. In this
regard, the Israelis also pushed for the creation of AFRICOM. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), an Israeli think-tank, is one example.

Washington has outsourced intelligence work in Africa to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is effectively involved as one of the parties in a broader war not just “inside” Africa, but “over” Africa. In this war, Tel Aviv is working alongside Washington and the E.U. against China and its allies, which includes Iran.

Tehran is working alongside Beijing in a similar manner as Tel Aviv is with Washington. Iran is helping the Chinese in Africa through Iranian connections and ties. These ties also include Tehran’s ties to private Lebanese and Syrian business interests in Africa. Thus, within the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing, an Israeli-Iranian rivalry has also unfolded within Africa. [1] Sudan is Africa’s third largest weapons producer, as a result of Iranian support in weapons manufacturing. Meanwhile, while Iran provides military assistance to Khartoum, which includes several military cooperation agreements, Israel is involved in various actions directed against the Sudanese. [2]

Israel and Libya

Libya had been considered as “a spoiler” which undermined the interests of the former colonial powers in Africa. In this regard, Libya had taken on some hefty pan-African
development plans intended to industrialize Africa and transform Africa into an integrated and assertive political entity. These initiatives conflicted with the interests of the external powers competing with one another in Africa, but it was especially unacceptable to Washington and the major E.U. countries. In this regard, Libya had to be crippled and neutralized as an entity supportive of African progress and pan-African unity.

The role of Israel and the Israeli lobby was fundamental in opening the door to NATO’s military intervention in Libya. According to Israeli sources, it was U.N. Watch that actually orchestrated the events in Geneva to remove Libya from the U.N. Human
Rights Council and to ask the U.N. Security Council to intervene. [3] U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has influence in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and is part of the Israeli lobby in the United States. The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which helped launch the unverified claims about 6,000 people being slaughtered by Qaddafi, is also tied to the Israeli lobby in France.

Tel Aviv had been in contact simultaneously with both the Transitional Council and the Libyan government in Tripoli. Mossad agents were also in Tripoli, one of which was a
former station manager. At about the same time, French members of the Israeli lobby were visiting Benghazi. In a case of irony, the Transitional Council would claim that Colonel Qaddafi was working with Israel, while it made pledges to recognize Israel to president Sarkozy’s special envoy Bernard-Henri Lévy who would then convey the message to Israeli leaders [4]. A similar pattern (to that of Israel’s links to the Transitional Council) had also developed at an earlier stage in South Sudan, which was armed by Israel.

Despite the Transitional Council’s position on Israel, its followers still tried to demonize
Qaddafi by claiming he was secretly Jewish. Not only was this untrue, but it was also bigoted. These accusations were intended to be a form of character assassination that equated being a Jew as something negative.

In reality, Israel and NATO are in the same camp. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Had Qaddafi been conniving with Israel while the Transitional Council was working with NATO, this would mean that both sides were actually being played as fools against one another.

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.

The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.

The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This is also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are
facing genocide in North Africa.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in
conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa.”

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is
dead in their respective Western European societies. [5]

Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also
constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the ‘Global War on Terror’].” [6]

Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic
affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” [7]

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist designs of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial
wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is a program based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on KPFK, Los Angeles, California.

NOTES

[1] The Economist, “Israel and Iran in Africa: A search for allies in a hostile
world,” February 4, 2011.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Tova Lazaroff, “70 rights groups call on UN to condemn Tripoli,” Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2011.

[4] Radio France Internationale, “Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy
tells Netanyahu,” June 2, 2011.

[5] Robert Marquand,”Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian
Science Monitor
, March 4, 2011.

[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211

[7] Ibid.

 


ANNEX I: MAP OF DIFFERENT
WORLD CIVILIZATIONS REFLECTING SAMUEL HUNTINGTON’S MODEL

* These civilizational
divisions and categories are incorrect. There are no clearcutting divisions
between many of these so-called and supposedly “distinct
civilizations.”

 


ANNEX II: MODEL OF SAMUEL HUNTINGTON’S “CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS”

Copyright © Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2011

(www.informationclearinghouse.info / 15.10.2011)

 

 

 

The Best Congress AIPAC Can Buy

The headline above and text below is by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA coutner-terrosim chief with 27 years service. This, his latest article, is on the blog Wake Up Americans! Your Government is Hijacked by Zionism. Its stated purpose is “to chart the influence of the powerful Israeli Lobby in American domestic and foreign policy, public life and the election process, and American military interventions overseas since the end of World War II.”

