Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Rocky Road to Middle-East Peace

AlertNet
July 22, 2009

Today's tensions between the Israelis and the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours date back to the early 20th century when Jews began migrating in significant numbers to Palestine, then under Turkish rule.

The ensuing struggle for land and self-determination by both peoples led to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, a series of Israeli-Arab wars, two lengthy Palestinian uprisings and waves of Palestinian refugees.

Although modern Zionism - the idea of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine - began in the late 19th century, the land of Israel has been central to Jewish consciousness since Jewish exile in biblical times. Small Jewish communities in Palestine have lived peacefully side by side with both Muslim and Christian Arabs for centuries.

But centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, culminating in the Nazi Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews during World War Two, led to growing pressure for a Jewish homeland. In November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a plan to partition Palestine, then under British mandate, into Arab and Jewish states. In May 1948, Jews living in Palestine declared the establishment of the state of Israel.

Five countries invaded immediately, and in the ensuing conflict some 750,000 Palestinians fled the fighting or were forced to leave their homes. A similar number of Jews migrated to Israel from their homes in Arab states amid fears of a backlash against them.

Many Jews saw the creation of Israel as the embodiment of their long-held aspiration for a land of their own, but for Palestinians the events of 1948 became known as "Al Nakbar" - the catastrophe.

A second wave of Palestinians was displaced during the 1967 war that pitted Israel against Jordan, Egypt and Syria. In the six days of fighting, Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. An estimated 500,000 Palestinians fled, according to the United Nations - mostly to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) began operations in 1950, initially as a temporary response to the humanitarian crisis created by the new refugees. Today, the agency is the main body meeting the needs of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria with basic services such as education, healthcare and social services.

The tents that made up the first refugee camps gradually gave way to the concrete buildings that make up today's camps as it became clear that no solution to their plight was in sight.

Since then, Palestinian refugee camps have grown upwards rather than out, with residents building new storeys to accommodate the new generations being born. Conditions are often overcrowded, with poor sanitation. There are high levels of unemployment, and increasing levels of diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and cancer.

The status of the refugees is a key issue in peace talks, with many Palestinians claiming the "right of return" - the right to go back to their homes in what is now Israel. Some still hold keys to the family homes they lost in 1948.

Israel fears that agreeing to this concession would spell disaster for the future Jewish state, largely because higher Palestinian birth rates mean Palestinian numbers would soon outstrip the Jewish population. Its own "law of return" allows anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent to settle in Israel and take up citizenship. Under the citizenship rules, many Palestinians who marry Israelis are denied Israeli residency.

The two parts of the Palestinian territories are, in fact, two areas about 45 km (30 miles) apart. The West Bank is between Jerusalem - long claimed as a capital by both Palestinians and Israelis - and Jordan to the east, while Gaza is a tiny strip along Israel's western Mediterranean coast.

INTIFADA AND SECURITY

In the wake of the 1967 war, successive Israeli governments began building Jewish settlements on the newly occupied land. Generally built on high ground, many settlements overlook Palestinian towns and villages, and there are tensions between the two communities. U.N. Security Council resolutions and the International Court of Justice have both declared the settlements illegal under international law.

But this ruling has been rejected by Israel, and its policy of settlement expansion continues.

In 1987, a Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, broke out in protest against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinians vented their anger by throwing rocks at soldiers and tanks near their camps and homes; there were also roadside shootings at Israeli vehicles and assaults on settlers.

The Israeli military retaliated harshly with measures against the Palestinian population as a whole. They used a system of checkpoints to control the movement of people and goods around the West Bank and curfews were imposed at times of high security. Many Palestinians were also detained by the Israeli authorities.

Although groups of prisoners are periodically released as part of peace negotiations, large numbers remain in custody.

In 1993, following the Oslo Peace Accords, Israel agreed to establish limited Palestinian self-rule in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority, headed by Yasser Arafat, was set up to run the new autonomous areas.

However in the years that followed, with little progress towards a final peace settlement, disillusionment set in.

A second Intifada broke out in 2000, following a visit by Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Al Aqsa compound in Jerusalem, a site sacred to both Jews and Muslims.

Amid growing concerns about the number of suicide bombings against Israelis by Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas, the Israeli army re-occupied cities in the West Bank. It tightened up security measures around the Palestinian Territories, preventing thousands of Palestinians from going to work and trade in Israel.

In 2003, Israel made a unilateral decision to dismantle all Jewish settlements in Gaza and some settlements in the West Bank. In 2005, around 8,000 settlers were forcibly evicted from Gaza by the Israeli army, along with another 500 from the West Bank, and moved into alternative accommodation provided by the Israeli government.

Many of the settlers, some of whom believe Israel has a biblical claim on Gaza and the West Bank, felt betrayed.

The Gaza Strip came under Palestinian control. The area, 40 km long and 10 km wide, is home to around 1.5 million Palestinians and is one of the most densely populated places on earth.

In June 2007, a power struggle between Fatah and more militant Hamas spilled over into out-and-out fighting between armed factions on the streets of Gaza in which around 100 people died. Hamas declared control over Gaza, leading President Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the Hamas-led unity government and set up an emergency, Fatah-based government in the West Bank.

Israel tightened border restrictions at its Gaza borders after the Hamas takeover. The border crossing into Egypt at Rafah is theoretically run by the Palestinians under EU monitoring. However, the border has been largely closed since Hamas took control of Gaza.

Economic life has suffered and relief organisations have found it difficult to get aid to the Palestinian population.

GAZA OFFENSIVE 2008

At the end of 2008 Israel launched its biggest offensive in Gaza in four decades. It said its aim was to stop militants firing rockets into the Jewish state.

According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 1,417 people including 926 civilians were killed during Israel's Dec. 27-Jan. 18 offensive. Israel lost 10 soldiers and three civilians in the fighting. It has estimated 1,166 Palestinians were killed, 295 of them civilians.

The air raids damaged hospitals, water supply systems, mosques and government buildings as well as private homes. Israel accused Hamas of sheltering among the civilian population and using sites such as mosques and schools as military posts.

The fighting triggered protests around the world, and there were calls for a ceasefire from the United Nations, United States, European Union, Arab League, Russia and other countries.

Israeli government officials said Israel set several goals for the offensive, including weakening Hamas by killing its fighters and destroying its rocket arsenal. It also bombed a network of tunnels to Gaza from neighbouring Egypt, which had allowed Palestinians to smuggle in weapons.

Hamas is believed to command at least 25,000 trained fighters. It unilaterally called off a six-month truce in December 2008 and stepped up rocket attacks, citing Israeli raids and the continuing blockade of the enclave.

WEST BANK BARRIER

In the West Bank, Israel continues to build a controversial "security barrier" it began in 2002, a 709 km construction which is part-wall, part-fence separating Israeli settlements from Palestinian communities in the West Bank.

