Posts tagged ‘Egypt’

July 17, 2016

Turkey’s Coup That Wasn’t

by mkleit




As coups go, the Turkish effort was a study in ineptitude: No serious attempt to capture or muzzle the existing political leadership, no leader ready to step in, no communication strategy (or even awareness of social media), no ability to mobilize a critical mass within either the armed forces or society. In their place a platoon of hapless soldiers on a bridge over the Bosporus in Istanbul and the apparently uncoordinated targeting of a few government buildings in Ankara.

It was enough for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking on his cellphone’s FaceTime app, to call supporters into the streets for the insurrection to fold. That Erdogan will no doubt be the chief beneficiary of this turmoil, using it to further his push for an autocratic Islamist Turkey, does not mean that he staged it. The Turkish army remains isolated from society. It is entirely plausible that a coterie of officers believed a polarized and disgruntled society would rise up once given a cue. If so, they were wrong – and the error has cost more than 260 lives.

But in Erdogan’s Turkey, mystery and instability have become the coin of the realm. It is no wonder that conspiracy theories abound. Since an electoral setback in June 2015, the president has overseen a Turkey that is ever more violent. This dangerous lurch has enabled him to bounce back in a second election in November and portray himself as the anointed one averting mayhem. His attempt to blame, without any evidence, the attempted coup on Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric and erstwhile ally living in Pennsylvania, forms part of a pattern of murkiness and intrigue.


Through Erdogan’s fog this much seems clear: More than 35 years after the last coup, and almost two decades after the 1997 military intervention, Turks do not want a return to the seesawing military and civilian rule that characterized the country between 1960 and 1980. On the contrary, they are attached to their democratic institutions and the constitutional order. The army, a pillar of Kemal Atatürk’s secular order, is weaker. Every major political party condemned the attempted coup. Whatever their growing anger against the president, Turks do not want to go backward.

A successful coup would have been a disaster. Erdogan has massive support in the Anatolian heartland, particularly among religious conservatives. Mosques all over the country were lit through the night as imams echoed the president’s call for people to pour into the street. There can be little doubt that any military-controlled administration would have faced a Syria-like insurgency of Islamists and others. The blow to what is left in the Middle East of democratic institutions and the rule of law would have been devastating.

No wonder President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry “agreed that all parties in Turkey should support the democratically-elected Government of Turkey, show restraint, and avoid any violence of bloodshed.”


The problem is that “restraint” is not part of Erdogan’s vocabulary. As Philip Gordon, a former Special Assistant to Obama on the Middle East, told me: “Rather than use this as an opportunity to heal divisions, Erdogan may well do the opposite: go after adversaries, limit press and other freedoms further, and accumulate even more power.” Within hours, more than 2,800 military personnel had been detained and 2,745 judges removed from duty.

A prolonged crackdown on so-called “Gulenists,” whoever Erdogan deems them to be, and the Kemalist “deep state” (supporters of the old secular order) is likely. An already divided society will grow more fissured. Secular Turkey will not quickly forget the cries of “Allahu akbar” echoing last night from some mosques and from crowds in the streets.

A rapid push by Erdogan to reform the constitution through a referendum and create a presidency with sweeping executive powers is possible. He now has a case to say only such powers will keep enemies at bay.


“It may well be that democracy has triumphed in Turkey only to be strangled at a slower pace,” Jonathan Eyal, the international director at Britain’s Royal United Services Institute, told me. There can be little doubt the expressions of support for Erdogan from western capitals came through gritted teeth.

For the Obama administration, the dilemmas of the Middle East could scarcely have been more vividly illustrated. When an Egyptian general, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, led a coup three years ago against the democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, Obama did not support the democratic government, as he has now in Turkey. The administration even avoided use of the word “coup” in Egypt. In effect, the president sided with the generals in the name of order.

True, Morsi was deeply unpopular. The Egyptian coup had massive support. It was a fait accompli by the time Obama weighed in. Still, principles in the Middle East are worth little. Policy often amounts to choosing the least bad option.


In Turkey, the least bad – Erdogan’s survival – has prevailed. That does not mean much worse will not follow. A failed coup does not mean democracy is the winner. In fact, the worst of this prickly autocrat may now be unleashed upon Turkey, with America and its allies able to do little about it.

September 1, 2015

Otpor: The support of global revolutions, even in Lebanon

by mkleit

The Revolution Business, 2011 – Consultants are helping people countries like Ukraine and Egypt build a foundation of knowledge in order to start revolutions.

Democratic change has been demanded across the Middle East. But was what seems like a spontaneous revolution actually a strategically planned event, fabricated by ‘revolution consultants’ long in advance?

Revolution consultants are the worst nightmare of every regime. Srdja Popovic was a founder of the organisation ‘Otpor’, a revolution training school. It was instrumental in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s and has now inspired a new generation of activists. Political commentators like William Engdahl are convinced Otpor is being financed by the USA. “The people from Otpor gave us a book in which they described all their strategies”, says Ezzedine Zaatour of the Tunisian uprising. That book was written by an American, Gene Sharp, and is now considered the “revolution guide book”, being used by opposition movements worldwide. As Optor release their latest gadget, a resistance training computer game sponsored by American organisations, world leaders are voicing their concerns. “This is called a gentle coup!”, insists Hugo Chavez.

June 26, 2015

Saudi Arabia Will Fail in Yemen

by mkleit

Asher Orkaby

Asher Orkaby, PhD, is a research fellow at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies and is the author of a forthcoming book, The International History of the Yemen Civil War, 1962-68.

National Interest

Neutron bomb on the outskirts of Yemeni capital Sanaa

Neutron bomb on the outskirts of Yemeni capital Sanaa

As the warring Yemeni parties gather for preliminary peace talks in Geneva, Saudi Arabia continues its unrelenting bombing campaign against the tribes of the Houthi movement. For two and a half months, the air forces of the Saudi coalition have targeted military sites, homes and businesses affiliated with the Houthi movement, as well as the palaces and residences of former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his political allies. Yet, as the Houthis sit down at the negotiating table this week, their domestic political and strategic position has not been greatly affected by this extensive bombing. Saudi Arabia’s futile air campaign is a further demonstration of the limits of airpower in general, and in South Arabia specifically.

Saudi Arabia did not pioneer the use of airpower to exercise regional power, which originated with the British imperial policy of “air control” in post-WWI Iraq. Winston Churchill, the postwar Secretary of War and Secretary of State for Air championed the use of air force to maintain British control over Iraq while expending the least amount of military force on the ground. Inaccurate intelligence, inadequate navigation equipment and pilot errors led many bombs astray, often hitting the wrong target and with little distinction between civilians and militants. Attacks and patrols by the British Royal Air Force were guided by sparse local intelligence networks and were intended more for the psychological impact of unfamiliar aerial bombardment rather than the ability to achieve a military objective.

This model of British imperial power and control was used in other colonial arenas, including South Yemen, then the British Aden Protectorate. A decade of British aerial patrols and attacks during the 1960s failed to stem the tide of a Yemeni nationalist movement that supplanted British colonial rule in South Yemen. The success of Britain’s air control in Arabia was limited by two main factors. The mountainous terrain of Yemen provided the guerilla opposition with an impervious natural cover from bombs within a cave system that pockmarks the landscape. International media was stacked against the remnants of the British Empire and bombs that found civilian targets were met with a great deal of negative press.

The British Royal Air Force was not the only imperial force in South Arabia trying to use its air force to dominate a tribal opposition. During the 1960s, Egypt transferred nearly a third of its air capabilities to North Yemen in support of the fledgling republic founded in 1962. The tactical success of the Egyptian aerial campaign was similarly hampered by Yemen’s terrain. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser even went as far as authorizing the use of poison gas against cave shelters, intending to flush the opposition out into the open before coming back around for a second round of high explosive incendiary bombs.

Air superiority was the linchpin of Egypt’s strategic model of maintaining a triangular defensive perimeter around North Yemen’s three main cities of Hodeidah, Sana’a, and Taiz, while forestalling a concerted guerilla offensive from the surrounding rural and mountainous regions. Both Britain and Egypt were under political pressure to limit the number of casualties that would have undoubtedly occurred as a consequences of a more effective large-scale ground operation. Air power in Arabia, however, was limited in its ability to achieve tangible military goals. Rather than subdue domestic opposition, aerial bombardment only fed the flames of propaganda and distrust of a faceless enemy from above. Both Britain and Egypt were forced to make an ignominious withdrawal by the end of 1967, leaving failed states in their wake.

Saudi air force destroys mosque in bordering governorate of Saada in Yemen

Saudi air force destroys mosque in bordering governorate of Saada in Yemen

Saudi Arabia and its coalition of Arab and African countries appears to be taking the same path as the failed imperial policies of the 1960s. The Saudi air campaign was originally met with tepid enthusiasm by members of Yemen’s Southern Movement and supporters of Yemen’s ousted, but still internationally recognized President, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. Many Yemenis were alarmed by the speed with which the tribesmen of the Houthi movement took control of the government in Sana’a and extended their military presence southward in pursuit of Hadi and his supporters. Two and a half months later, the Saudi bombing campaign has evolved from a series of tactical strikes to slow the Houthi military assault into a vendetta bombing campaign against Saudi political opponents in Yemen. Many of the airstrikes are targeting civilian houses belonging to Saleh’s family and friends, factories deemed suspicious and civilian transportation hubs and airports across the country, all of which have questionable military value.