As those familiar with my work (blog and book) know, I insist on giving the lobby its proper name – Zionist not Israeli or Israel lobby – and I don’t blame this lobby for exercising its awesome influence. As I put it in Waiting for the Apocalypse, the Prologue to Volume One of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: “The Zionists were and are only playing the Game of Nations, ruthlessly to be sure, by The System’s own rules. I blame most of an American decision-making process which, because of the way election campaigns are funded and conducted, was, and still is, so open to abuse and manipulation by powerful vested interests as to be in some very important respects undemocratic.” I have said on public platforms in America that the Zionist lobby has hi-jacked what passes for democracy there, but I always added that it could not have happened without the complicity of America’s pork-barrel politicians, Democrats especially.

Philip Giraldi’s article below is an analysis of a very recent initiative by the Zionist lobby to make sure that it has enough influence in Congress to prevent President Obama doing in Israel-Palestine what he knows to be right and in America’s own best interests. It’s my view that in a different America those members of Congress who allow the Zionist lobby to pull their strings would be charged with treason. When I can make direct contact with Philip Giraldi, I’ll ask him if he shares that view.

Many Americans who thought that the health care debate was important must have wondered where their congressmen were in early August during the first two weeks of the House of Representatives recess.  It turns out they were not hosting town hall meetings or listening to constituents because many of them were in Israel together with their spouses on a trip paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  Fully 13% of the entire US House of Representatives, 56 members, traveled to Israel in the largest AIPAC-sponsored fact-finding visit by American politicians ever conducted.  And the leaders of the two congressional groups, 25 Republicans for a week starting on August 2nd followed by 31 Democrats beginning on August 13th, were drawn from the top ranks of their respective parties.  House Minority whip Eric Cantor headed the Republican group and House Majority leader Steny Hoyer led the Democrats.

Cantor and Hoyer are longtime enthusiasts for Israel and all its works.  In January, when Israel was pounding Gaza to rubble and killing over a thousand civilians, Hoyer and Cantor wrote an op-ed entitled “A Defensive War,” which began with “During this difficult war in the Gaza Strip, we stand with Israel.”  Why?  Because “Instead of building roads, bridges, schools and industry, Hamas and other terrorists wasted millions turning Gaza into an armory.” Hoyer and Cantor, clearly noticing a militarization of the Gaza Strip that no else quite picked up on, also affirmed that Israel occupied the moral high ground in the conflict, “While Israel targets military combatants, Hamas aims to kill as many civilians as possible.”  That Hoyer and Cantor were completely wrong on this vital point as well as others, in fact reversing the truth, has never resulted in an apology or a correction of the record from either lawmaker.

And there’s more.  In May 2009, Cantor and Hoyer teamed up again in a congressional letter sent to their colleagues in congress.  The message described how Washington must be “both a trusted mediator and a devoted friend to Israel” because “Israel will be taking the greatest risks in any peace agreement.”  AIPAC couldn’t have put it better.  In fact, AIPAC wrote the missive since Cantor and Hoyer apparently needed a little help to get the message just right. The actual source of the letter was revealed when the document was circulated with the file name “AIPAC Letter Hoyer Cantor May 2009.pdf,” which the intrepid congressional duo had failed to change before sending out.

The August congressional junkets were paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation, which is a non-profit foundation that is part of AIPAC.  The non-profit foundation part means that the trip to convince already acquiescent congressmen that Israel needs more aid and special treatment was more-or-less subsidized by the US taxpayer.  Taking congressmen to Israel to make sure they understand the issues properly is not exactly new, but the scale and seniority of the recent visits sent a clear message to President Barack Obama that he should not pressure Israel in any way or he will face bipartisan opposition, opposition that he will not be able to overcome.  It appears that Obama might have already received the message loud and clear if the rumors that he will harden his line on Iran and soften his approach to Tel Aviv to permit Israeli settlement expansion are true.