The Palestinians, pointing to the barrier's frequent divergence from the 1949 Green Line and its siting on parts of the West Bank, call the construction a land grab.

In Jayyous, a West Bank farming village near Qalqilya, residents say they have lost over three-quarters of their agricultural land to the Israeli side and are subject to a system of permits and checkpoints before they can access their olive groves and orchards. Palestinian communities and aid agencies also say the restrictions on movement created by the barrier prevent people going to work, attending school and accessing health services.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an "advisory opinion" - a judgement with no legal force - declaring the barrier illegal. But Israel rejects the ruling, saying the barrier is key to its self-defence.

A 2009 report from the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) gives a summary of the humanitarian impact of the barrier.

The violence of the Intifada prompted Israel to punish suspected militants for attacks by demolishing their family homes. The Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem says Israel demolished 664 homes as punishment for suspected militant activities until the practice was officially ended in February 2005. It was resumed in January 2009.

The Israeli authorities have long pursued a policy of demolition for homeowners who they say lack the necessary building permits. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) says thousands of Palestinian houses have been demolished since 1967, leaving many families homeless.

The majority of house demolitions are carried out during military operations, says ICAHD.

THE HUMANITARIAN PICTURE

Restrictions on the movement of people and goods around the Palestinian Territories, created by the system of checkpoints, closures and curfews, affect every aspect of daily life for Palestinians.

Socioeconomic conditions are worst in Gaza, which is subject to more severe closures than the West Bank.

An international economic boycott of the Hamas-led government following its election win in January 2006 has exacerbated the situation. Western donor nations, including the European Union, withheld direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, although money was still channelled to the region through individuals or other organisations.

From March 2006, an estimated 140,000 Palestinian civil servants - the breadwinners for around a million people - went without their full wages for almost a year and a half. The situation was resolved when the Israeli authorities transferred tax revenues - which they had previously blocked - to the Palestinian Authority.

In June 2007, the EU resumed direct aid to the Palestinian Authority following the establishment of an emergency government by Abbas' Fatah party in the West Bank.

An estimated 57 percent of Palestinians live in poverty, OCHA said in January 2008. The figure is higher in Gaza where 79 percent of people live in poverty compared with 49 percent in the West Bank. OCHA also said two-thirds of Palestinians were not connected to a sewage system.

More and more people aren't getting enough food, with many relying on food aid from the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) and flour, oil and rice from UNRWA. Chronic malnutrition and dietary-related diseases are on the rise, especially among children.

Basic healthcare is provided by the Palestinian Authority, UNRWA and other aid agencies, but health services are limited and fragmentary. Despite the use of mobile health clinics to reach cut-off villages in the West Bank, difficulties in getting through checkpoints mean many people don't get the treatment they need, especially in hospitals. Delays have led to some women giving birth at checkpoints, and relief agencies report growing concerns about pregnant women's access to services.

There is also growing evidence of the effects of the conflict on mental health. Behavioural problems, particularly among adolescents, are on the rise.

Restrictions on movement prevent teachers and pupils getting to school, affecting education across the Palestinian Territories. According to the U.N. Children's Fund, UNICEF, tens of thousands of children have their education regularly disrupted.

In Gaza, regular fuel shortages also bring public services to a grinding halt. In 2008, Medecins Sans Frontieres said it had cut its programmes in Gaza by half, because so few staff and patients could reach its medical clinics.

The fuel crisis is partly caused by the Israeli blockade, but also by Palestinian armed attacks on the only border crossing where Israel permits fuel delivery.

A coalition of British aid agencies published a report in March 2008 saying the blockade had created the worst humanitarian crisis in 40 years, and that sanitation and health systems were on the point of collapse.

Donors have pledged billions of dollars in aid since 2007, in a public show of support for Abbas in his power struggle with Hamas. The pledges include $4.5 billion in March 2009, and $7.4 billion in December 2007

But so far only a fraction of the money has been paid. In September 2008 nearly $300 million of new aid money was pledged.

Foreign businesses are being encouraged to invest in the Palestinian Territories, although the blockade makes both Gaza and the West Bank difficult environments to operate in.

As Gaza has become a more risky place to work, several aid workers have been kidnapped by militant groups, although few have been held very long and there have been no abductions of late.

PEACE PROCESS

There have been many attempts to resolve the conflict since the 1967 war.

Negotiations brokered in secret by the Norwegians in the early 1990s looked promising initially. The Oslo Peace Accords, sealed with an iconic handshake between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn in 1993, were hailed by many as the start of a peace process that would lead to a permanent end to the conflict.

Both sides made key concessions. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation recognised Israel's "right to exist in peace and security", while Israel promised that its troops would withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in stages. A self-governing Palestinian Authority would be set up for a transitional five-year period, with a view to arriving at a final settlement.

But optimism faded as Palestinians continued to live under restrictions imposed by the Israeli military occupation, while Israelis despaired at attacks by militant Palestinians.

The most recent peace plan, the roadmap, was drawn up in 2003 by what is known as the Quartet - the United States, European Union, Russia and United Nations. It put aside contentious issues such as the refugees' right to return, the status of Jerusalem, or the position of the borders of an eventual Palestinian state and set out a two-year timetable by which agreement on a final settlement might be reached.

During the first phase of the process, the Palestinians would commit to a crackdown on militants, while Israel would cease settlement building and act with military restraint.

But soon after the roadmap was agreed, violence on both sides brought an end to the incipient peace process. Israel's decision in 2003 to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank was a unilateral decision and not the result of formal negotiations. In the meantime, suicide bombings against Israeli citizens have continued, while life for ordinary Palestinians has deteriorated.

The construction of settlements and the "security barrier" led some experts to question the viability of the two-state solution. They argued that Israeli infrastructure in the Palestinian Territories is so well-established as to rule out a genuinely independent Palestine. However, it is not clear how the alternative - a one-state solution - would work, as the area's demographics mean that co-existence would inevitably involve a Jewish minority - an unacceptable prospect for most Israelis.

Although the roadmap was not formally abandoned, the peace process was effectively put on hold.

But global awareness of the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to events in Iraq, Lebanon and the "war on terror", along with concern about the emergence of two rival administrations within the Palestinian Territories, revived Western leaders' interest in diplomatic efforts to end the crisis.

In November 2007, their efforts bore fruit when, at a conference hosted by the United States in Annapolis, Maryland, Israeli and Palestinian leaders relaunched the first formal peace talks in seven years. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Abbas promised to try to reach agreement about the terms of a future Palestinian state. They failed.

In 2009, Israel's new Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to negotiate with the Palestinians and accepted the prospect of a Palestinian state for the first time. He insisted on the "natural growth" of West Bank settlements to meet the needs of expanding populations, despite pressure from the U.S. administration to curb their expansion.

Meanwhile, the Quartet held a meeting on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in June 2009.