Sitting comfortably in his luxury hotel of exile, President Hadi continues to condone Saudi bombings even as a staggering number of his countrymen have become internal refugees and are suffering a humanitarian crisis of serious proportions. Rather than garner additional public support for President Hadi, the Saudi bombing campaign has only increased the skepticism of his remote government and has instead played into the hands of Houthi propagandists. All the while, it does not seem that the military capabilities of the Houthi tribesmen or the segments of the Yemeni army still loyal to Saleh have been greatly diminished.

Saudi air force destroys mosque in bordering governorate of Saada in Yemen

Saudi air force destroys mosque in bordering governorate of Saada in Yemen

Not only have the Saudi’s not been able to slow the Houthi advance, but on June 6, Scud missiles launched by Houthi forces hit King Khalid Air Base, Saudi Arabia’s largest air base and the operations center for the current bombing campaign. Although Saudi officials tried to downplay the attack, which was shrouded in secrecy, it soon became known that Saudi Air Force Commander Lieutenant General Muhammad bin Ahmed Al-Shaalan was killed during the attack. This was particularly shocking to the Saudis as the Shaalan family is nationally prominent and connected through marriage and political alliance to the ruling Saud family.

The attack exposed the disturbing unreadiness of Saudi air defense capabilities and the limits of their air force’s ability to affect military and political outcomes in Yemen. Since the beginnings of the bombing campaign in March 2015, Saudi-coalition planes have faced little anti-aircraft fire, hardly a test of the pilots resolve or training. Even though the Houthis lack armed surface-to-air resistance, the recent Scud missile attack reinforced the fact that the Saudi aerial campaign has failed to eliminate the Houthi coalition’s large-scale military capability.

What emerged from the Scud missile debacle was that an American team is operating a Patriot missile defense system in the vicinity of the King Khalid Air Base, which is also the command center for the U.S. drone campaign in the region. It has been reported that several of the fired Scud missiles were intercepted by U.S. Patriot missiles, the first instance where American forces and Houthis exchanged fire, albeit indirectly. Additionally, the U.S. Air Force has been providing Saudi-coalition planes with satellite imagery and intelligence related to Houthi targets. The emergence of these details has reinforced a propaganda line reiterated on the Houthi cable channel al-Masirah that refers to the Saudi coalition as the “Saudi-American coalition.”

Images of Yemeni Scud missile being fired at King Khalid Air Base, Southern KSA

Images of Yemeni Scud missile being fired at King Khalid Air Base, Southern KSA

Despite emerging evidence that the Saudi-coalition’s aerial campaign is not only ineffective but counterproductive to the promotion of a political settlement in Yemen, the bombings continue with no sign of concluding. The relentless pursuit of an aggressive military stance towards the Houthi movement is in part a reflection of Saudi Arabia’s struggle against the ghost of Iranian involvement in South Arabia. There is no Saudi exit strategy in which the bombing can stop, short of a complete Houthi political withdrawal. Otherwise, this war will demonstrate a weakness in Saudi policy towards Iran. This aggressive policy is driven in particular by the new Saudi King Salman’s need to exhibit political and military dominance to quiet his many doubters. The Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the director of operations in Yemen, feels additional pressure to act decisively in order to prove his resolve as the world’s youngest minister of defense at the age of 30.

Even with all of King Salman’s resolve and Mohammad bin Salman’s machismo, the Saudi aerial campaign will be limited by a difficult propaganda war by the Houthis and the same historic terrain that served as an obstacle to British and Egyptian aerial control of Yemen during the 1960s. Saudi Arabia cannot triumph through force of arms alone as its air force has reached the upper limits of what it can achieve against the Houthis. Continuing a fruitless aerial campaign will only foster increasing anti-Saudi political alliance in Yemen and lead to an ignominious withdrawal reminiscent of British and Egyptian withdrawals of the past.

Yemeni soldier destroys Saudi tank from close range inside Saudi-border military camp

Yemeni soldier destroys Saudi tank from close range inside Saudi-border military camp

Yemeni soldiers hold Yemeni flag from Saudi military outpost in Asseer

Yemeni soldiers hold Yemeni flag from Saudi military outpost in Asseer

Yemeni army firing locally-manufactured Zilzal "earthquake" missile at Saudi military base in the south

Yemeni army firing locally-manufactured Zilzal “earthquake” missile at Saudi military base in the south

Yemeni army firing Grad missiles at Saudi bases in south

Yemeni army firing Grad missiles at Saudi bases in south

Yemeni soldier declaring victory over Saudi soldiers in Jizan area south of KSA

Yemeni soldier declaring victory over Saudi soldiers in Jizan area south of KSA

Yemeni soldier holding a LAW during fights against Saudi soldiers in Jizzan

Yemeni soldier holding a LAW during fights against Saudi soldiers in Jizzan

Yemeni Yirivan missiles being fired at Saudi military bases in Jizzan

Yemeni Yirivan missiles being fired at Saudi military bases in Jizzan

June 3, 2015

How Qatar Used and Abused Its Al Jazeera Journalists

by mkleit

JUNE 2, 2015

Mohamed Fahmy, an Egyptian-Canadian journalist who was the Cairo bureau chief for Al Jazeera English, is the author of “Baghdad Bound: An Interpreter’s Chronicles of the Iraq War.”


CAIRO — This week, I am back in court in an effort to prove my innocence at a retrial on charges that I was a member of the banned Muslim Brotherhood, designated a terrorist organization in Egypt since December 2013, and that I sought to harm the country’s reputation and security. I already spent 412 days in detention before my conviction in the first trial was overturned on appeal earlier this year.

The terrorism charges against me and my colleague Baher Mohamed are unfounded and have been widely discredited. The other charges relate to our employment by the Al Jazeera media network, which is owned by the state of Qatar.

Following the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood-backed president, Mohamed Morsi, in 2013, Egypt moved to ban Al Jazeera’s Arabic service in the country, known as Mubasher Misr, because it was perceived as a Qatari-sponsored propaganda mouthpiece for the Brotherhood. I was the bureau chief of the Al Jazeera English service, a separate operation that adhered to higher journalistic standards, which, we assumed, would inoculate us against accusations of bias. We were mistaken.

 Mohamed Fahmy at his retrial on Monday. Credit Amr Nabil/Associated Press

Now, Baher and I find ourselves once again in the soundproof defendants’ cage, fighting to avoid long prison terms. Our friend and fellow Jazeera journalist, Peter Greste, will not be with us. Thanks to his government’s work to win his release, Peter is home in Australia.

At the retrial, we will argue that we continued to work despite the broadcast ban because we believed the English service was exempt and Al Jazeera failed to obtain legal clarification from the Egyptian authorities. If, as a result, there were violations of licensing laws, which in any case would be merely misdemeanors, it is the network’s executives from Qatar who should pay, not us. A final ruling from the Egyptian court could come later this month.

My 18-month ordeal may be close to an end, yet I find myself increasingly angry at how my life and the lives of my family and loved ones have been turned upside down. My anger, however, is not directed primarily at the prosecutor, the judiciary or the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. It is aimed at my employer, Al Jazeera.

The network knowingly antagonized the Egyptian authorities by defying a court-ordered ban on its Arabic-language service. Behind that, I believe, was the desire of the Qatari royal family to meddle in Egypt’s internal affairs. While Al Jazeera’s Doha executives used the Cairo bureau of Al Jazeera English to give their scheme a veneer of international respectability, they made us unwitting pawns in Qatar’s geopolitical game.

Midway through our first trial, last year, Al Jazeera undermined our defense when it sued Egypt for $150 million in compensation for business losses in Egypt. The network’s own lawyer in our case criticized the lawsuit and quit the case. “Al Jazeera is using my clients,” he told the court,according to Agence France-Presse. “I have emails from (the channel) telling me they don’t care about the defendants and care about insulting Egypt.”

This is why in May I filed a lawsuit in Canada, where I hold citizenship as well as in Egypt, against Al Jazeera. I intend to hold the network accountable for its negligent conduct, and I am seeking $83 million in compensation for my ordeal.

When Al Jazeera was started in 1996, Qatar was widely praised for its enlightened thinking. The network’s 24-hour rolling news coverage was a breath of fresh air in the Middle East’s torpid media scene. The international services, like Al Jazeera English, recruited some of the best names in journalism.

Like many young Arabs, I was impressed. Al Jazeera seemed a model of courageous broadcasting in a region not known for upholding freedom of speech. That was still my view when I became Cairo bureau chief in September 2013.

I have since realized how deeply I, like the viewing public, was duped. I came to see how Qatar used Al Jazeera as a pernicious, if effective, tool of its foreign policy.

A court order shut down Mubasher Misr the same month I joined Al Jazeera English, but the channel continued to broadcast by satellite and Internet from studios in Doha. I soon had concerns that Qatar was compromising our journalism. Against my objections, the Arabic station redubbed our English-language news packages with inflammatory commentary.

I frequently complained to the Doha bosses that broadcasting our reports on the banned Mubasher Misr, which was officially classified as “a national security threat,” put our lives at risk. They told me to get on with the job, but the practice continued — even after Egypt declared the Brotherhood a terrorist group, days before our arrest. When we came to trial, the network’s actions made it much harder to disprove the testimony of the prosecution’s lead national security witness that I had worked for Mubasher Misr, inaccurate though it was.

The Doha management also neglected to tell me that it was providing Brotherhood activists in Egypt with video cameras and paying them for footage, which it then broadcast, without explaining its political provenance, on the banned Arabic channel. During my detention, I met a number of prisoners who told me how this worked, and I have seen court documents confirming it.

Al Jazeera’s managers crossed an ethical red line. By attempting to manipulate Egypt’s domestic politics, they were endangering their employees.