The current Israeli government line as regurgitated by AIPAC is an attempt, aided and abetted by the congressional visitors, to shift the narrative.  According to AIPAC and Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, the settlements have nothing to do with the issue of negotiating peace so Israel should be able to continue to expand its occupation of Arab East Jerusalem without any restraint while permitting “natural growth” in the other West Bank settlements.  Israel claims to be willing to talk peace with the Palestinians while decrying that there is no one to talk to. Tel Aviv and its cheerleaders in Washington insist that the real threat to peace in the Middle East is Iran, which is seeking a nuclear weapon and will use it to bomb Israel and arm terrorists to attack the United States.

Eric Cantor was fully on-message, prepping his group by writing an op-ed for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on August 3rd.  He wrote that “Israel is not only a democratic ally and our only true friend in the Middle East; it is also a vital pillar of US national security strategy…Israel has a right to accommodate the natural growth of its population…excessive handwringing over natural growth is a diversion from the main threat in the Middle East:  Iran.”  If the line sounds familiar, it should as it is straight out of Israel and AIPAC’s playbook garnished with its ridiculous pretense that Israel is some kind of strategic asset and an eternal friend.

Cantor and Hoyer’s lawmaker colleagues apparently benefited greatly from their travels, which included a visit to the illegal West Bank settlement of Alfei Menashe to express solidarity with the heroic and widely misunderstood Israeli settlers.  According to Cantor there should not be any confusion about who is doing what to whom in the Middle East.  In describing the purpose of the trip, he noted that his Republican colleagues were eager to learn about “…the challenges on the ground in the Middle East, especially those challenges faced by Israel.”  He then returned to his script, describing the situation in more detail and expressing his concern about the “…focus being placed on settlements and settlement growth when the real threat is the existential threat that Israel faces from Iran and the impending nuclearization of Iran.”

During the trip itself, Cantor could hardly shut up about how much he loves Israel and its policies, no matter what those policies are.  When two Arab families were evicted from their homes in Jerusalem, resulting in a worldwide protest that included criticism from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Cantor discovered another way to look at the situation.  He complained about Clinton, “I’m very troubled by that, because I don’t think we in America would want another country telling us how to implement and execute our laws.”

Cantor’s travelmates evidently agreed with his rosy view of all things Israeli.  Steve Scalise marveled at “all the things that the people of Israel have been through,” while Louie Gohmert pressed Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for a commitment to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, apparently oblivious to the fact that the status of a Muslim or a Christian in a Jewish state would be somewhat precarious.  Leonard Lance called for working together against Iran while Mike Coffman noted that the Obama Administration failed to comprehend “the magnitude of this threat of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.”  Perhaps Coffman and Lance should read some of the intelligence that the US government produces at great expense which reveals that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Congressman Pete Olson reported that he had known in “his head” how important the relationship with Israel was and, after three days, knew it also in his heart.  Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who has been to Israel seven times and is the author of numerous pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian resolutions in the House, called Israel “our US ally against the violent extremists” and twittered to her constituents a gushing account of her “amazing dinner with soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces.  Courageous young men…”

Hoyer, who has been to Israel a dozen times, led the cheerleading for the Democrats.  The House Majority leader contradicted his own party’s president in finding that the settlements were not a “big issue” hindering a peace agreement, noting that they should be a “subject of negotiations.”  The real problem for Hoyer was completely predictably the Palestinians, specifically the “unwillingness of Abbas to sit down now.”  Hoyer also declared Jerusalem to be a “unified city” under Israeli control and reiterated Congressman’s Gohmert’s demand that the Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish State, neither of which is US policy.  Shelly Berkley, who has never met an Israeli she didn’t like, put it more bluntly, “The goals of this trip are to express Congress’s solidarity with the State of Israel and to find out what Israel’s needs are.”  Representative Kendrick Meek welcomed his opportunity to visit Israel to help him “make better decisions as a member of congress.”

President George Washington counseled explicitly against getting involved in the quarrels of foreign nations.  What would he think of Hoyer and Cantor and the drones that followed them to Israel on a “fact finding” trip paid for by the Israel Lobby?  Words like “disloyalty” come to mind immediately, but the AIPAC trips targeting congress are signs of a deeper problem.  Many congressmen undoubtedly display knee-jerk support for Israel either because it is career enhancing or because they are afraid not to.  Those who truly believe that Israel’s interests are of paramount importance and that the United States ought to go to war on its behalf should perhaps find another line of work.  If they retain even a shred of decency and love of country, it is time for Cantor, Hoyer and others like them to go away.  They should leave quietly but do so quickly.  The well-being of the United States and its citizens demands it.