KEY FACTIONS

Hamas

Hamas - an acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement - emerged during the 1980s Palestinian uprising and led a suicide bombing campaign over the next decade as part of its stated aim of destroying Israel. The Gaza-based group built popular support through a social welfare programme providing healthcare, education and social services to the Palestinian population.

Hamas gained increasing popularity among Palestinians due to a perception that, in contrast to its rival party Fatah, it is free of corruption. It won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006, taking 76 out of 132 seats, and became the lead player in a Palestinian national unity government. Hamas is considered a "terrorist" organisation by the European Union and the United States, and its electoral win triggered an international aid boycott from western donor governments.

In June 2007, growing rivalry between Hamas and Fatah supporters in Gaza led to street fighting which killed around 100 people. Hamas won the power struggle, effectively taking over the government of Gaza. As a result, the Palestinian president and leading Fatah politician Mahmoud Abbas sacked the Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and set up a separate administration in the West Bank.

Fatah

Fatah, founded in 1965 by the late leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation Yasser Arafat, is the mainstream Palestinian nationalist movement. It has run the Palestinian Authority since 1994, when it took control of the Palestinian areas following the Oslo accords.

Fatah, whose strongest support base lies in the West Bank, recognises Israel's right to exist and is formally committed to peace talks with Israel. But growing disenchantment with the leadership among ordinary Palestinians led to the party losing Palestinian elections to Hamas in January 2006 and becoming part of a coalition government. Since June 2007, its authority has been confined to the West Bank.

Islamic Jihad

Emerging in Gaza in the 1970s, Islamic Jihad is a militant movement whose exact affiliations are unclear. Based in Syria, its funding is believed to come from Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. The group operates mainly in the West Bank and Gaza, and has claimed responsibility for many suicide bombings against Israelis, along with attacks in Lebanon. Like Hamas, its goal is the destruction of Israel.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades

Formed by disaffected young men after the second uprising erupted in 2000, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is often considered to be the armed, militant wing of Fatah. It has carried out many attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. However, it is not officially recognised by the party and it is a moot point how much control Fatah leaders have over its activities.

The Israeli authorities have often targeted the organisation's leadership, capturing and imprisoning Fatah's West Bank leader Marwan Barghouti - allegedly also the head of Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades - in 2002. Over recent years, many of the group's members have received amnesty from Israel in return for laying down their weapons.

Popular Resistance Committees

The Gaza-based PRC is a break-away militant group that emerged out of the second Intifada in 2000. It has been involved in numerous attacks on Israelis, often in joint operations with other groups.

Abu Rish Brigades

The Abu Rish Brigades is a splinter faction linked to Fatah, named after a Fatah militant commander killed by Israel. Based in southern Gaza, it has claimed responsibility for bomb and rocket attacks against Israelis. In 2004, it kidnapped four French aid workers.

The Army of Islam

This little-known, Gaza-based faction made headlines when it kidnapped BBC correspondent Alan Johnston in March 2007. The group follows al Qaeda-style principles. Other Palestinian militants such as Hamas deny any links.

The Army of Islam released Johnston after negotiations with Hamas.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Israeli Soldiers in Gaza Describe a 'Moral Twilight Zone'

McClatchy Newspapers
July 14, 2009

JERUSALEM — Israeli combat soldiers have acknowledged that they forced Palestinian civilians to serve as human shields, needlessly killed unarmed Gazans and improperly used white phosphorus shells to burn down buildings as part of Israel's three-week military offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter.

In filmed testimony and written statements released Wednesday, more than two dozen soldiers told an Israeli army veterans' group that military commanders led the fighters into what one described as a "moral Twilight Zone" where almost every Palestinian was seen as a threat.

Soldiers described incidents in which Israeli forces killed an unarmed Palestinian carrying a white cloth, an elderly woman carrying a sack, a Gazan riding a motorcycle, and an elderly man with a flashlight, said Breaking the Silence, a group formed by army reservists in 2004.

Any Palestinian spotted near Israeli troops was considered suspect. A man talking on a cell phone on the roof of his building was viewed as a legitimate target because he could've been telling militants where to find Israeli forces, the group quoted soldiers as saying.

"In urban warfare, everyone is your enemy," said one soldier. "No innocents."

The 110-pages of testimony — along with 16 video clips — of interviews with 26 unnamed Israeli soldiers offers the most comprehensive look inside a military campaign that's become the subject of an unfolding United Nations war crimes investigation.

The Israel Defense Forces dismissed the report.

IDF spokeswoman Avital Leibovich said Tuesday that the IDF now is conducting dozens of investigations into troop conduct during the Gaza operation and that more than a dozen cases led to police investigations.

In April, the IDF announced it had concluded five high-level investigations, including one into the use of phosphorus to burn down buildings, and cleared itself.

Yehuda Shaul, a co-founder of Breaking the Silence, said the report didn't identify the soldiers by name because at least half the men quoted were young conscripts who could be jailed for speaking to the media. He agreed, however, to name the units and where they were operating in several instances.

Two soldiers from the Givati brigade who served in Zeitoun told the story of shooting an unarmed civilian without warning him.

The elderly man was walking with a flashlight toward a building where Israeli forces were taking cover.

The Israeli officer in the house repeatedly ignored requests from other soldiers to fire warning shots as the man approached, the soldiers said. Instead, when he got within 20 yards of the soldiers, the commander ordered snipers to kill the man.

The soldiers later confirmed that the man was unarmed.

When they complained to their commander about the incident, the soldiers were rebuffed and told that anyone walking at night was immediately suspect.

Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights attorney who reviewed the testimony, said the stories reflected a "dramatic change in the ethos" of the Israeli military that portrays itself as the most moral army in the world.

"What we are seeing now is a deterioration of our moral values and red lines," Sfard said. "This is a dramatic change in heart and values."

Israel launched the 22-day military offensive on Dec. 27 in a bid to destabilize the Hamas-led government and deter Palestinian militants who've fired thousands of crude rockets and mortars at southern Israel that have killed 12 people in the past four years.

Nine Israeli soldiers were killed in Gaza during the fighting, four of them by friendly fire.

By contrast, Palestinian human rights groups and Gaza medical officials said that 1,400 Palestinians, more than half of them civilians, were killed by Israeli forces. The Israeli military has questioned that figure, but hasn't made its own analysis available for review.

Breaking the Silence identified other specific instances in which Israeli forces carried out highly questionable practices.

According to the soldiers, the Israeli military fired white phosphorus mortars and artillery shells to set suspicious buildings ablaze and destroyed scores of Palestinian homes for questionable reasons. The white phosphorus supplied by the U.S. is supposed to be used to illuminate targets or provide smoke cover for advancing troops.

"Phosphorus was used as an igniter, simply make it all go up in flames," one soldier said.

A second soldier — said by the reservists' group to have been in a tank brigade stationed in the Atatra neighborhood — told Breaking the Silence that at least one officer fired unauthorized white phosphorus mortars because it was "cool."

The use of white phosphorus to destroy buildings was part of a larger campaign to demolish parts of Gaza to make it more difficult for Palestinian militants to fire rockets at Israel, the soldiers said.

One soldier, who served in an infantry reserve unit of the Negev Brigade near Netzarim, said they were repeatedly told by officers to raze buildings as part of a campaign to prepare for "the day after."

"In practical terms, this meant taking a house that is not implicated in any way, that its single sin is the fact that it is situated on top of a hill in the Gaza Strip," said one soldier.

"In a personal talk with my battalion commander he mentioned this and said in a sort of sad half-smile, I think, that this is something that will eventually be added to 'my war crimes," he added.

In the Ezbt Abd Rabbo neighborhood, Israeli combatants said they forced Palestinians to search homes for militants and enter buildings ahead of soldiers in direct violation of an Israeli Supreme Court ruling that bars fighters from using civilians as human shields.

"Sometimes a force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian's shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield," said one Israeli soldier with the Golani Brigade. "Commanders said these were the instructions, and we had to do it."

Each Palestinian forced to work with the Israeli military was given the same nickname: Johnnie.

The story was confirmed by four other Israeli soldiers who seized control of the Gaza neighborhood, but declined to speak on the record, Shaul said.

The testimony matches with that of nine Palestinian men who told McClatchy last winter that Israeli soldiers forced them into battle zones during the offensive in their northern Gaza Strip neighborhood.

One Palestinian, Castro Abed Rabbo, said Israeli soldiers ordered him to enter buildings to search for militants and booby traps before they sent in a specially trained dog with high-tech detection gear.

Two other Palestinian men told McClatchy that Israeli soldiers used them as human shields by forcing them to kneel in a field during a firefight as they exchanged fire with Gaza fighters.

"I was down on my knees and they fanned out in a 'V' behind me," Sami Rashid Mohammed, a Fatah-leaning former Palestinian Authority police officer, said in an unpublished interview in February. "It wasn't more than 10 or 15 minutes of shooting, but it was so scary."

One of the Israeli soldiers interviewed described the offensive was necessary.

"We did what we had to do," he said. "The actual doing was a bit thoughtless. We were allowed to do anything we wanted. Who's to tell us not to?"

One Israeli reservist said a brigade commander gave them stark orders as they were preparing for combat.

"He said something along the line of 'Don't let morality become an issue; that will come later,'" the soldier said. "He had this strange language: 'Leave the nightmares and horrors that will come up for later — now just shoot."

"You felt like a child playing around with a magnifying glass, burning up ants," another Israeli soldier said. "A 20-year-old kid should not be doing such things to people. . . . the guys were running a 'Wild West' scene: draw, cock, kill."

Gazans say Israeli troops forced them into battle zones
Israeli troops killed children carrying white flag, witnesses say
Israeli military blames Gaza deaths on 'errors'
Israeli soldiers say rabbis framed Gaza as religious war
Israeli destruction of U.S.-style school shocks Gazans
Israeli soldiers say they have OK to use tough tactics in Gaza
Did the Israelis use white phosphorus in populated areas?

Related Bills Before Congress:

S.Res.10

Official: A resolution recognizing the right of Israel to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Passed Senate without amendment. (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Expresses commitment to the welfare and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders and recognizes Israel's right to act in self-defense. Reiterates that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Encourages the President to work to support a sustainable cease-fire in Gaza that prevents Hamas from retaining or rebuilding the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel and allows for the long term improvement of daily living conditions for Gaza's people. States that all appropriate measures should be taken to diminish civilian casualties. Supports efforts to diminish the influence of extremists in the Palestinian territories. Reiterates support for U.S. government efforts to promote a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that leads to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure Israel.

Introduced January 08, 2009
Voted on by Senate January 08, 2009

S.Res.6

A resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in Israel's defense against terrorism in the Gaza Strip.

Expresses the Senate's:

(1) solidarity with Israel as it takes necessary steps to provide security to its people and commitment to Israel's right to self-defense; and
(2) commitment to promote economic relations and partnerships in technology and alternative energy between the United States and Israel in order to stimulate both countries' economies in this time of crisis.

Condemns the firing of rockets into civilian areas by the terrorist groups of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.

Urges:
(1) all Arab states to declare strong opposition to terrorism and terrorist attacks on civilians; and (2) all parties in the Middle East to pursue regional peace.

Introduced January 06, 2009

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Iran

Secret U.S.-Israeli Meeting to Focus on Iran

Press TV
July 19, 2009

Amid reports that Israel is preparing to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, political heavyweights in Washington and Tel Aviv make plans for a secret get-together.

Ria Novosti reported on Friday that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is planning to visit Tel Aviv within the next two weeks to discuss a whole range of international issues, including Tehran’s nuclear case, in secret meetings with the Netanyahu government. US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, will reportedly accompany Gates.

The secret meetings come at a time when two Israeli warships, the Hanit and the Eliat, sailed through the Suez Canal within cruise-missile range of Iran earlier in the week.

A senior Israeli defense official, in a Thursday interview with the Times, said the move should be seen as serious preparations for a long-expected Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites.

“This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran,” said the Israeli defense official, who was speaking on condition of anonymity.

“These maneuvers are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats,” he added.

The move came ten days after a submarine — believed to be nuclear-armed — made a similar crossing and headed from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has brought Israel closer to war with Iran, ever-since he made his political comeback in February.

Tel Aviv, the possessor of the sole nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, accuses Iran of secretly enriching weapons-grade uranium to attack Israel. Tehran has asserted that its uranium enrichment is a peaceful drive to produce electricity.

Washington has so far remained undecided in its response to speculations that Israel is gearing up for go-it-alone air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Vice President Joe Biden, in a recent interview, openly suggested that Washington would not stand in the way of an Israeli attack on Iran.

“Israel can determine for itself… what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” Biden said. “We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination — if they make a determination — that they’re existentially threatened.”

The remarks were widely interpreted as a long-sought green light for Israel to go ahead and take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

US President Barack Obama was quick to make an attempt to correct the impression, saying that he opposed military action against Iran and instead wanted a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

India-Pakistan Conflict

India and Pakistan in 2002

By Carol Moore
Originally Published in 2004

India and Pakistan have repeatedly threatened nuclear war against each other, most seriously in the last few years. In late December 2002 Pakistan’s president, General Pervez Musharraf, addressing Air Force veterans in Karachi, said:

The last year “personally” conveyed a clear “message” to Prime Minister Vajpayee, “through every international leader who came to Pakistan,” namely, that Indian troops “should not expect a conventional war from Pakistan” if they “moved a single step across the international border or the Line of Control.”

In response Indian Defense Minister George Fernandez said:

“We can take a bomb or two, or more. When we respond, there will be no Pakistan.”

About the same time former Army Chief of Staff Aslam Beg, then heading a right-wing Pakistani think tank said:

“Our policy of deterrence is India-specific. No matter who comes for us, Israel, the United States or India we will take on India. If someone is thinking of taking on Pakistan, they should know we will take on India.”

And despite subsequent detente between the two nations during the remainder of 2003, as late as fall 2003, Ariel Sharon visited India, worrying Pakistan that he was once again proposing India do a surgical strike against Pakistani nuclear assets. Once any such Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange began, there are a number of scenarios by which it could escalate into accidental or intentional world nuclear war.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Cynthia McKinney Demands Immediate Release After Her Gaza-Bound Boat is Seized by Israeli Navy

Former U.S. lawmaker and Green Party leader Cynthia McKinney, a longtime activist for the Palestinians, says her boat, the Spirit of Humanity, was carrying medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys to Gaza when it was seized by an Israeli navy ship.

FOXNews.com
June 30, 2009

Former U.S. lawmaker and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, whose relief boat was seized by an Israeli naval ship Tuesday for the second time in a year, is demanding the immediate release of her and 20 other activists.

McKinney, a longtime supporter of Palestinians, said her Greek-flagged boat, the Spirit of Humanity, was carrying medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys to Gaza when it was boarded by the Israeli navy.

"This is an outrageous violation of international law against us," said McKinney. "Our boat was not in Israeli waters and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza Strip. President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that's exactly what we tried to do. We're asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey."

The Israeli military issued a statement Tuesday saying that the boat had attempted to break a blockade of Gaza and was forced to sail to an Israeli port after ignoring a radio message to stay out of Gaza waters.

The statement said navy personnel boarded the freighter Arion without any shots being fired, and those on board were to be handed over to immigration authorities. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Israel was planning to free the crew and passengers.

"Nobody wants to keep them here," he said. "They will be released as soon as they are checked."

The humanitarian cargo was also to be trucked into the Gaza Strip after a security check.

In a statement released by the Green Party, McKinney said she had sent appeals to Obama and the State Department for assurances of protection for the relief mission. She said the boat was sailing in international waters when it was seized.

The White House nor the State Department was immediately available for comment.

This isn't the first time a boat carrying McKinney has clashed with an Israeli navy ship. In December, McKinney was among 16 people aboard a medical supply boat that collided with an Israeli naval ship as it tried to enter coastal waters around Gaza.

At the time, the group claimed the Israeli military fired machine guns into the water in an attempt to the stop the boat's progress. But a spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry said "physical contact" was made only after the aid boat failed to respond to radio contact and he denied any gunfire had occurred.

Israel launched an offensive in December against Gaza in an attempt to halt years of Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel. The two sides reached a cease-fire in January.

Israel Kidnaps Cynthia McKinney, Human Rights Workers

The Free Gaza Movement
June 30, 2009

Today Israeli Occupation Forces attacked and boarded the Free Gaza Movement boat, the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Noble laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. The passengers and crew are being forcibly dragged toward Israel.

“This is an outrageous violation of international law against us. Our boat was not in Israeli waters, and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza Strip,” said Cynthia McKinney, a former U.S. Congresswoman and presidential candidate. “President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that’s exactly what we tried to do. We’re asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey.”

According to an International Committee of the Red Cross report released yesterday, the Palestinians living in Gaza are “trapped in despair.” Thousands of Gazans whose homes were destroyed earlier during Israel’s December/January massacre are still without shelter despite pledges of almost $4.5 billion in aid, because Israel refuses to allow cement and other building material into the Gaza Strip. The report also notes that hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of their patients due to Israel’s disruption of medical supplies.

“The aid we were carrying is a symbol of hope for the people of Gaza, hope that the sea route would open for them, and they would be able to transport their own materials to begin to reconstruct the schools, hospitals and thousands of homes destroyed during the onslaught of “Cast Lead”. Our mission is a gesture to the people of Gaza that we stand by them and that they are not alone” said fellow passenger Mairead Maguire, winner of a Noble Peace Prize for her work in Northern Ireland.

Just before being kidnapped by Israel, Huwaida Arraf, Free Gaza Movement chairperson and delegation co-coordinator on this voyage, stated that: “No one could possibly believe that our small boat constitutes any sort of threat to Israel. We carry medical and reconstruction supplies, and children’s toys. Our passengers include a Nobel peace prize laureate and a former U.S. congressperson. Our boat was searched and received a security clearance by Cypriot Port Authorities before we departed, and at no time did we ever approach Israeli waters.”

Arraf continued, “Israel’s deliberate and premeditated attack on our unarmed boat is a clear violation of international law and we demand our immediate and unconditional release.”

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Iran’s Green Revolution

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Minarets of Menace
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Iran’s Green Revolution: Made in America?

Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran

James Corbett, The Corbett Report
June 23, 2009

It's the 2009 presidential election in Iran and opposition leader Mir-Houssein Mousavi declares victory hours before the polls close, insuring that any result to the contrary will be called into question.

Western media goes into overdrive, fighting with each other to see who can offer the most hyperbolic denunciation of the vote and President Ahmadenijad's apparent victory (BBC wins by publishing bald-faced lies about the supposed popular uprising which it is later forced to retract).

On June 13th, 30,000 "tweets" begin to flood Twitter with live updates from Iran, most written in English and provided by a handful of newly-registered users with identical profile photos.

The Jerusalem Post writes a story about the Iran Twitter phenomenon a few hours after it starts (and who says Mossad isn't staying up to date with new media?).

Now, YouTube is providing a "Breaking News" link at the top of every page linking to the latest footage of the Iranian protests (all shot in high def, no less).

Welcome to Destabilization 2.0, the latest version of a program that the Western powers have been running for decades in order to overthrow foreign, democratically-elected governments that don't yield to the whims of Western governments and multinational corporations.

Ironically, Iran was also the birthplace of the original CIA program for destabilizing a foreign government. Think of it as Destabilization 1.0: It's 1953 and democratically-elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh is following through on his election promises to nationalize industry for the Iranian people, including the oil industry of Iran, which was then controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

The CIA is sent into the country to bring an end to Mossadegh's government. They begin a campaign of terror, staging bombings and attacks on Muslim targets in order to blame them on nationalist, secular Mossadegh. They foster and fund an anti-Mossadegh campaign amongst the radical Islamist elements in the country. Finally, they back the revolution that brings their favoured puppet, the Shah, into power. Within months, their mission had been accomplished: they had removed a democratically-elected leader who threatened to build up an independent, secular Persian nation and replaced him with a repressive tyrant whose secret police would brutally suppress all opposition.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Persians of Interest
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The campaign was a success and the lead CIA agent wrote an after-action report describing the operation in glowing terms. The pattern was to be repeated time and time again in country after country (in Guatemala in 1954, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in Serbia in the 1990s), but these operations leave the agency open to exposure. What was needed was a different plan, one where the Western political and financial interests puppeteering the revolution would be more difficult to implicate in the overthrow.

Enter Destabilization 1.1. This version of the destabilization program is less messy, offering plausible deniability for the Western powers who are overthrowing a foreign government. It starts when the IMF moves in to offer a bribe to a tinpot dictator in a third-world country. He gets 10% in exchange for taking out an exorbitant loan for an infrastructure project that the country can't afford. When the country inevitably defaults on the loan payments, the IMF begins to take over, imposing a restructuring program that eventually results in the full scale looting of the country's resources for Western business interests.

This program, too, was run in country after country, from Jamaica to Myanmar, from Chile to Zimbabwe. The source code for this program was revealed in 2001, however, when former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz went public about the scam. More detail was added in 2004 by the publication of John Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which revealed the extent to which front companies and complicit corporations aided, abetted and facilitated the economic plundering and overthrow of foreign governments.

Although still an effective technique for overthrowing foreign nations, the fact that this particular scam had been exposed meant that the architects of global geopolitics would have to find a new way to get rid of foreign, democratically-elected governments.

Destabilization 1.2 involves seemingly disinterested, democracy-promoting NGOs with feelgood names like the Open Society Institute, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. They fund, train, support and mobilize opposition movements in countries that have been targeted for destabilization, often during elections and usually organized around an identifiable color.

These "color revolutions" sprang up in the past decade and have so far successfully destabilized the governments of the Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, among others. These revolutions bear the imprint of billionaire finance oligarch George Soros. The hidden hand of Western powers behind these color revolutions has threatened their effectiveness in recent years, however, with an anti-Soros movement having arisen in Georgia and with the recent Moldovan "grape revolution" having come to naught (much to the chagrin of Soros-funded OSI's Evgeny Morozov).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Ayatollah You So
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Now we arrive at Destabilization 2.0, really not much more than a slight tweak of Destabilization 1.2. The only thing different is that now Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are being employed to amplify the effect of (and the impression of) internal protests. Once again, Soros henchman Evgeny Morozov is extolling the virtues of the new Tehran Twitter revolution and the New York Times is writing journalistic hymns to the power of internet new media... when it serves Western imperial interests.

We are being asked to believe that this latest version of the very (very) old program of U.S. corporate imperialism is the real deal.

While there is no doubt that the regime of Ahmadenijad is reprehensible and the feelings of many of the young protestors in Iran are genuine, you will forgive me for questioning the motives behind the monolithic media support for the overthrow of Iran's government and the installation of Mir-Houssein "Butcher of Beirut" Mousavi.

The NWO's Twitter Phenomenon of 2009
Last summer Twitter became the buzz of the New York and San Francisco Web crowds; it is now the apogee of Internet hype. Today it has collected a total of $57 million, has 8 million users and is a veritable supernova. - Fortune, Twitter: Buzz First, Profits Later, April 8, 2009

Russia

Who is Behind Moldova’s Twitter Revolution?

By José Miguel Alonso Trabanco, Global Research
April 12, 2009

It looks like a new episode of geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West is unfolding in Moldova.

It seems that those who anticipated the end of color revolutions have been proven wrong. So far, color revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. On the other hand, they have failed in Belarus, Uzbekistan and Myanmar. Their common denominator is a wave of protests and sometimes riots whose purpose is to overthrow a local government, often held during electoral times or shortly afterwards.

It has not gone unnoticed that the so called color revolutions have been backed (and engineered?) by enthusiastic Western supporters including NGO’s, diplomats, businessmen, governmental institutions and heads of state. In those countries where such political mobilizations have prevailed, pro-Western leaders have been enthroned as a result thereof.

If one pays close attention to a map, it is impossible not to wonder if it is simply a coincidence that color revolutions have erupted in countries close to Russian and Chinese borders. It has to be pointed out that no color revolution has ever occurred in any country whose government is staunchly pro-Western.

Today, it is indeed quite likely that events taking place in Moldova are none other than the evident signs of the latest color revolution. Only a few days ago, elections were held there and the official announcement of preliminary results of the electoral process showed that the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (affiliated to the Party of the European Left) had received nearly 50% of the votes.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) certified that Moldovan parliamentary elections were free and fair. Nevertheless, protests attended by tens of thousands started shortly afterwards. However, these demonstrations can hardly be described as peaceful since media reports confirm that organized violence has targeted government facilities, including the parliament building as well as a presidential office. The script bears some similarities with Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, which started with large protests demanding new elections once opposition politicians were discontent with electoral results.

It is telling that protestors have been photographed waving the flags of both Romania and the European Union. They have also requested the ouster of Moldova’s current government, denouncing it as a “totalitarian regime” and demanded parliamentary elections to be re-scheduled.

So far, Moldovan law enforcement has been overwhelmed and is unable to control these riots even though it has resorted to tear gas and water cannons. Moldovan senior government officials have stated that they regard these episodes of civil unrest as unlawful and that they will act accordingly. Furthermore, the Romanian ambassador in Moldova has been declared persona non grata and visa requirements for Romanian nationals have been established. Also, pro-Moldovan protesters rallies have taken place in many cities throughout Romania.

Although no color has been chosen to name this color revolution, these events have already been termed as the Twitter Revolution because on-site reports indicate that protest organizers have made extensive use of social-networking tools in order to fuel discontent.

To determine whether or not any event is geopolitically significant, the timing is an element which always needs to be taken into account. The post Soviet space is one of the most active arenas of great power strategic competition and there are some meaningful recent precedents such as:

The fact that Ukraine and Georgia have not been accepted as NATO members in spite of intense diplomatic pressure by prominent NATO members.

Unlike other post Soviet states, Moldova’s government had declared that Chişinău would remain neutral and that it would thus refuse to side with great powers, which more or less resembles the position taken by fellow former Soviet Republic Turkmenistan whose foreign policy must meet criteria of strict neutrality.

The Russo-Georgian war in which Moscow inflicted a military defeat on strongly pro-Western Georgia.

The announcement by the Kyrgyz government that the Manas air base will be closed.

The European Union launched its Eastern Partnership project, designed by Poland and Sweden to reach out to Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Armenia. This was seen in Moscow as an attempt to co-opt these countries and marginalize them away from Russian influence.

Ukraine’s decision to hold anticipated elections. It might be added that pro-Western Viktor Yuschchenko’s candidacy does not look particularly promising.

Russia Today report on Moldova: demonstrations were "inspired from abroad."

The above demonstrates that the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and NATO has been intensifying. In fact, Russian senior politicians are already claiming that civil unrest in Moldova is been orchestrated by western intelligence survives. They have also emphasized that the ultimate goal is to accomplish regime change in Chişinău so NATO member Romania can swallow Moldova.

It is no secret that hardline nationalists in Bucharest would like to achieve Anschluss with Moldova. Yet Western governments have refrained from voicing a strong support for the anti-government crowd in Moldova. However, it is necessary to explore what Western interests could consist of in this tiny post Soviet republic.

Why Moldova?

Moldova was one of the poorest and less developed republics of the Soviet Union, as well as the most densely populated. It is a landlocked country contiguous to Romania and Ukraine. Soviet planners had decided that Moldova would specialize in food production. Nevertheless, Moldova was not entirely homogeneous. The country’s industrial infrastructure was built in Transnistria, a region mostly populated by people of Slavic ethnicity (i.e. Russians and Ukrainians). This region was responsible for a large of percentage of Moldova’s GDP (40%) and it also contributed with almost the entire power generation of the Moldovan SSR. Toward the end of the Cold War, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu had stated that the Kremlin had annexed Bessarabia (aka Moldova), which implied that he considered it as a part of Romania.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union changed little. The overall Moldovan economy is not specially outstanding since it exports wine, fruits and other beverages and food products. Moldova is a net importer of coal, oil and gas since if has no natural deposits of any of these resources. According to the CIA World Factbook, Moldova ranks 138th in a list of countries arranged by GDP.

Transnistria declared its independence from Moldova following the Soviet collapse because it was fearful of an increasingly nationalistic Moldova and the reemergence of pro-Romanian sentiment. This triggered a war between Chişinău and Transnistrian separatists. Russian forces were then deployed in order to end hostilities. The conflict has been frozen ever since. Nevertheless, the presence of Russian military personnel (which numbers nearly 3000) has allowed Transnistria to keep its de facto independence from Molvoda even though it still formally belongs to the latter. Indeed, Transnistria has its own authorities, military, law enforcement, currency, public services, flag, national anthem, constitution and coat of arms. Nearly half of Transnistrian exports are shipped to Russia.

Russia has supported Transnistria because it is inhabited by a considerable proportion of ethnic Russians loyal to Moscow; this must not be born in mind because people is Russia’s scarcest resource. Furthermore, Transnistria is located in the easternmost region on Moldova and, more importantly, it borders Ukraine. Last but not least, Transnistria’s small economy is based on heavy industry, textile production and power generation, which represents an additional atractive. As a result of Russian involvement, Chişinău has been careful not to be antagonistic toward Moscow.

Moldova’s current president, Vladimir Voronin (the name can be misleading but he is, in fact, an ethnic Romanian), was elected in 2001 as the candidate of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova. Regardless of his party’s name, his administration can be described a pragmatic; for instance, he decided to continue privatization plans first put forward by his predecessor.

Back in 2002, he angered nationalists by designating the Russian language as a second official language. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to brand him as pro-Russian because his foreign policy has been seeking to balance Russian and Western interests without having to take sides. For example, his administration has expressed a desire to establish closer ties with the EU (which even runs a permanent mission in Chişinău) and cooperation with NATO and Russia, excluding membership in the Atlantic alliance or in the Russian-led CSTO. Furthermore, Voronin’s government has stressed Moldova’s need to preserve its independece instead of being absorbed by Romania.

In short, he is neither pro-Russian (like Alexander Lukashenko) nor pro-Western (like Mikheil Saakashvili). Rather, his political position is closer to those of Ukraine’s Kuchma, Georgia’s Shevardnadze or even Turkmenistan’s Niyazov and Berdymukhamedov.

Nonetheless, it is not far-fetched to assume that NATO in general and the U.S. in particular are interested in regime change in Moldova. The main goal would be to overthrow the current Moldovan government and have it replaced by rulers more antagonistic toward Moscow. If such attempt succeeds, a new government in Moldova could be harangued into expelling Russian troops from Transnistria in an effort to rollback Russian military presence away from Eastern Europe, an effort meant to diminish Russian influence in the post Soviet space and to undermine Russia’s prestige there and elsewhere. Moreover, it could be a Western reminder to Moscow that the slightest Russian distraction will be taken advantage of by NATO. A hypothetical pro-Western Moldova could even be later incorporated into NATO member Romania, moving the alliance borders eastward bypassing ordinary acceptance protocols for new members.

It remains to be seen if the Kremlin was caught by surprise and it is unclear how it will ultimately react to an eventual regime change in Chişinău, particularly if any new government attempts to take over Transnistria by force, much like Georgia did last year concerning South Ossetia. What is clear, however, is that Moscow does not want to be trapped into a conflict which could drain financial, military, diplomatic and political resources. Yet, Russian decision makers do not like what they are witnessing in Moldova; it is a script that had seen at play before.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that Russia will resort to its intelligence assets it operates overseas in order to counter anti-Russian moves in Moldova before any deployment of troops is seriously considered. It is still too early to accurately foresee what defining developments will take place in Moldova and how they will unfold. If the current Moldovan government survives, the Twitter Revolution there could backfire. If that is indeed the case, Moldova’s rulers could end up openly embracing Moscow as a result of real or alleged Western covert support for anti-government forces.

Russian accusations regarding the involvement of Western intelligence agencies has not been proved because all clandestine operations operate on the principle of plausible denial. Nonetheless, there are circumstantial facts which seem to demonstrate foreign intervention. For instance, some Western semi official institutions and NGO’s openly acknowledged their activities in Moldova. For example:

The USAID website concerning the agency’s activities in Moldova mentions that some of them include “Moldova Citizen Participation Program”, “Strengthening Democratic Political Activism in Moldova” and “Internet Access and Training Program”. The latter is noteworthy because online social networks have been employed in order to increase anti-government activism. USAID’s website specifies that “[its program] provides local communities with free access to the internet and to extensive training in all aspects of information technology“. It goes on to explain that “Target groups include local government officials, journalists, students, local NGO representatives, professors and healthcare providers…”

Those examples are particularly revealing if one takes into consideration that those organizations were prominent participants in previous color revolutions. That is, both the players and the Modus Operandi remains largely unchanged. A notorious protagonist and organizer of the Twitter Revolution is journalist Natalia Morar who used to work as press secretary for “The Other Russia,” a strange coalition of anti-Putin political groups which encompasses hardline nationalists, communists and pro-Western activists.

In short, bearing in mind all of the above, it looks like a new episode of geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West is unfolding in Moldova. This battle is not over yet and whatever its outcome turns out to be, its strategic implications will be deep because they will send strong shockwaves throughout Eastern Europe and the post Soviet space. The stakes are certainly being raised in this new round of the Great Game. A few years ago, notorious neocon pundit Charles Krauthammer observed that “This [Ukraine's Orange Revolution] is about Russia first, democracy second.” The same phrase applies to Moldova’s Twitter Revolution.

Is the U.S. Pulling the Strings in Iran?
Color Revolutions, Old and New
Belgrade was the prototype for Washington-instigated color revolutions to follow.

German-French Alliance

Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente (Excerpt)

Global Research
Originally Published on August 29, 2007

The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.” - George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)

Former U.S. national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the EU and NATO) constitutes America’s bridgehead into Eurasia.

“Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan.

Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America’s allies in continental Europe; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.

The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.” Brzezinski also added that France and Germany, the Franco-German entente, would be America’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia, but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998:

“In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” This was essentially the forecast of the “EU expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski, it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “ America cannot create a more united Europe on its own—that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.”

None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the EU and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry, while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.

The Endgame: A “Single Market” Under One World Administration?

“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer...” -Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corps Commander (War Is a Racket, 1935)

After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Visions for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American historian, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance:

“I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia—and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” In 1997 Brzezinski also stated that, in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente, a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united EU and the United States.”

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the EU were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.

A summit between the EU and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit, President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the EU, represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush Jr. represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests, because the EU is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto EU power due to its alliance with Britain, one of the three major EU powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the EU and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.

Decades after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America. The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web—woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].”

Brzezinski goes on to predict that: “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’ [a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.

The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm

“When all is said and done, the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon—a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States—Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.” -Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)

One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.

Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol:

“This war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.”

The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.

Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.

Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People

“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.” -Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)

Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.

A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.

The wars in the Middle East are as much about choice as they are about the right to live. What is at stake is self-determination and liberty. These wars represent the drive to impose an overall monopoly of controls over other nations by a few who have hijacked the foreign policies of America and Britain to serve their own goals.

The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? However, the occupying Axis governments labeled these movements as terrorists. Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan? For example, in France there was the Vichy Government; when Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France were executed as traitors.

The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests itself upwards and not from the opposite direction.

No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.

There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.

Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity.

The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.

War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East, and in the longer-term in Eurasia. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to be spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.

Countdown to 1984?

“In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...” -Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like a rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.

The Franco-German Entente and Anglo-American Alliance: Rivalry and Partnership
NRC Strengthens Ties to France - One of Canada's Most Important Scientific Partners
France Proposes Tighter EU-NATO Cooperation
Sarkozy Calls for UN-led 'New World Order'
France, together with Germany, is the driving force behind the ESA
Canada, France Congratulate CARICOM On Single Market
Canada-France Joint Action Plan: Baby Steps to Potential EU Trade Deal
Canada's Role in the Atomic Bomb Programs of the U.S., Britain, France, India
Canada can be called the true mother of the Indian nuclear bomb
France, India fire up military cooperation, nuclear ties
Germany and France: Old foes reunited in new push for power in Europe
Germany - New Super Power ??
Is USA going to maintain its Super Power Status?
Germany ist gut: the birth of a soft superpower
US has lost superpower financial status: German minister
Who Will Be the Next Superpower?
The Kings of the East
The Rising European Superpower: Prophesied in the Bible?
Will the European Union Achieve SUPERPOWER Status?
THE LONELY SUPERPOWER
Germany's Siemens AG and Russia's gas giant Gazprom sign agreement on strategic partnership
During the 1990s, Germany's Wintershall made considerable investments in Russia's industry
Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030, v2.0
Obama's Berlin Speech: "We need a strong European Union"
Development and Future of the European Union
Turkey and the European Union: Whither the Middle Path?
Federal Europe: The Next Superpower?
Europe - A Coming New World Super Power

Israel, the U.S. and the Arab World

Obama in Egypt: One Speech, Many Audiences

McClatchy Newspapers
May 31, 2009

President Obama has a sweeping goal for his speech Thursday in Cairo, Egypt: to begin remaking the dynamic between the United States and Muslims abroad.

He'll declare a clean break from the Bush administration's "war-on-terror" approach to foreign affairs and forcefully endorse establishing a Palestinian state.

He'll talk about his respect for Islamic culture and call for an era of partnering with Muslim nations in areas of common interest, including curbing extremists before they destabilize Muslim nations and threaten the West.

Having publicly demanded that Israel stop building settlements in the largely Palestinian West Bank, he'll also ask Arab nations to recognize Israel's existence.

Tying together all the elements of such a speech is no easy proposition, for his worldwide audience - Muslim and non-Muslim - reflects competing priorities.

Consider:

Lebanese go to the polls just three days after he speaks, Iranians will be preparing for pivotal elections June 12, and both contests pit moderate parties against radical forces.

Afghans and Pakistanis are girding for more U.S. military and political engagement.

Palestinians and Israelis have conflicting stakes.

In the United States, Republicans will be looking for opportunities to paint the Democratic president as anti-Israel or soft on terrorism.

"No matter how broadly he speaks, what he says will be parsed through the lens of those disagreements," said Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Middle East Democracy and Development Project at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

Obama said he won't lay out details for resolving the Arab-Israeli crisis. "I want to use the occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world," the president said Thursday.

Obama would like to rally Muslim countries to join in efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program. But while many Arab governments also see Iran as a threat, the issue divides Muslims, in part because Israel is pressing for military action.

The speech will fulfill, with about a month's delay, Obama's campaign promise to make a major address in a Muslim city in his first 100 days in office.

His choice of Egypt is symbolically important in terms of U.S. interests. It reached peace with Israel long ago, and it's been an ally against terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and in terms of seeking to contain Iran's power.

But many Egyptians fear their autocratic president, Hosni Mubarak, and polling by the Gallup organization finds that most Egyptians don't think that the United States is serious about promoting democracy in the region.

Muslims tell pollsters that one of the most important things Westerners can do to improve relations with them is to stop seeing them as inferior, said Dalia Mogahed, the Egyptian-born executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and a member of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which provided input for Obama's speech.

"If I were to convey the three major themes that I think would be important to cover in the speech, they would be the idea of respect, cooperation, and a demonstration of empathy," she said.

White House aides have emphasized that Obama will gear his remarks in Cairo to the masses, more than to governments, and to all Muslims, not just Egyptians.

That worldwide audience includes Arabs, but also Muslims altogether removed from the region, living in places with different interpretations of Islam, such Indonesia, where Obama lived as a boy.

His speech will be compared to the address then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made in Egypt in 2005, calling on Arab nations to become more democratic and for Egypt to lead the way.

The Bush administration's push for rapid democratization backfired, empowering radical groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "I believe he is not going to say much about democratization and liberalization," said Amr Hamzawy, an Egyptian political scientist based at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Mogahed said Muslims consider Obama, the son of a black Muslim immigrant raised by his white single mother, "a testament to what people say they admire the most about the United States, which at the end of the day is meritocracy."

His audience will want details about the future, however. Will former Guantanamo detainees be tried in civilian or military courts? Will Obama use U.S. leverage to ensure that Israel doesn't attack Iran, to compel a halt to settlement construction, and to adopt a more humanitarian approach to Gaza?

"The speech just can't be only about culture and religion," Mogahed said.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page