Qatar and Al Jazeera will continue to talk about Doha’s progressive values and support for freedom of speech in the region. Just days ago, Qatar’s ambassador to the United Nations piously told the Security Council that her country supported efforts to enhance the safety of journalists and voted for a resolution calling for “a safe and enabling environment for journalists, media professionals and associated personnel to perform their work independently and without undue interference.”

I wonder how the Qatari poet Mohammed al-Ajami feels as he languishes in Doha’s central prison, serving a life sentence for “criticizing the emir” in a poem. You won’t find his plight highlighted on Al Jazeera’s outlets anytime soon.

I have come to understand that Al Jazeera’s noble-sounding claims are nothing but a glossy whitewash.

August 22, 2014

وكالة الاستخبارات الأميركي “تجاهد في سبيل الله” – الأخبار

by mkleit
جعفر البكلي
جريدة الأخبار

رنّ جرس الهاتف في حجرة نوم الرئيس الأميركي في الطابق الثاني بالبيت الأبيض. كانت الساعة تشير إلى الثانية صباحاً. رفع الرئيس السمّاعة، فخاطبه صوت مستشاره للأمن القومي قائلاً: «سيدي الرئيس، آسف لأني اضطررت لإيقاظك. الوضع غَدَاً خطر».

بعد أربع ساعات تقريباً، في تمام السادسة والنصف صباحاً من يوم الخميس 27 كانون الأول 1979، نزل جيمي كارتر إلى المكتب البيضاوي. كان زبيغنيو بريجنسكي مستشار الأمن القومي بانتظاره جالساً مترقباً. بادره الرئيس بالسؤال: «ما الجديد؟».

أجاب بريجنسكي: «لقد قتلوا الرئيس أمين! الأمر لم يعد يتعلق الآن بإعادة تمركز قواتهم كما كنا نتصوّر من قبل، بل هو غزو واحتلال كامل للبلد! إنّ أعداداً كبيرة من القوات المجوقلة انضمت للقوات السوفياتية المتمركزة على الأرض، وبدأت بالهبوط في كابول. شبكة الاتصالات انقطعت بالكامل في أفغانستان، وهذا البلد صار معزولاً تماماً عن العالم الخارجي».

صمت بريجنسكي قليلاً ثمّ نظر في أوراق دوّن عليها بعض النقاط والملاحظات، وأردف: «سي آي إيه أكدت لي منذ قليل أنّ كتيبتين من القوات الخاصة السوفياتية هما «ألفا» و«زينيث»، قامتا باحتلال الأبنية الحكومية والعسكرية والإذاعية في كابول، بما فيها القصر الرئاسي، حيث تخلصوا من الرئيس حفيظ الله أمين. وكتيبة «فايتبسك» المظلية احتلت مطار بغرام. وأمّا عملاء «كي جي بي» فقد أحكموا السيطرة على مراكز الاتصالات الرئيسية في العاصمة، وشلوا بذلك القيادة العسكرية الأفغانية».

سأل كارتر: «وهل تظن أن غزوهم سيقتصر على أفغانستان؟». صمت بريجنسكي برهة قليلة، ثمّ أجاب: «تقديري الخاص، أن غزو السوفيات لأفغانستان هو بداية الأمر، وليس نهايته. ويشاطرني في هذا الرأي أيضاً الأميرال تيرنر» (يقصد ستانسفيلد تيرنر، مدير وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية الأميركية آنذاك).

حكّ الرئيس كارتر أنفه وهو ينظر إلى زبيغينيو بقلق، فأردف كبير المستشارين البولندي الأصل، موضحاً لرئيسه مكمن الخطر: «السيد الرئيس، إذا تركناهم اليومَ يضعون أيديهم على أفغانستان، فما الذي يضمن لنا أن لا يتطلعوا غداً نحو إيران؟! الوضع الآن في إيران مشوش. ونحن فقدنا السيطرة تماماً على هذا البلد الأهم في الشرق الأوسط، والخميني يبدي عداء ضارياً لنا، والحكومة الإيرانية تخشى من ضربتنا الوشيكة لهم بعدما احتجزوا موظفي السفارة. كل هذا قد يجعل الخمينيين يتقربون من السوفيات ويحتمون بهم، كما تقرّب بالأمس منهم أمين واحتمى بهم. والسوفيات إذا مدوا عروقهم أكثر في طهران، صنعوا فيها ما يصنعونه اليوم في كابول. فإذا سقطت طهران بعد كابول، صارت منابع النفط في الخليج الفارسي في متناول يد موسكو!».

ران صمت ثقيل في المكتب البيضاوي، قبل أن يقطعه الرئيس الأميركي قائلاً بصوت حازم: «ادع مجلس الأمن القومي فوراً».

يا أميركا حرّضي المؤمنين على القتال

صبيحة يوم 27 كانون الأول 1979، انعقد مجلس الأمن القومي الأميركي في «مبنى إيزنهاور» المقابل للبيت الأبيض. ضمّ الاجتماع كلّاً من الرئيس كارتر، ونائبه والتر موندل، ومستشار الأمن القومي بريجنسكي، ووزير الخارجية سايروس فانس، ووزير الدفاع هارولد براون، ورئيس هيئة الأركان المشتركة الجنرال ديفيد جونز، ومدير وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية ستانسفيلد تيرنر، وبعض المستشارين المتخصصين المرافقين لأعضاء المجلس. دام ذلك الاجتماع أربع ساعات. واتفق فيه على جملة من القرارات تصب في خدمة هدفين اثنين هما:

1ــ يجب على الولايات المتحدة أن تردع الاتحاد السوفياتي بكل وسائلها، كي لا يطمع قادته أو يفكروا فيما وراء أفغانستان.

2ــ بعد التأكد من تحقق الهدف الأول، يجب على الولايات المتحدة أن تعمل لدحر السوفيات في أفغانستان نفسها، حتى يخرجوا منها مهزومين غير منتصرين.

وفي ما يخص الهدف الأميركي الأول، يكون على واشنطن أن تنبّه السوفيات بالوسائل الدبلوماسية/ السياسية بدايةً، ثمّ بفرض العقوبات الاقتصادية/ المالية عليهم تالياً، ثمّ بتفعيل الاتفاقيات الأمنية/ العسكرية السرية المبرمة مع ملوك ورؤساء وأمراء البلدان الحليفة في الشرق الأوسط. وفي هذا الصدد، يكون على السفراء الأميركيين المعتمدين في العواصم الخليجية (وفي القاهرة وعمّان) أن يطلبوا من السلطات المحلية تنفيذ تفاهمات واتفاقات سرية أبرمت مع الولايات المتحدة سابقاً، بما في ذلك حق أميركا في استخدام القواعد العسكرية في بلدانهم للأغراض الحربية. ويفضل أن تمر تلك الإجراءات بهدوء، ومن غير صخب إعلامي.

وأمّا في ما يخص الهدف الأميركي الثاني، فإنّ واشنطن يجب أن تنال غايتها من دون أن تتدخل عسكرياً أو علنياً ضد السوفيات في أفغانستان، وذلك لثلاثة أسباب:

أولاً: لأنها لا ترتبط قانونياً مع حكومة كابول بأي اتفاق دفاعي مشترك، على عكس غريمها السوفياتي الذي وقع منذ عام، مع الرئيس الأفغاني السابق نور محمد تراقي «معاهدة الصداقة والتعاون وحسن الجوار» التي تتيح لموسكو إمكان التدخل العسكري لمساعدة النظام الحليف لها في أفغانستان. وبذلك تنزع تلك الاتفاقية، قانونياً، عن «العملية السوفياتية» صبغة الاحتلال.

ثانياً: لأنّ حماية أفغانستان نفسها ليست هدفاً أميركياً مغرياً. فما يهم واشنطن أساساً هو حماية مصالحها الاستراتيجية التي تحيط بأفغانستان (في إيران وباكستان والخليج). ولذلك فإن دخول أميركا في صدام عسكري مباشر مع الاتحاد السوفياتي من أجل أفغانستان – بقطع النظر عن مسوغاته القانونية – هو أمر غير مرغوب، فضلاً عن أنه مكلف.

ثالثاً: لأنّه باستطاعة أميركا تحقيق غايتها، وإخراج السوفيات من أفغانستان منكسرين، من دون أن تخسر هي جندياً واحداً من جنودها، أو تحرك طائرة واحدة من طائراتها… وذلك لأنّ بلاد الأفغان يمكنها أن تكون فخاً أميركياً مثالياً للروس!