 

(www.alanhart.net / 15.10.2011)

No Israel gas transit via Turkey: Ankara

Ankara has rejected requests from its private firms to allow the transit of natural gas produced in Israel through Turkey to Europe, says Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz, Press TV reports.

Yildiz noted that private firms have proposed plans to carry Israeli natural gas to Europe via Turkish territory.

“Had not nine of our nationals been murdered, there could be major developments in the energy distribution in the Mediterranean Sea. [Then] we would not have rejected the demand by private firms,” he said on Friday.

Yildiz was referring to an Israeli attack on a Gaza-bound flotilla on May 30, 2010 that killed nine Turkish nationals.

The Israeli attack, which drew worldwide condemnation, severely damaged ties between Turkey and Israel.

Turkey has repeatedly called on Israel to apologize for the attack and pay compensation to the families of the victims, warning that Ankara-Tel Aviv relations will not normalize if Israel fails to do so.

Tel Aviv has refused to apologize to Turkey over the deadly raid.

(www.presstv.com / 15.10.2011)

Sources: US Gives Israel Green Light For Iran Strike

The Obama administration’s fabricated terror plot blamed on Iran represents the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran set to take place within the next two weeks, according to confidential military sources who spoke with Alex Jones.

Sources: US Gives Israel Green Light For Iran Strike 2010121610457477

Israel is concerned that major powers like Germany are moving closer to smoothing relations with Iran and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program unimpeded. A two month window has been allocated during which Israel has the opportunity to launch a military assault, waiting until winter when the attack will be more difficult to pull off is not an option.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit was used by Israeli hawks to convince the United States that it should green light the attack. Less than 10 days later, a fanciful terror plot involving a used car salesman was invented to implicate Iran and create the pretext for a military assault.

“In recent weeks, intense discussions have taken place in Israeli military and intelligence circles about whether or not to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Apparently, the key question in the debate was how to ensure that the United States took part in the attack or, at the very least, intervened on Israel’s side if the initial strike triggered a wider war,” writes Patrick Seale of Gulf News.

That intervention has now been mandated by the announcement of the fabricated terror plot, which was actually concocted last month but only made public now.

While U.S. intelligence officials prepare to release claims about a “chain” of plots that will be blamed on Iran, Time Magazine reports that the Obama administration is preparing to use the accusations to take action beyond mere isolation tactics.

“If the Administration fails to win support for a significant escalation of sanctions or other forms of punishment for the Tehran regime after presenting evidence of the latest allegations of Iranian malfeasance, the ball will land back in Obama’s court,” writes Tony Karon. “Having made the case that Iran has crossed a red line, he will be under growing pressure to act — or risk entering a highly polarized election season haunted by a “soft on Iran” charge.”

With neo-cons rushing to support aggressive measures against Iran, Obama will now be given right cover to pursue yet another act of regime change. As we postulated back in February last year, Obama is being blackmailed into supporting an attack on Iran as the only way to save his presidency. We also speculated that an assassination attempt would be used as the pretext to implicate Iran.

Geopolitical experts have been consistent in their warnings that Israel was preparing to strike Iran this fall.

Back in July, 21-year CIA veteran Robert Baer told KPFK Los Angeles that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning an attack on Iran in September to coincide with the Palestine bid for UN membership.

Speaking with the Alex Jones Show today, former State Department official Steve Pieczenik, who has numerous inside intelligence sources having worked in several sensitive positions during the course of his career, also indicated that the terror plot was completely fabricated and that it would be used a pretext to justify a military strike against Iran.

Pieczenik also pointed out that Israel had recently taken delivery of a large amount of bunker buster missiles.

As we have documented, the alleged assassination plot against Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, which is now being cited by everyone from John Kerry to John McCain as a justification for a potential military strike, is a complete fantasy.

Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer has revealed that an FBI insider with a high security clearance told him no records whatsoever detailing the plot existed within DOJ channels, clearly indicating the whole episode was manufactured.

It has also now emerged that the alleged “mastermind” behind the plot was a drunk pothead who liked to frequent with prostitutes and was described by those who know him as a “joke”.