وأثناء نقاشات مجلس الأمن القومي الأميركي (المذكور)، عرض ستانسفيلد تيرنر مدير «سي آي إيه» كيف نجحت وكالته، مع حلفائها الباكستانيين، في اختراق قيادات من القبائل الأفغانية (خصوصاً من قبائل الباشتون ذات الارتباطات الإثنية مع باكستان). وكيف جُنّدت ميليشيات من رجال القبائل للقيام بحرب عصابات ضد الحكومة الأفغانية، وضد الجنود والمستشارين السوفيات الداعمين لها، في إطار معاهدة التعاون العسكري. وذكر تيرنر كيف عملت «سي آي إيه» فعلاً على مضاعفة دعمها «للمجاهدين»، بعد أن أصدر لها الرئيس كارتر في الثالث من تموز 1979 توجيهاً رئاسياً لزيادة تمويلهم وتسليحهم، وتحفيزهم معنوياً تحت شعارات «الجهاد ضد الشيوعيين الملحدين الذين يريدون شراً بالإسلام في أفغانستان». وبالفعل فقد قامت هذه الميليشيات بجهد مميّز في حربها ضد حكومة كابول ما اضطر الاتحاد السوفياتي، في نهاية المطاف، إلى التدخل بنفسه في أفغانستان، لينقذ نظاماً جاراً وحليفاً له من التهاوي تحت ضربات «المجاهدين» المدعومين من وكالة الاستخبارات الأميركية. وكان من رأي مجلس الأمن القومي في اجتماعه المذكور، أنّ أميركا تستطيع أن تزيد جرعات دعمها لميليشيات «المجاهدين»، وأن تحفزها دينياً «للجهاد – أكثر فأكثر – ضد الملحدين الذين يريدون شراً بالإسلام». ذلك أنّ جهاد أولئك المجاهدين إذا وفرت له أميركا بيئة مساعدة إقليمياً وإسلامياً وغطاء من الدعاية الإعلامية ومدداً من المتطوعين الراغبين في الشهادة في سبيل الله ورُزَماً من المال وترسانات من السلاح، فهو حينئذ لا بدّ أن يؤتي أكله، عاجلاً أو آجلاً… ولقد أثمر «الجهاد» نتائج رائعة لمصلحة أميركا، فيستنزف السوفيات، من دون أن تخسر هي شيئاً يذكر!

ولأجل تحقيق هذه الأهداف، قرر الرئيس الأميركي إيفاد مستشاره للأمن القومي في «جولة مكوكية» إلى الشرق الأوسط لإقناع الحلفاء بمحاسن «الجهاد الإسلامي»، وبأهمية تمويل «المقاومة» وتسليحها، وبضرورة الوقوف كالبنيان المرصوص ضد دولة الاحتلال، وضد الكفار والملحدين الذين يريدون شراً بالإسلام وأهله!


مَثلُ الذين ينفقون أموالهم في سبيل أميركا

بدأ زبيغنيو بريجنسكي جولته في القاهرة، فالتقى يوم 3 كانون الثاني 1980 الرئيس المصري أنور السادات. ولم يكن إقناع «الرئيس المؤمن» بخدمة المشروع الأميركي الجديد صعباً، فالرجل قد أسلم زمامه تماماً «لصديقه الحميم» كارتر، منذ أن قبل بمعاهدة «كامب ديفيد». وكان مطلب المبعوث الأميركي من مصر هو القيام بحملات دعائية إعلامية نشطة يشارك فيها شيوخ الأزهر (ولا بأس إذا تمكّن السادات بما له من دالة على «الإخوان المسلمين» أن يشركهم في هذه الحملة أيضاً)، والمراد من تلك الحملات أن تبيّن للعرب قبح صنيع الملاحدة الروس، وأن تستصرخ ضمائرهم لنجدة إخواننا المسلمين في أفغانستان، وأن تفتي بوجوب الجهاد في سبيل الله لتحرير هذا البلد الأسير.

وفي المقابل فإنّ مصر ستنال أجرها وافياً على مجهوداتها، من خلال صندوق تمويل تزمع واشنطن إنشاءه بالتعاون مع المملكة العربية السعودية ودول الخليج الأخرى، ويكون مقره في جنيف. ثم إن مصر قد تنال أجرها على الجهاد مضاعفاً من أميركا. فإن لزم «المجاهدين الأفغان» سلاح (ولا شك أنه سيلزمهم) فإن القاهرة بإمكانها أن تبيع بأسعار مربحة إلى «صندوق الجهاد» تلك الأسلحة السوفياتية الفائضة عن حاجتها، والتي اشترتها من موسكو في الماضي بأسعار زهيدة، للمساهمة بها في الجهاد ضد الروس!

[في الحقيقة، أن الأسلحة السوفياتية لمصر لم تكن رخيصة، وإنما كانت شبه مجانية، لأن مصر لم تدفع لحد اليوم ثمنها، بل يمكن أن يقال إن الاتحاد السوفياتي قد تبرّع بمجمل السلاح الذي قاتل به الجنود المصريون في أربعة حروب (56/ 67/ الاستنزاف/ 73) لمصلحة المجهود الحربي المصري والعربي ضدّ «إسرائيل». والاتحاد السوفياتي لم يكتف بالتبرع للعرب بالسلاح الذي قاتلوا به عدوهم، بل هو تبرع لهم بمستشارين عسكريين، وبطواقم من خيرة طياريه ليقاتلوا جنباً إلى جنب مع المصريين، وليعلموهم كيف يستعملون ذلك السلاح بكفاءة. أمّا إذا تطرقنا إلى المساعدات الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والسياسية السوفياتية لمصر وللعرب جميعاً، فحدّث ولا حرج!].

ومباشرة بعد تلقيه مطالبَ المبعوث السامي الأميركي، أمر السادات بتخصيص مطار قنا العسكري ليكون مقراً لمجهود «الجهاد» الأميركي، وليصير قاعدة منها تحمّل الأسلحة المصرية (السوفياتية) إلى باكستان حيث توزعها «سي آي إيه» على إخواننا «المجاهدين». كما أمر الرئيس المصري بجعل ميناء بورسعيد قاعدة خلفية لتخزين وشحن السلاح إلى ميناء كراتشي.

وفي 1 نيسان 1980 بقّ السادات البحصة كما يقول المثل اللبناني، حين تكلم في حديث صحافي نشرته وسائل الإعلام المصرية قائلاً: «إننا على استعداد بأسرع ما يمكن لكي نساعد في أفغانستان وأن نتدخل لنصرة إخواننا المجاهدين هناك، سواء طلبوا منا المساعدة أو لم يطلبوها!» (1).

وبعد يوم من اجتماعه مع السادات، طار بريجنسكي إلى جدة، حيث التقى الأمير فهد ولي العهد السعودي وشقيقه الأمير سلطان وزير الدفاع. وكان المطلوب من السعودية أن تخرج من جيوبها المال. ولم يرفض فهد أن يدفع، ولكنه اشترط أن تجرى الأمور الأمنية ضد الروس بسرية مخافة انتقامهم من المملكة، وأن يتولى الأمير تركي الفيصل رئيس الاستخبارات العامة السعودية تنسيق الجهد السعودي مع «سي آي إيه»، وأن تحصرَ الاتصالاتُ السياسية والتوجيهات المباشرة للمجاهدين بالطرف السعودي. ثمّ إنّ الأمير فهد اشترط على مستشار الأمن القومي الأميركي أن تؤدي الولايات المتحدة قسطها المالي بما يساوي قسط السعودية، أي أن تدفع هي الأخرى 500 مليون دولار للجهاد، تتجدد دورياً بحسب حاجة المجاهدين.

وكان على بريجنسكي أن يقبل بشروط فهد، ولكن المشكلة أن الشرط المالي الأخير عويص التحقيق. وواشنطن كان «عشمها» أن تتكفل السعودية بتحمل الأعباء المالية للجهاد في سبيل الله لوحدها، أو بالاشتراك مع دول الخليج الأخرى. ولقد حاول بريجنسكي أن يشرح لفهد بأنّ عبء النصف مليار دولار سنوياً هو أثقل مما تستطيع ميزانية وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية أن تتحملَه. كما أنه أكبر مما تقبل به لجنة الأمن المتفرعة من لجنة الشؤون الخارجية في الكونغرس، للموافقة على اعتمادات العمليات السرية. فضلاً عن أنّ الذهاب إلى مثل هذه اللجان يعني شبه كشفٍ للعملية السرية ضد الروس! ولم يتزحزح فهد عن شرطه إلا قليلاً، فقبل أن تؤجل أميركا مساهمتها لبعض الوقت حتى تدبر أمرها، ثمّ قبل أن تبادر السعودية إلى تمويل مشروع الجهاد منفردة على أن تلحق بها واشنطن حين ييسّر الله لها مخرجاً من عسرها.

يسألونك عن الأفيون، قل فيه منافع للناس

مرت سنة 1980 الانتخابية من دون أن تدفع إدارة كارتر تكاليف مشروعها الجهادي، بل إن المملكة السعودية هي التي تحملت عبء حصتها وحصة أميركا معاً. وانتهى عام 80 بخسارة كارتر ومغادرته مع مستشاره بريجنسكي للبيت الأبيض، ومجيء رونالد ريغان وطاقمه. وكان من الطبيعي أن تفتح للإدارة الأميركية الجديدة جميعُ الملفات السرية، ومنها عمليات «سي آي إيه» للجهاد في سبيل الله ودحر الكفر والإلحاد. وكان على الجنرال فيرنون والترز نائب مدير وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية الأميركية آنذاك، أن يشرح لريغان تفاصيل تلك العملية. ويبدو أن الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب قد تحمس كثيراً لمسألة الجهاد ضد السوفيات. ولكن المعضلة القديمة كانت ما تزال قائمة، فالاعتمادات المالية للعملية باهظة جداً، والرياض بدأت تتذمر لكونها تحمل «الشيلة» لوحدها، ثمّ إن حملة ريغان الانتخابية نفسها رفعت شعار الضغط على الإنفاق الحكومي لتقليص الدين العام، ومن غير الوارد أن يخنث الرئيس بالوعد الذي قطعه للناخبين منذ يومه الأول في الحكم. 

رونالد ريغان يلتقي بقادة اسلاميين في الأردن بحضور الملك الأردني

رونالد ريغان يلتقي بقادة اسلاميين في الأردن بحضور الملك الأردني

ولقد جاء الفرج، في شكل «نصيحة» من ألكسندر دو ميرانش رئيس جهاز مكافحة التجسس الخارجي (المخابرات الفرنسية)، للرئيس ريغان حينما اجتمع به في المكتب البيضاوي يوم 23 كانون الثاني 1981، بحضور وزير الدفاع الأميركي كاسبر واينبرغر، وروبرت ماكفرلين مساعد مستشار الأمن القومي، وفيرنون والترز الذي عينه ريغان مستشاراً له للمهمات الخاصة. وكانت نصيحة ألكسندر دو ميرانش لريغان أنه بإمكانه أن يستفيد من شحنات المخدرات الهائلة التي يصادرها كل من مكتب التحقيقات الفيدرالي وهيئة الجمارك، لأجل تمويل حصة الولايات المتحدة في صندوق الجهاد. وإنّ تلك الشحنات المصادرة من المخدرات ربما تثمّن بمليارات الدولارات في السوق السوداء، وبدلاً من إتلافها – كما ينص القانون الأميركي – يستحسن إعادة بيعها والاستفادة بثمنها في العمليات السرية للإدارة، من دون المرور بالكونغرس وبلجانه البيروقراطية. ولعل «سي آي إيه» تستفيد من المخدرات بطريقة أخرى إذا استطاعت توصيلها إلى الجنود السوفيات ليستهلكوها! (2).

ولقد راق هذا الاقتراح الفرنسي للرئيس الأميركي، فأمر مدير «سي آي إيه» الجديد ويليام كايسي بأن يسعى إلى تنفيذ هذه «الفكرة العظيمة» في الحال. وكذلك جعل الله لأميركا مخرجاً، ورزقها المال اللازم للجهاد في سبيله، من حيث لا تحتسب!

ويبدو أنّ «السي. آي. إيه» اكتشفت لاحقاً منافع الأفيون الذي تمتاز بإنتاجه أرض أفغانستان، فهذه الزراعة لو قدّر لها أن تتطوّر إلى صناعة، فإنها ستغني «المجاهدين» عن مدّ أكفهم لأيدي المحسنين. وهكذا فقد تضاعف، في سنوات الجهاد، إنتاج المزارعين الأفغان من الخشخاش مرات عدة حتى صار مردوده المالي يقارب ستة مليارات دولار سنوياً، وأصبح الأفيون وتقطيره أهم صناعة وطنية في البلاد. ولقد احتاجت تلك الصناعة سريعاً إلى أن تردفها التجارة، ثمّ احتاجت التجارة إلى طرق مواصلات مؤمنة. وكذلك أمسك كل زعيم ميليشيا (جهادية) بتقاطع طرق، فأنشأ عليه حاجزاً يُنَظِّم مرور شحنات الأفيون، ويسمح بها مقابل رسوم يقتطعها تحت يافطة «واجب دعم الجهاد»!

ويروي الصحافي الباكستاني محمد رشيد كيف أنّ التغاضي والتواطؤ والجشع قد أوصلوا جميعاً إلى ما يشبه «الانفجار» في تجارة المخدرات. وفي عقد الثمانينيات من القرن العشرين اقترب حجم المخدرات الأفغانية المتداولة في العالم من 70% من إجمالي الإنتاج. ولقد اضطرّ بعض ضباط مكاتب مكافحة المخدرات التابعة للأمم المتحدة في بيشاور إلى الاستقالة من وظائفهم احتجاجاً على العراقيل التي يصنعها رجال الاستخبارات المركزية الأميركية والمخابرات العسكرية الباكستانية لجهودهم! (3).  ومن غرائب التصاريف أنّ حركة طالبان، حين استولت على الحكم في أفغانستان فيما بعد، أرادت أن تحرّم زراعة المخدرات، لكنها وجدت أنّ موارد البلاد من المال قد شحّت بصورة مفجعة من بعد حملتها الأمنية ضد الخشخاش. ولمّا كان صندوق مال الجهاد السعودي/ الأميركي قد ولّى إلى غير رجعة مع انتهاء «الجهاد» في البلاد، فقد كان لازماً لأمير المؤمنين الملا محمد عمر أن يدبّر أمره. وهكذا أصدر أمير المؤمنين فتوى من أغرب ما يكون، وكان فحواها أن «زراعة الأفيون وتجارته مباحة شرعاً، وأما زراعة الحشيش وتجارته فهي محرمة شرعاً. والداعي: أن الأفيون تقع زراعته وصناعته بهدف التصدير، فلا ينزل ضرَرُه إلّا على الكفار، وأما الحشيش فإنه يُستهلك محلياً، فينزل ضرره على المسلمين!» (4).

■ ■ ■

لم تنته حتى اليوم تلك المأساة التي حلت بأفغانستان، تحت مسميات «الجهاد»، و«نصرة إخواننا المسلمين»، و«التصدي لمشروع الإلحاد»… ولقد وصل مجمل ما أنفقته الأطراف المتصارعة في أفغانستان، وما خسرته تلك البلاد جرّاء حروب «الجهاد» و«الحرية» و«دحر الإلحاد» إلى ما قيمته 45 مليار دولار. وصرفت «سي آي إيه» على الجهاد الأفغاني ما يقدّرُ الخبراءُ قيمته بين 12 إلى 14 مليار دولار. وتكفلت المملكة العربية السعودية بدفع عشرة مليارات من ذلك المبلغ، أمّا دول الخليج الأخرى ومنظماتها الخيرية، فقد أسهمت بالتبرع بالباقي. وساهمت «سي آي إيه» بنصيبها من المبلغ عبر تبييض تجارة المخدرات. ولكن سلسلة الحروب الأهلية التي رعاها القيّمون على «الجهاد والمجاهدين» في أفغانستان، ساهمت كذلك في قتل أكثر من 3 ملايين إنسان أفغاني، أغلبهم من الأطفال والنساء والشيوخ. وتهجير ما بين 3 إلى 4 ملايين من البشر. ودمّرت «الحرب الجهادية» بنية أفغانستان التحتية تماماً. وحرمت جيلاً كاملاً من الأفغان من كل فرص التقدم والتطور والنماء. ولم تنس بركات «حروب الجهاد» البلدان العربية الراعية، فقد عاد كثير من «المجاهدين» (الذين سموا في وسائل الإعلام بـ«الأفغان العرب») إلى بلادهم، لينشروا موجات أخرى من الجهاد في أوطانهم. وكذلك غرقت الجزائر ومصر (والسعودية أيضاً) لسنوات عديدة في صراعات داخلية دامية. ولم ينسَ الجهاد أميركا، فنالها شيء من رذاذه في أحداث الحادي عشر من أيلول/ سبتمبر 2001.

* كاتب عربي


(1) محمد حسنين هيكل، الزمن الأمريكي: من نيويورك إلى كابول، الشركة المصرية للنشر العربي والدولي، ط 4، يونيو 2003، ص258.

(2) John Cooley – Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism – Pluto Press, june 2002 – P 128-129

(3)Ahmed Rashid –Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia -I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2000 – P 120-121

(4) محمد حسنين هيكل، المصدر السابق، ص293.

July 10, 2013

Egypt’s Next President is 12 Years Old

by mkleit

This young Egyptian lad has summarized the current situation at the Northern African country in an amazing way, where he talks about the power or abusing religion in politics and how the Muslim Brotherhood are hanging own to what is not constitutional.


May 30, 2013

Iran is not Nuclear, it has its own Central Bank

by mkleit
Vatic Note:  This article makes the point that Iran is only one of three countries left  where control of banking is NOT under a Rothschild.  That alone is good enough reason, but there are others such as Iran’s Oil Bourse is competing with Rothschilds monopoly control of the London Oil Bourse, that uses US dollars as the reserve currency and that is how the term “Petrodollars” came about.
Iran plans on using Euro dollars backed by gold (its only 15%), but that is more than our currency, which is only backed by the faith and credit of the USA.  And now we know our gold has tungsten in it.  Also remember, ChinaRussia, and Iran have been buying tons of gold, so that makes it more likely they will try to take over the reserve currency market using their gold backed currency. And they are doing this when the Rothschilds are trying to get a One World Currency.
Now you know why Israel is hot to trot to invade Iran and that is a war crime to do so for profit and a death penalty offense.
Iran is not alone in being targeted by the Edomite bankers, no indeed, Egypt for their oil and water, Gaza for its offshore oil,  Libya for its oil and water and all of them for their shira banking no interest loans that was growing on the African continent and seriously cutting into Rothschild profits, as if trillions per year is not enough… My goodness, greed personified.
All of these are war crimes committed by our foreign occupied country and guess who will pay for this in the end if we do not stop it, since its our government?
You guessed right if you said “We, the people, will pay dearly for it”, but then that has always been the plan hasn’t it?   A conspiracy processed world war III. They did the same thing to Germany in WW II.   This is a good read, and factual as you can see by the back up links above.
Rothschild’s want Iran’s Bank
by Clark Kent, Hang The Bankers   

Iran Central Bank

Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli powers?

As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli counterparts.

Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran.

By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

(VN: yes, and those same bogus rebels trained by the CIA In Virginia, also signed an oil deal with BP, and Exxon, wouldn’t you know….Gadaffi had nationalized oil  so he could avoid debt, use the revenues from the oil to fund infrastructure, education for all his citizens and build a water system from deep underground water caches, to aid his farmers in growing their own food.  Since The globalists want all nations dependant on them for both food and water, it was evident that Libya had to go down.)

Islam forbids the charging of interest, a major problem for the Rothschild banking system. Until a few hundred years ago, charging interest was also forbidden in the Christian world and was even punishable by death. It was considered exploitation and enslavement.

Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.

The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies. By repetition, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about evil villains. The Rothschilds control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements.

Also they own most of the gold in the world as well as the London Gold Exchange, which sets the price of gold every day.

It is said the family owns over half the wealth of the planet—estimated by Credit Suisse to be $231 trillion—and is controlled by Evelyn Rothschild, the current head of the family.

Objective researchers contend that Iran is not being demonized because they are a nuclear threat, just as the Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi were not a threat.

What then is the real reason? Is it the trillions to be made in oil profits, or the trillions in war profits? Is it to bankrupt the U.S. economy, or is it to start World War III? Is it to destroy Israel’s enemies, or to destroy the Iranian central bank so that no one is left to defy Rothschild’s money racket?

It might be any one of those reasons or, worse—it might be all of them.

February 17, 2013

Bahrain: The Palestine of the Arab Gulf

by mkleit

For those of you who don’t know, this is Bahrain: (feel free to google for more information about the country)

Bahrain is located in the Middle East, it is the smallest Arab country but an influential one with its oil riches

Probably the title may seem as a political opinion, but it’s not. This would be far from a political analysis as much as it would be a humanitarian spread of information.

Bahrain has followed the stream of the so-called “Arab Spring”, though in my personal opinion, it is the only country that is having a true revolution, alongside the protests in Eastern provinces of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
The reason for that: Bahrain is only “Arab Spring” country that has minimal news coverage since the 14th of February 2011, the start of its revolution.

For me, it is because of the verity of its peaceful protest and their would be no use for “the higher powers” of a change in Bahrain’s current political system. But if you have checked the outcome of other “Arab Spring” revolution you might realize the following:

  1. Egypt is still in time of turmoil due to “unchanged” regime that has come to their newly formed political system.
  2. Yemen is drowning in political problems that keep on evolving day by day due to tribal collisions and deviation from the original demands of the revolution.
  3. Tunisia, the first spark of the revolutions, are not different from their Egyptian counterparts, where the type of regime is the same, and with the same results as well.
  4. Libya has entered a excruciating civil war that’s tearing the country apart, as well as the great loss in most of its resources after the NATO interference in removing former dictator Muamar Ghaddafi. Libya was concerned a country that could turn all of Africa into a huge green space due to its resources that varied from gold, oil, gas, and water.
  5. Syria is a complex issue. From my own point of view, the first protests were true and honest until it was infiltrated by several terrorist groups that tore several regions of country apart, especially within the opposition itself. The reformation that Syrian president Bashar Assad has done lessened the levels of violence, until the terrorist groups have took over the whole opposition. It’s not weird that you find several central commands for the Syrian opposition; most of them not related to each other, such as the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Syrian National Council, Al-Nusra Front, etc… Media had a huge role in diverting public opinions to be extreme to both pro and anti-regime.

All that, Palestine is still outside the map and witnessed a severe aggression from the zionist entity in its land. To make this all brief and straight forward, “israel” is the only one that’s benefiting from the “Arab Spring”. From the North, there are Lebanon and Syria that are directly affected with the latter’s crisis.

Syria, part of the axis of opposition to “israel”, with Lebanon, Iran, and Palestine. The zionist entity also benefited from Egypt’s turmoil, since the Arab country has a huge weight in the Arab-israeli conflict, due to geopolitical reasons. While as the rest of the Arab countries, fall under colonial benefits for elite nations.


Bahrain’s revolution in Photo


But what about Bahrain? Why makes it special apart from all other Arab countries that witnessed revolutions? I’ll tell you why. Bahrain is the only country among the above mentioned that served a peaceful unarmed revolution, yet the regime faced the protests with apprehensions, detainment, preposterous legislation, and death.

Where was the media from all this? Mainstream media in the Arab Gulf is an allied nation by itself and follows the command of the Gulf kings. One Ommani friend once told me in a gathering of Journalists in Amman, Jordan: “You can only praise the king, army, allies, and religion in Arab mainstream media, but not criticize them, or else…”

Or else the king and his allies will either seize your acts, by diplomacy or force, and what’s even worse, diverting public opinion against you. Thus what is happening in the smallest Arab country. Search mainstream media during news broadcasts, only a small number of them would report the Bahraini revolution on a daily basis, those who have a political agenda with the people, such as Al-Alam TV (Iranian), al Manar TV (Lebanese, pro-Hezbollah), Press TV (Iranian), Addonnia (Syrian, pro-government), Itijah TV (Iraqi, Lebanese-based, pro-axis of opposition to “israel”), al-Akhbar newspaper (Lebanese, pro-axis of opposition to “israel”) and few more. On the other side, worldwide media outlets would only mention Bahrain if it’s a global matter such as the F1 competition, Arab Gulf League gathering, or some festival…

And to make things worse, Saudi and Bahraini officials have agreed to send Saudi forces to the Arab island to “preserve peace and harmony”. None of which is being achieved due to the continuous oppression on protesters.


Bahrain – Palestine, the wound is one


Why Palestine and Bahrain are sort of similar?

  1. Occupied by foreign forces; the only difference stands is that Palestine is occupied by a religiously-based extremist movement of no nationality, known as zionism, which has an ideology that Palestine and parts of the Arab world are their “promised land”. Bahrain is currently occupied by religiously-based extremist movement of a known nationality, known as Wahabism, which has an ideology of oppressing all what is not Wahabi, regardless if the oppressed was Muslim or not.
  2. International mainstream media ignores the situation of the oppressed and often leans towards the oppressor, that is if the whole situation was reported. While as local Arab media would report Palestine on a daily basis, but not giving it a priority, while as Bahrain is completely marginalized.
  3. Journalists in both countries are being censored or faced with harsh treatment while performing their job.
  4. The stereotype that both countries’ are being oppressed on a secular basis, Palestine because they are Muslims and Bahrain because they are Shiites. This is completely falsified, Palestine is a multicultural society, it has Muslims, Christians, Jews, communists, secularists, and so on. Bahrain’s revolution is based on the collaboration of Shiites with Sunnis, secularists, and communists all together.

I do believe there are several more reasons that correlate with the comparison. God save Bahrain and Palestine. The latter is the mother, and the first is its two-years old child.

December 23, 2012

The Pyramids and the Constellation of Orion

by mkleit

This is not a personal analysis nor opinion on the matter, it’s merely a facebook post from that I have enjoyed reading and thought of it as critical and intriguing.
Enjoy 🙂



Its central claim is that there is a correlation between the location of the 3 largest pyramids of the Giza pyramid complex and the three middle stars of the constellation Orion

“According to the accepted version of history, the three massive Pyramids on the Giza Plateau in Egypt were built by armies of Hebrew slaves for the glory of the Pharaohs of Egypt. This idea was introduced to the world by the visit to Egypt of the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus.

He claimed that the Pyramids were built by teams of 100,000 men, changed every few months, over a period of 20 years. The fact that this meant that one block of stone had to be laid exactly in place every 3 1/2 minutes 24 hours a day seems to have been overlooked by recent Egyptologists! The fact that there wasn’t this kind of manpower in 4th Dynasty Egypt for almost 5000 miles around is equally ignored! Not to mention the ludicrous theories about the stones being rolled on logs – when the only trees endemic to Ancient Egypt were date palms (a valuable food source, so unlikely to be cut down, and far too soft a wood to withstand the weight of such stones for more than a few feet!) – or pushed up a ramp (a ramp which would have entailed more work than the construction of the Pyramid itself, and would have left behind around 6 billions pounds of construction garbage, none of which has ever been found!)

The Pyramids are supposed to be monuments to the Pharaohs, tombs to preserve the royal bodies for a continued existence in the afterlife, and yet no bodies have ever been found inside them. This misconception of history has led to some very basic misunderstandings about Egyptian culture and history, and has led to perhaps the greatest conspiracy of all time: who built the Pyramids?

Let me start by examining some hard facts which nobody can dispute, and looking in turn at what these facts might represent or mean:

1. The Great Pyramid (known as that of Khufu/Cheops) contains no Pharaoh’s body, no treasure chamber, and no treasures. There is no indication that it ever has contained these things. The popular myth of the Pyramids being royal tombs is clearly nonsense. The tombs archaeology has accepted – those in the Valleys of the Kings and Queens – are obviously tombs, storehouses of the Pharaoh’s earthly riches, intricately prepared to ensure his survival in the next world. The Great Pyramid contains none of the obvious trappings of a tomb.

2. The only reason it is known as the Khufu/Cheops Pyramid at all is due to some Victorian graffiti! When Colonel Howard Vyse blasted his way into the Great Pyramid he was determined to make his name as an Egyptologist. He longed for nothing more than to make some monumental discovery which would make him famous. His disappointment at finding the Pyramid empty was too much for him to bear – it was his last season in Egypt – and in the dead of night it is said that he crept up into the ‘air shafts’ (known as ‘spirit stones’ to the Egyptians) above the King’s Chamber and daubed some hieroglyphs in red paint. The following morning he made his ‘discovery’ and subsequently earned his place in the history books as being the man who discovered the identity of the owner of the Great Pyramid!

It is worth mentioning in addition that the symbols he painted were not even accurate ones for the period in which the Pyramid was then believed to have been built. The symbol for ‘Ra’ – chief amongst the Egyptian gods at that time – was depicted wrongly. Now surely if an Egyptian had painted that symbol he would have got it right! Not to do so would have been a grave insult to the most highly respected and feared of the Egyptian pantheon.