(www.prisonplanet.com / 15.10.2011)

 

European parliament criticises Dutch stance on Romania, Bulgaria

The European parliament has called on the Netherlands and Finland to give up their objections to Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU open border area known as Schengen, according to Dutch media reports on Thursday.

The Netherlands has so far vetoed the move, saying neither country has done enough to combat corruption and organised crime.

The two countries joined the EU in 2007. Joining the Schengen zone would make the two countries responsible for policing a large part of the EU border.

Borders

Dutch members of the European parliament are divided on the issue. GroenLinks says the Netherlands’ position has been influenced by national politics – the Netherlands does not allow Romanians or Bulgarians to settle freely in the
country.

According to website Public Service Europe, GroenLinks MEP Judith Sargentini called the use of the veto a ‘charade’ and accused the Dutch and Finnish governments of ‘cynically and deliberately misleading their public by playing along with incorrect claims that entry to Schengen equates to a carte blanche for all Romanian and Bulgarian
citizens to work in Finland and the Netherlands’.

But both the VVD Liberals and Labour party oppose extending Schengen to cover the eastern European countries. There is ‘reasonable doubt’ as to whether they are ready to guard Europe’s external borders, Labour MP Emine Bozkurt said.

Immigration minister Gerd Leers told news agency ANP there had been no new developments which would allow the Netherlands to change its position.

(www.dutchnews.nl / 14.10.2011)

‘Islamitische politici komen niet op voor hun achterban’

Moslim-Kamerleden moeten anti-islamretoriek streng weerspreken omdat die de beeldvorming over hun kiezers negatief beïnvloedt.Zeki Baran (O&D, 1 oktober) betoogt in zijn reactie op het artikel van Wasif Shadid (O&D, 27 september) dat je politici moet beoordelen op hun daden en niet op hun afkomst. Hij zegt dat het inhoudelijk weerspreken van anti-islamretoriek niet voorbehouden is aan allochtone politici of politici van islamitische afkomst, maar een taak is van alle politici.

Ten eerste is een Kamerlid een volksvertegenwoordiger. Hij of zij vertegenwoordigt dat deel van het electoraat dat op hem of haar heeft gestemd. Politieke partijen zetten niet voor niets moslims, allochtonen, vrouwen of katholieken op de kieslijst.

Menig politicus van een bepaald geslacht, afkomst of religie is door voorkeurstemmen in een gemeenteraad of in de Tweede Kamer gekomen. Kiezers stemmen op een bepaald persoon omdat ze verwachten dat hij of zij opkomt voor hun sociaaleconomische belangen en groepsrechten. Dit geldt ook voor allochtonen met een islamitische achtergrond. Het feit dat ze moslim zijn, heeft er in veel gevallen voor gezorgd dat ze op de kandidatenlijst zijn gekomen. Want ook moslims kiezen voor een kandidaat omdat zij zich met hem of haar identificeren.

Politici die thans in de Kamer zitten, komen te weinig op voor de belangen van hun islamitische achterban, zoals Shadid in zijn opiniestuk heeft aangegeven. Juist islamitische Kamerleden moeten de anti-islamretoriek heel streng inhoudelijk weerspreken omdat deze de beeldvorming over hun electorale achterban negatief beïnvloedt. Als zij het niet doen, wie dan wel? Bovendien: als islamitische politici het doen, komt het sterker en geloofwaardiger over.

Ook in de Nederlandse politiek hebben we partijen die hun bestaansrecht ontlenen aan wie ze ideologisch zijn. Zo zijn er de christelijke partijen en hebben we een partij die opkomt voor de belangen van dieren. In de politiek hoef je je niet te schamen voor je afkomst of waar je voor staat. Het maakt een politicus juist sterker en geloofwaardiger.

Dat impliceert geenzins dat deze politici zich allen bezig moeten houden met hun afkomst. Maar kiezers mogen politici wel beoordelen op hun afkomst – uiteraard naast hun daden. Op dit moment vertegenwoordigen de islamitische Kamerleden te weinig hun achterban. Je zou je moeten afvragen waarom.

Latif Hasnaoui is PvdA-raadslid in Den Bosch.

(www.volkskrant.nl / 13.10.2011)

Netherlands: PVV proposes to punish Morocco for not accepting deported Moroccans

PVV parliamentarian Sietse Fritsma suggested to Minister Gerd Leers (Immigration
and asylum) that if Morocco continues to refuse to accept illegal Moroccans
deported from the Netherlands, the Netherlands should not let Moroccan ships and
planes into the country.

The problem with deporting rejected asylum seekers is that their country of origin often refuses to cooperate in their return. Asylum seekers without a passport need new travel papers.

The opposition factions are not taking Fritsma’s idea very seriously. Leers didn’t want to speak about measures against uncooperative countries, but he did say that refusal could have consequences for eventual development cooperation.

Leers did respond favorably to Fritsma’s proposal that a refugee will be forced to sign a document on his arrival stating his country of origin and where he’s going if his asylum request will be rejected.

(islamineurope.blogspot.com / 13.10.2011)

Belgium: “No more cash for asylum seekers”

A commission of the Chamber of Representatives has decided to tighten up rules regarding the care and support that must be given to asylum seekers in Belgium.
In future asylum seekers will only receive benefits in kind and no cash and from
citizens of other EU countries it will become increasingly difficult to secure the ‘living wage’ benefit from local social services.

In  the new Belgian Government one single minister will be responsible for Asylum
and Migration policy. Fresh legislation is currently going through parliament that will provide the new minister with a powerful instrument with which to limit the influx of asylum seekers in Belgium.

In future asylum seekers will only be able to make one single application that offers them the possibility of receiving care and assistance. Only material support will be
provided, no cash. When an asylum seeker has his application turned down he or
she will only be able to remain in a reception centre for asylum seekers for one further month. After this month the failed asylum seeker will have to leave the country voluntarily or under duress. Asylum seekers who leave such centres without any valid reason will lose all rights to care and support.

(islamineurope.blogspot.com / 13.10.2011)

Amnesty urges Canada to arrest Bush II

Amnesty International has urged Canadian authorities to arrest and prosecute former US President George W Bush, for his authorization of torture practices in the US-led war on terror.

“Canada is required by its international obligations to arrest and prosecute former president Bush given his responsibility for crimes under international law including torture,” AFP quoted Amnesty’s Susan Lee as saying in a statement released on Wednesday.

Bush is expected to attend an economic summit in Surrey in Canada on October 20.

“As the US authorities have, so far, failed to bring former president Bush to justice, the international community must step in. A failure by Canada to take action during his visit would violate the UN Convention against Torture and demonstrate contempt for fundamental human rights,” Lee added.

Amnesty has accused Bush of authorizing the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and “waterboarding” on detainees held in secret by the Central Intelligence Agency between 2002 and 2009.

Amnesty’s memorandum cites several cases of alleged torture of individuals detained in Afghanistan and in Iraq at Guantanamo Bay by the US military.

(www.presstv.com / 12.10.2011)

Rosenthal: Libië mag islam als staatsgodsdienst kiezen

De nieuwe machthebbers van Libië mogen zelf bepalen of ze de islam als staatsgodsdienst kiezen. Maar dat laat volgens minister Uri Rosenthal van Buitenlandse Zaken onverlet dat ook Libië zich moet houden aan de Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens.Hij heeft dat vandaag geschreven aan de Tweede Kamer in reactie op vragen van de ChristenUnie, SGP, PVV en het CDA. Die zijn er niet gerust op dat de zogeheten routekaart naar democratie van de Nationale Overgangsraad (NTC) de islam als de enige religie van Libië noemt en dat de wetgeving geënt moet zijn op de sharia, de islamitische wetgeving.

Nederland blijft de ontwikkelingen in Libië nauwgezet volgen, aldus Rosenthal, ook als het gaat om mogelijke extremistische tendensen. Indien nodig zal ons land daarbij steun zoeken in de Europese Unie of de Verenigde Naties.

Nederland beschouwt de NTC als de legitieme vertegenwoordiging van de Libische staat en het volk in de periode naar een vrij en democratisch Libië. In een concepthandvest van de NTC, dat de routekaart vervangt, staat volgens Rosenthal dat de islam de staatsgodsdienst is en dat de sharia de belangrijkste bron voor wetgeving is. Ook vermelden de opstellers dat de staat garandeert dat niet-moslims vrijheid van godsdienst hebben en dat die zal worden gerespecteerd. Ook wordt discriminatie op grond van godsdienstige overtuiging verboden.

(www.volkskrant.nl / 10.10.2011)