3. The stone sarcophagus which is contained within the Great Pyramid is too large to have been brought into the chamber in which it stands. Many books on the subject of this particular anomaly either point-blank ignore the question or state rather bizarrely that the sarcophagus must have been installed during the building process. Now, surely, to a civilisation as advanced as that of the Ancient Egyptians, this solution would have made no sense whatsoever. If the reason for making the sarcophagus – which incidentally shows no indication of ever having been occupied – larger than the doorway was to put off thieves, surely the subsequent sealing of the chamber with huge stone portcullis blocks, and the thorough blocking off of the Ascending Corridor which leads to the King’s Chamber by three enormous granite plugs, would have been sufficient.

It is highly unlikely that the opportunistic thieves of Ancient Egypt would have taken the time to plough through that much solid rock just to get into a chamber which they must have known was empty of all riches. And if the chamber was completely barren and empty, why go to such great lengths to ensure that it wasn’t opened up ever again? What secrets does the so-called King’s Chamber hold?

4. Some visitors, including the great and fearless Emperor Napoleon himself, have experienced strange visions and environmental distortions whilst inside the Great Pyramid, particularly the King’s Chamber. In the 1930s, author Paul Brunton spent a night there and was assailed by visions of “a circle of hostile creatures” which he likened to “elemental creations, grotesque shapes, madmen, hulking and devilish apparitions”. Was this mere hallucination? In more recent times such ideas have been put down to the background radiation given off by the black granite of the chamber, but surely if it was that simple then everyone who visited the chamber would experience a similar thing, wouldn’t they? 

Early experiments indicated that the King’s Chamber ‘spirit stones’ did seem to generate an electrical field which caused minor shock to at least one poor visitor drinking from a metal hip flask! It has been suggested that the Pyramid, because of its granite blocks, could transmit and receive radio and even microwave signals very well, and some believe that it gives off energy in an ’emanating apex’ – this means that energy spirals off the top of the structure in a circle which widens as it permeates the atmosphere. Whilst some have seen this as mere New Age hokum, others have said this confirms their suspicions that the Pyramid is some kind of beacon intended for use from space.

More recently, ex-NASA consultant Richard Hoagland has stated that radioactive sand was found in a chamber behind the Queen’s Chamber, which might explain both the weird experiences of Napoleon et al and the anomalous radioactive date readings given by the Pyramid, in which it appears that the top of the structure is 1000 years older than the bottom! This has led some people to speculate that the Pyramid was constructed upside down in mid air by alien technology and then swung over into place on the Giza Plateau. I could not possible comment.

5. A road eight feet wide and four inches thick could be built from San Francisco to New York and put inside the Great Pyramid. It has also been speculated that a wall three feet high and one foot thick could be built all the way around France with the amount of stone it took to build the Great Pyramid. Its perimeter is almost 1 kilometre, and the inside area – a massive 53,000 square metres – would be able to incorporate the cathedrals of Florence, Milan and St Peter’s (The Vatican), as well as Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s. And this was accomplished by people of the Stone Age, yes?

6. They are the sole remnant of the Seven Wonders of the World. The Pyramids are also, apart from the Great Wall of China, the oldest surviving artificial structures on Earth.

7. There are no true hieroglyphic markings inside the Pyramids – remarkable for a nation which carved them into just about every available surface they had. Nor are there any real clues from hieroglyphs elsewhere as to how the Pyramids were built. The only hieroglyphs inside the Great Pyramid are the red paint daubings of Howard Vyse and are not genuine Ancient Egyptian carvings. Although Pyramids elsewhere in Egypt, most notably those of a much later date than the Pyramids at Giza, do contain hieroglyphs – the derivation of the so-called ‘Pyramid Texts’! – the Great Pyramid and its two companions of the Giza Plateau are untouched by the scribe’s knife.

8. As Giza Pyramid investigator August Tornquist states: “The Great Pyramid was the greatest single undertaking in the whole history of mankind. And yet there is not one picture or drawing, not one artefact, not one inventory or tally sheet to tell of its construction. The Egyptians left us some 3000 years of written and pictorial history covering virtually everything that happened in their culture. From babies being born, to ploughing and harvesting, building, weaving, sacrificing, praying, embalming… but nothing about the Pyramids of Giza. Why?”

For a nation that loved to boast, they seem strangely reticent to tell us anything about the Pyramids at Giza. Perhaps the reason was simply because they were as much a mystery to the Ancient 

Egyptians as they are to us.
There is in fact documentary evidence – from Sumerian clay tablets unearthed in the great historical library of Nineveh – that the Great Pyramid was known to the Sumerians of 10,000 years ago, 6000 years before the first Pharaoh of Egypt was even born!

9. It is built to face true North, supposedly at a time when such computations could not have been possible. Are we to believe that the Ancient Egyptians – on top of all their other wonders – were also the first civilisation to possess knowledge of mathematics so precise that they could determine true North from magnetic North? Come to that, are we to believe that they could even find magnetic North, or know what its significance was? Tied in with this idea of being able to locate true North is the notion that the Earth is round, a fact not generally accepted until the last few centuries. Some still dispute it even today!

10. The Great Pyramid is located at the exact centre of the Earth’s land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europe, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid, the odds of its having been built where it is are 1:3 billion.

As previously discussed in my article on Anomalous Maps, the ability to compute longitude was not supposedly available to cartographers or anybody else until the 18th century. Without an understanding of longitude it would be exceptionally difficult to be able to pinpoint the size, shape, and relative mappings of the Earth’s land masses and seas. Without longitude it would have been near impossible to undertake major sea journeys, and yet if the evidence (such as Egyptian mummies containing cocaine traces) is reliable, the Egyptians did actually undertake such exploratory missions, even as far as South America (the only place the cocaine could have come from).

(All this despite their apparent hatred of sailing on the open seas!) And even if we accept that the Egyptians of thousands of years ago were competent navigators, how could they have known about the exact interrelation of the rest of the Earth’s land mass? And then there are the statistics…

11. Like 20th century bridge designs, the Great Pyramid’s cornerstones have balls and sockets built into them. Several football fields long, the Pyramid is subject to movements of expansion and contraction from heat and cold, as well as earthquakes, settling, and other such phenomena. After 4,600 years its structure would have been significantly damaged without such construction. Recent construction experts called in to offer suggestions as to how the Pyramid could have been built make reference to the ‘settle factor’ of any large building.

They have publicly stated that while the acceptable settle factor of a modern skyscraper is 6″ per hundred years, the simple fact is that the Pyramid – using more construction material than 35 Empire State Buildings – has settled less than 1/2″ in 5000 years! Modern construction has also averred that although for a large modern tower block the acceptable variance from complete alignment of all four sides is 6″, the four sides of the Pyramid are out of perfect alignment by less than 1/4″!

The casing stones, 144,000 in all, were so brilliant that they could literally be seen from the mountains of Israel hundreds of miles away. For those interested in possible symbolic significance, in Bible prophecy 144,000 is the number of people – 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel – who are supposed to evangelise the world in the days before the Apocalypse. The outside surface stones are cut within 0.01″ of perfectly straight and at nearly perfect right angles for all six sides.

And they were placed together with a gap between them of only 0.02″. Modern technology cannot place such 20-ton stones with greater accuracy than those in the Pyramid. As already noted above, the variance from perfect alignment seen in the Pyramid is still something which is unattainable today.

What can we deduce from these facts? That whoever built the Pyramids used a technology that we still do not possess today to cut, move, and cement stones. Whoever built it also had some considerable knowledge of the Earth, because they were built in one of the few locations with a strong enough bedrock to support the great weight. The builders also knew where the greatest land mass of the Earth was in both the North-South and East-West directions. After studying the detailed measurements made by the investigators before him, Sir Isaac Newton (who was fascinated by the Pyramids) recognized that many key measurements would be in round numbers if the standard unit of measure was just 0.001″ (1/1,000) larger than the British inch – which just happens to be the Sacred Jewish Inch. (The Sacred Jewish Inch, 1/25 of a cubit, equals 1.00106 British inches.) This discovery allowed the secrets of the Pyramid to be unlocked and revealed unmistakable and mathematical relationships. 

For instance: A – We know from geometry that there is a universal relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. Consider this: The height of the Pyramid’s apex is 5,812.98″, and each side is 9,131″ from corner to corner (in a straight line). If the circumference of the Pyramid is divided by twice its height (the diameter of a circle is twice the radius), the result is 3.14159, which just happens to be pi. Incredibly, this calculation is accurate to six digits. So the Pyramid is a square circle, and thus pi was designed into it 4,600 years ago. Pi is demonstrated many times throughout the Pyramid.

B – Other numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Great Pyramid’s four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131″, for a total of 36,524″. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.

C – The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449″. That is the exact height of the Pyramid.

D – All four sides of the Pyramid are very slightly and evenly bowed in, or concave. This effect, which cannot be detected by looking at the Pyramid from the ground, was discovered around 1940 by a pilot taking aerial photos to check certain measurements. As measured by today’s laser instruments, all of these perfectly cut and intentionally bowed stone blocks duplicate exactly the curvature of the earth. The radius of this bow is equal to the radius of the Earth. This radius of curvature is what Newton had long been seeking.

All this has led many to see the Pyramids (particularly the Great Pyramid) as being built by visitors from another planet, since the technology was obviously not such as would have been available to Stone Age Man. The theorists speculate that the Pyramid is a message, a symbol of knowledge which we as early humans learnt to decipher, and hence built our own versions of the Pyramid, examples of which litter the Egyptian desert plateaux in crumbling ruins.

This message indicates that whoever built the Pyramid knew the Earth well: the length of the year, the radius of curvature, the standard measurement techniques, the average height of the continents, and the centre of the land mass. They were able to construct something that we still cannot construct today, and they were able to tie all these things together in this single structure. Were they extraterrestrial, or perhaps even supernatural? Some people think so. You be the Judge.”

November 15, 2012

The israeli Fact Sheet: Self-Defense or Provocation? Existence or Apartheid?

by mkleit

Amazing facts from the British PM, George Galloway, who explains the existence of the israeli occupation in Palestine.



The IMEU offers the following timeline of the recent violence and a fact sheet on previous Israeli ceasefire violations.


[Skyline of Gaza burns during Operation Cast Lead. Image by Al-Jazeera English. From Wikimedia Commons.]



Following a two-week lull in violence, Israeli soldiers invade Gaza. In the resulting exchange of gunfire with Palestinian fighters, a twelve year-old boy is killed by an Israeli bullet while he plays soccer.

Shortly afterwards, Palestinian fighters blow up a tunnel along the Gaza-Israel frontier, injuring one Israeli soldier.

An anti-tank missile fired by Palestinian fighters wounds four Israeli soldiers driving in a jeep along the Israel-Gaza boundary.

An Israeli artillery shell lands in a soccer field in Gaza killing two children, aged sixteen and seventeen. Later, an Israeli tank fires a shell at a tent where mourners are gathered for a funeral, killing two more civilians and wounding more than two dozen others.

One Palestinian civilian is killed and dozens more are wounded in Israeli attacks. Four Israeli civilians are also injured as a result of projectiles launched from Gaza, according to the Israeli government.

During an Israeli government cabinet meeting, Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz urges the government to “cut off the head of the snake… take out the leadership of Hamas in Gaza.” He also calls for a cutting off of water, food, electricity, and fuel shipments to Gaza’s 1.7 million people.

Palestinian militant factions agree to a truce if Israel ends its attacks.

Israel breaks two days of calm by assassinating Ahmed Jabari, the head of Hamas’ military wing. According to reports, at least eight other Palestinians are killed in Israeli attacks, including at least two children. Palestinian militant groups vow to respond.
– Self-Defense or Provocation?: Israel’s History of Breaking Ceasefires –

Since Israel’s creation in 1948, Israeli political and military leaders have demonstrated a pattern of repeatedly violating ceasefires with their enemies in order to gain military advantage, for territorial aggrandizement, or to provoke their opponents into carrying out acts of violence that Israel can then exploit politically and/or use to justify military operations already planned.

The following fact sheet provides a brief overview of some of the most high-profile and consequential ceasefire violations committed by the Israeli military over the past six decades.

israeli prime minister Benjamin Natanyahu

2012 – On 14 November, two days after Palestinian factions in Gaza agree to a truce following several days of violence, Israel assassinates the leader of Hamas’ military wing, Ahmed Jabari, threatening to escalate the violence once again after a week in which at least six Palestinian civilians are killed and dozens more wounded in Israeli attacks.

2012 – On 9 March, Israel violates an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire and assassinates the head of the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, sparking another round of violence in which at least two-dozen Palestinians are killed, including at least four civilians, and scores more wounded.

As usual, Israel claims it is acting in self-defense against an imminent attack being planned by the PRC, while providing no evidence to substantiate the allegation.

Following the assassination, Israeli journalist Zvi Bar’el writes in Haaretz newspaper:

“It is hard to understand what basis there is for the assertion that Israel is not striving to escalate the situation. One could assume that an armed response by the Popular Resistance Committees or Islamic Jihad to Israel’s targeted assassination was taken into account.

But did anyone weigh the possibility that the violent reaction could lead to a greater number of Israeli casualties than any terrorist attack that Zuhair al-Qaisi, the secretary-general of the Popular Resistance Committees, could have carried out?

‘In the absence of a clear answer to that question, one may assume that those who decided to assassinate al-Qaisi once again relied on the “measured response” strategy, in which an Israeli strike draws a reaction, which draws an Israeli counter-reaction.”

Just over two months prior, on the third anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, Israeli army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz tells Israel’s Army Radio that Israel will need to attack Gaza again soon to restore its power of “deterrence,” and that the assault must be “swift and painful,” concluding, “we will act when the conditions are right.”

2011 – On 29 October, Israel breaks a truce that has maintained calm for two months, killing five Islamic Jihad members in Gaza, including a senior commander. The following day, Egypt brokers another truce that Israel proceeds to immediately violate, killing another four IJ members. In the violence, a total of nine Palestinians and one Israeli are killed.

2008 – In November, Israel violates a ceasefire with Hamas and other Gaza-based militant groups that has been in place since June, launching an operation that kills six Hamas members. Militant groups respond by launching rockets into southern Israel, which Israel shortly thereafter uses to justify Operation Cast Lead, its devastating military assault on Gaza beginning on 27 December.

Over the next three weeks, the Israeli military kills approximately 1,400 Palestinians, most of them civilians, including more than 300 children. A UN Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission led by South African jurist Richard Goldstone subsequently concludes that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the fighting, a judgment shared by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

2002 – On 23 July, hours before a widely-reported ceasefire declared by Hamas and other Palestinian groups is scheduled to come into effect, Israel bombs an apartment building in the middle of the night in the densely populated Gaza Strip in order to assassinate Hamas leader Salah Shehada. Fourteen civilians, including nine children, are also killed in the attack, and fifty others are wounded, leading to a scuttling of the ceasefire and a continuation of violence.

2002 – On 14 January, Israel assassinates Raed Karmi, a militant leader in the Fatah party, following a ceasefire agreed to by all Palestinian militant groups the previous month, leading to its cancellation. Later in January, the first suicide bombing by the Fatah-linked Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade takes place.





2001 – On 23 November, Israel assassinates senior Hamas militant Mahmoud Abu Hanoud. At the time, Hamas was adhering to an agreement made with PLO head Yasser Arafat not to attack targets inside of Israel. Following the killing, respected Israeli military correspondent of the right-leaning Yediot Ahronot newspaperAlex Fishmanwrites in a front-page story:

“We again find ourselves preparing with dread for a new mass terrorist attack within the Green Line [Israel’s pre-1967 border]… Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman’s agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line…” A week later, Hamas responds with bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa.

2001 – On 25 July, as Israeli and Palestinian Authority security officials meet to shore up a six-week-old ceasefire, Israel assassinates a senior Hamas member in Nablus. Nine days later, Hamas responds with a suicide bombing in a Jerusalem pizzeria.

1988 – In April, Israel assassinates senior PLO leader Khalil al-Wazir in Tunisia, even as the Reagan administration is trying to organize an international conference to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The US State Department condemns the murder as an “act of political assassination.” In ensuing protests in the occupied territories, a further seven Palestinians are gunned down by Israeli forces.

1982 – Following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June, and after PLO fighters depart Beirut under the terms of a US-brokered ceasefire, Israel violates the terms of the agreement and moves its armed forces into the western part of the city, where the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila are located. Shortly thereafter, Israeli soldiers surround the camps and send in their local Christian Phalangist allies – even though the long and bloody history between Palestinians and Phalangists in Lebanon is well known to the Israelis, and despite the fact that the Phalangists’ leader, Bashir Gemayel, has just been assassinated and Palestinians are rumored (incorrectly) to be responsible.

Over the next three days, between 800 and 3,500Palestinian refugees, mostly women and children left behind by the PLO fighters, are butchered by the Phalangists as Israeli soldiers look on. In the wake of the massacre, an Israeli commission of inquiry, the Kahan Commission, deems that Israeli Defense Minister (and future Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon bears “personal responsibility” for the slaughter.

1981-2 – Under Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel repeatedly violates a nine month-old UN-brokered ceasefire with the PLO in Lebanon in an effort to provoke a response that will justify a large-scale invasion of the country that Sharon has been long planning.

When PLO restraint fails to provide Sharon with an adequate pretext, he uses the attempted assassination of Israel’s ambassador to England to justify a massive invasion aimed at destroying the PLO – despite the fact that Israeli intelligence officials believe the PLO has nothing to do with the assassination attempt. In the ensuing invasion, more than 17,000 Lebanese are killed.

1973 – Following a ceasefire agreement arranged by the US and the Soviet Union to end the Yom Kippur War, Israel violates the agreement with a “green light” from US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. According to declassified US documents, Kissinger tells the Israelis they can take a “slightly longer” time to adhere to the truce.

As a result, Israel launches an attack and surrounds the Egyptian Third Army, causing a major diplomatic crisis between the US and Soviets that pushes the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear war, with the Soviets threatening to intervene to save their Egyptian allies and the US issuing a Defcon III nuclear alert.

1967 – Israel violates the 1949 Armistice Agreement, launching a surprise attack against Egypt and Syria. Despite claims that Israel is acting in self-defense against an impending attack from Egypt, Israeli leaders are well aware that Egypt poses no serious threat.

Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli army during the war, says in a 1968 interview that “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war.The two divisions he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” And former Prime Minister Menachem Begin later admits that “Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

1956 – Colluding with Britain and France, Israel violates the 1949 Armistice Agreement by invading Egypt and occupying the Sinai Peninsula. Israel only agrees to withdraw following pressure from US President Dwight Eisenhower.

1949 – Immediately after the UN-brokered Armistice Agreement between Israel and its neighbors goes into effect, the armed forces of the newly-created Israeli state begin violating the truce with encroachments into designated demilitarized zones and military attacks that claim numerous civilian casualties.

[This piece originally published by the Institute for Middle East Understanding.]


%d bloggers like this: