Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Special Reports on The Media Day in Support of the Palestinian Cause

Special Reports on The Media Day in Support of the Palestinian Cause



In support for the Palestinian cause, Al-Manar Website provides a range of special reports and interviews as part of commemorating “The Media Day in Support of the Palestinian Cause” which falls on November 29.
Source: Al-Manar Website

In Pictures: Israeli Excavations under the Al-Aqsa Mosque

Nada Raad

Zionist excavations were launched in 1967. At that time, the Mughrabi Gate was only used by Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers.

Starting from 1967, the excavations were concentrated under al-Aqsa Mosque yard, under the pretext of “searching for Solomon’s Temple”. The Excavations were led by governmental associations and Zionist organizations.


Despite the daily excavations, the alleged temple hasn’t been found. However, the Zionist authorities never stopped digging, in a clear sign that the move aims at endangering al-Aqsa mosque’s foundations.
In 2007, the Israelis demolished the street that extends to the western side of al-Aqsa mosque, along with two rooms belonging to the Aqsa mosque. In 2008, a part of the street collapsed.
In the beginning of 2008, a 200-meter tunnel was unveiled in front of the Western Wall of the mosque that links Buraq Square with a Jewish synagogue.
A 600-meter tunnel was built under the houses of the Wadi Helwa neighborhood in Silwan. This tunnel leads to the southwestern part of the holy mosque.
A part of UNURWAH School in Silwan collapsed, along with several Palestinian houses. Mass media didn’t cover the incident in which 14 girls were wounded.
Jerusalem residents assure that they hear the sounds of excavations in the day and the night. These operations start at 7:00 and end at 11:00.
Zionists claim they are looking for Solomon’s Temple and the Wailing Wall. For this purpose they have demolished all the surrounding buildings under the pretext of searching for the wall’s original stones.
In 2009, the excavations led to the collapse of a traditional stairway in Silwan neighborhood. The stairway was three meters long and 4 meters wide.

“Excavations deform the archeological structures in Jerusalem”, the Head of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (BSAJ), Kathleen Canyon said.
“This is a heinous crime”, Canyon added.


Zionist authorities ordered last October (2011) to demolish the Mughrabi bridge, leading to al-Aqsa mosque yard, alleging it was about to collapse.

In order to build an alternative tunnel, Israel is trying hard to destroy the bridge. The Jerusalem Municipality spokesman said that the bridge will be demolished in maximum 30 days.


The current bridge was built after the original bridge collapsed in 2004, due to excavation works and corrosion.
Israeli excavations under the Al-Aqsa have put the mosque under the serious threat of collapse in case of a minor earthquake, heavy rain, or even an Israeli mock raid; at a time the whole World, mainly the Arab World, stands idle by.
Source: Website Team

1947: Suppose the UN had Partitioned America Instead?

By Richard Edmondson


Another presidential election year in America lays just ahead, one offering its usual cheap imitation of democracy but whose outcome potentially might be even more fiendish and nightmarish than election years of the recent past. It could be argued that in a good many areas, such as extra-judicial killings of American citizens for instance, Obama has been even worse than Bush, while the Gingrichean Republicans have of course already begun buzzing Iowa like a hive of human-headed locusts. It doesn’t look as if this time there’s really going to be a lesser of two evils to vote for—or if there is, the difference is likely to reside in the imagination of the individual voter more so than upon the plane of material existence.

Election years are when the rush by US officials to abandon any semblance of reason or adherence to reality becomes even more pronounced than usual, and nowhere is this more true than in regards to Israel. And it is here, of course, where Obama and the Republicans come to full agreement: they both love and adore the Zionist state and desire to give it more and more of our tax dollars and blood. But one wonders: how would they react were they suddenly to find themselves on the receiving end of an insidious partition plan that would permanently divide up the United States of America?

I ask that question because on November 29, 1947—exactly 64 years ago—Palestinians found themselves in just such a predicament with their country arbitrarily divided and apportioned out in a partition plan voted on by the United Nations. The plan was adopted by the UN General Assembly as Resolution 181, and in one fell swoop it gave the Jews 55 percent of Palestine, while the indigenous Palestinians were left with 45 percent. Zionists today are fond of pointing out that this measure was “rejected” by the Palestinians, almost as if to say, “See? We Jews were making a genuine sacrifice for peace. It was the Palestinians who were being unreasonable.” One answer to that of course is that for the Jews there was no “sacrifice” involved. None whatever. Palestine did not belong to them. Who in their right mind would turn down 55 percent of something to which they have no right or title? At the time, Jews made up only 33 percent of the population of Palestine, and that 33 percent held deeds to only 7 percent of the land. So yes, quite naturally, the Jews were more than willing to be “reasonable.”

But there are other things to consider as well. Americans should ask themselves how they might possibly react were the UN suddenly to draw a line down the middle of the US and announce that from that point forward all land west of the Mississippi River would belong to a population of Yiddish-speaking immigrants from the Caucasus Mountains of Russia. The people of Texas, Arizona, Colorado—all other western-states residents as well—could then either, a) abandon their homes, farms, and ranches, and relocate east of the Mississippi, or b) stay where they were and be content to live in a country ruled by the Yiddish immigrants—immigrants who, incidentally, fancy themselves “chosen people” and who proclaim the land was given them by God. Would Americans have placidly accepted such a fate? Or would we have fought to hold onto our country? Everyone knows the answer to that. We would have fought—which is precisely what the Palestinians did.

This in fact was predicted by the CIA in a declassified report dated November 28, 1947—one day before the UN vote. The agency’s prognosis of the situation seems almost prescient now in retrospect:



Armed hostilities between Jews and Arabs will break out if the UN General Assembly accepts the plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab States as recommended by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP).
Inflamed by nationalism and religious fervor, Arabs in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as well as Palestine are determined to fight against any force, or combination of forces, which attempts to set up a Jewish state in Palestine. While the governments of the Arab states are not expected to make official declarations of war, they will not attempt to keep their people (especially fanatical tribesmen) from joining the battle; they may even encourage such action and furnish clandestine assistance…
The Zionists, for their part, are determined to have a state in Palestine or, in the view of extreme elements, all of Palestine and Transjordan as well. Whatever the UN recommends, they will attempt to establish a Jewish state after the British withdrawal (now set by the British for August 1948). The Jews are expected to be able to mobilize some 200,000 fighters in Palestine, supplemented to a limited extent by volunteers and recruits from abroad. The Jewish armed groups in Palestine are well equipped and well trained in commando tactics. Initially, they will achieve marked success over the Arabs because of superior organization and equipment. As the war of attrition develops, however, the Jewish economy (severely strained by mobilization) will break down; furthermore, the Jews will be unable continuously to protect their extended supply lines and isolated settlements or to plant and cultivate their fields in the face of constant harassing, “hit and run” Arab attacks. Without substantial outside aid in terms of manpower and material, they will be able to hold out no longer than two years.

The “substantial outside aid” of course ended up being provided by the US. We can also infer from the above that the “extreme elements” of the Zionist movement were already planning to take all of Palestine in any event, and that possibly they viewed the partition plan as little more than a stepping stone toward that wider goal. One other especially noteworthy observation found in the report is that American companies held lucrative contracts in Arab oil producing states and that US support for the partition plan was likely to be contrary to our own national interest. Or as the CIA analyst put it:

The US, by supporting partition, has already lost much of its prestige in the Near East. In the event that partition is imposed on Palestine, the resulting conflict will seriously disturb the social, economic, and political stability of the Arab world, and US commercial and strategic interests will be dangerously jeopardized.

Of course it didn’t require a CIA analyst to know that the partition plan was bad news and that trouble lay ahead if it passed. In fact, the notion of dividing up the land in such a manner seems so absurd it almost boggles our minds to think the measure passed at all, and now, looking back, we can see that the decision of November 29, 1947 was calamitous—not only for the Palestinians, but for the rest of the world as well. So why on earth did the majority of nations support it? Well as may be expected, Zionist threats and pressure had a lot to do with it. The following quotes come from Wikipedia:

Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless “she voted right.”

The Zionists apparently even found it necessary to coerce the US government as well—at least if we are to believe what Harry Truman had to say:

President Truman later noted, “The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me.”

The above comment is rather peculiar, for as we know, Truman was a bit of a Christian Zionist and a staunch supporter of Israel. When the Jews declared their state on May 14, 1948, good old Harry, who today has a village named for him in Israel, extended official recognition just 11 minutes after the formal announcement was made, making the US the first nation to do so. So we have to ask: was Truman really “annoyed,” or was his statement issued for public consumption? Difficult to say with certainty, but what we do know is Truman worked hard behind the scenes lining up votes for the partition plan. He essentially established a precedent for what later became standard practice by the US—of twisting arms at the UN on Israel’s behalf. UN delegates from at least three different countries—Pakistan, Liberia, and the Philippines—all went on record reporting US pressure in favor of the plan:

In the days before the vote, the Philippines’ representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated, “We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility.” After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines’ vote changed.

But the proud rulers of India stood firm by their convictions. India voted against Resolution 181, as did 12 other nations—Cuba, Iran, Afghanistan, Greece, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen. On the other hand, a total of 33 countries voted to divest the Palestinians of 55 percent of their land. The list includes the US (despite President Harry’s having to suffer an “annoying” amount of pressure); it also includes Canada, France, and the Soviet Union, along with a number of countries we can easily imagine must have been subjected to intense US pressure: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Liberia, Panama, the Philippines, Paraguay, and others. The Palestinians themselves, not being an officially recognized “nation” at the time (as they still are not), had no vote or say in the matter. None.

It’s probably reasonable to assume that support from a good many of these non-Semitic, gentile nations rested on the widespread belief at the time that European Jews were descended from the Jews of the Bible, but of course as we now know, the ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews traces back to the Khazars of southern Russia—not the biblical Israelis. So even that part of the Zionist enterprise was fraudulent as well. Palestine was handed over to a people who had no historical ties to the land, had never even set foot on it prior to the late 19th century.

So that was what happened in late November, 1947. Now here we are, 64 years later, with a prescient CIA report on our hands and an America standing at the threshold of extirpation. We find our country burdened, plagued even, by a confederacy of politicians who, snouts in the gentile hog trough, have pledged their allegiance to Israel while heaping disdain on the 99 percent of Americans who struggle to make ends meet. And in regards to Palestine, as with many other things, they have adopted an Orwell-speak. Thus it is the Palestinians who have become the “terrorists,” while the Yiddish-speaking immigrants from the Caucasus are loudly and vehemently proclaimed the rightful owners of the land:

“All the people that live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians,” averred GOP candidate Rick Santorum recently. “There is no Palestinian (sic). This is Israeli land.”

For his own part, Herman Cain seems to agree with Santorum—that not only “Israel” itself but even the entire West Bank as well should be considered part and parcel of the Jewish homeland. In a Fox News interview, here , Cain opposes calls for a return to the pre-1967 borders while also outlining what he refers to as the “Cain Doctrine”—essentially a pledge that US soldiers will fight and die for the Zionist cause in whatever war Israel may choose to start anywhere in the world.

“Let me just tell you what the Cain Doctrine would be as it relates to Israel if I were president,” he blusters. “You mess with Israel, you are messing with the United States of America. It’s that simple.”

Or consider the words of the current puppet in the White House. “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring,” said Obama in a September speech at the UN, this after publicly vowing to veto any UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza.

Apparently Texas Governor Rick Perry feels Obama’s support for Israel hasn’t been “unshakeable” enough, however.

“Simply put, we would not be here today at the precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama policy in the Middle East wasn’t naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous,” said Perry, giving his thoughts on the UN’s Palestinian statehood debate.

You may have been under the impression that six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis, but apparently GOP candidate New Gingrich feels that number is mistaken—and in a recent interview, here , the former House speaker ups the figure to seven million:

If the Israelis, having endured the Holocaust and the loss of seven million Jews in World War II, conclude that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses the threat of a second holocaust, because two nuclear weapons on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be the equivalent of a second holocaust. If they conclude that is a risk they cannot live with, we should respect their concern for survival. I think that we should clearly indicate to the world that we would support whatever they think they have to do to survive.

More recently Gingrich called for a bombing of Iranian oil refineries.

GOP candidate Michelle Bachmann, the queen of the Tea Party, is quite blunt, not to mention pessimistic, about it: we either support Israel or we’re doomed.

“I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States,” says Bachmann. “We have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play.”

Apparently overlooking the small matter of the Ashkenazi Jews being descended from the Khazars, Bachmann has obviously bought into Genesis 12:3, which has God promising to “bless” those who bless Abraham and his descendants, while throwing “curses” upon those who don’t.

But the award for the most “pro-Israel” position of all would probably have to go to Mitt Romney, who promises that if elected president he won’t dare make a move on the Arab-Israeli conflict, or apparently Middle East policy in general, without first getting approval from—yes, you guessed it—the leaders of Israel.

The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

Presumably, Romney would even be “inclined” to start World War 3 should Zionist chieftains deem it “helpful to their efforts.” Enough is enough. We’ve had 64 years of this stuff. Is it not about time US military forces started arresting these people for treason and shutting down Zionist media outlets in the US? As for Palestine, is it not about time to deport the Yiddish-speaking immigrants back to the Caucasus Mountains and turn the land back over to the Palestinians?

I believe it is.
Posted by Richard Edmondson at 11/29/2011 11:33 AM

The Israel Lobby and the Creation of an American Dictatorship

The Passionate Attachment

In much of the limited coverage of the dangerous provision buried in the annual defense appropriations bill that would give the President the power to use the military to intern anyone — including American citizens — indefinitely, and hold them without charges or trial, anywhere in the world, including on American soil, there has been little, if any, discussion of the most likely source of the dictatorial legislation introduced by Senators Levin and McCain.

According to a November 2010 WRMEA report, Carl Levin was the No.1 career recipient of pro-Israel PAC funds with $728,737. By contrast, buying John McCain’s loyalty — to Israel — has been a bargain at a paltry $207,000.

Almost every piece of police state legislation introduced since 9/11 — from the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and introduction of the USA Patriot Act to the ongoing efforts to censor the Internet — was introduced by AIPAC’s minions in Congress. Isn’t it time for all freedom-loving Americans to identify clearly the source of the onslaught on their increasingly diminishing liberty?

Target Syria

by Stephen Lendman

 
My PhotoWashington's Greater Middle East project involves waring against the region one country at a time to replace independent regimes with client ones.
Softer targets were attacked first. Tougher ones remain, notably Iran and Syria. Subduing them may involve turning the entire region into an uncontrollable cauldron, not least because China and Russia have interests to defend.
Russia maintains a strategic naval base at Tartus, Syria, its only Mediterranean location. It considers it vital protection for its Black Sea Fleet. It's being modernized to accommodate heavy warships after 2012. Russia came to stay.

Three Russian warships now patrol Syrian waters. Unofficial sources confirm it, saying Russia's there to protect strategic and national security interests, as well as prevent war.

About 120,000 Russian citizens are in Syria. Moscow's obligated to protect them the way they aided South Ossetian Russians after Georgia attacked the province in August 2008.
Provocatively, America's nuclear carrier USS George HW Bush anchored off Syria. Its Strike Group and additional vessels are conducting maritime security and support operations nearby. The US 6th Fleet patrols the area.

Meanwhile, Washington and Turkey urged their citizens to leave Syria. A November 23 US statement said "depart immediately while commercial transportation is available." Whether something's brewing isn't known. Tough talk alone doesn't suggest it. Nonetheless, it's worrisome.
Syria's being assaulted like Libya. Heavily armed insurgents are involved. Washington orchestrated everything. Neighboring countries are involved, including Israel. Syria's blamed for defending itself. Libya redux looks possible. Continued violence and escalating tensions suggest it.

An anonymous Russian intelligence official said America "is playing a very dangerous game here. One that may result in Russia taking defensive actions to protect itself, its military installation and Russian citizens."

A Russian military expert called US carriers "expensive floating targets that are vulnerable to attacks by aircraft, missiles and torpedos. They were designed for Cold War scenarios, and are less useful in establishing control of areas close to shore."
According to Pravda.ru, Center for Military Forecasts analyst Anatoly Tsyganok said Washington no longer will inform Russia about planned troop deployments.
"Apparently, it is connected with the situation in the Mediterranean Sea," he said. "One may assume that NATO will create a military group near Russia's southern borders to strike Syria."

"They will most likely raise this issue at the NATO summit in December. They will try to analyze Syria's actions in case NATO conducts a military operation against the country, like (earlier) in Libya."
Itar-Tass contributor Anatoly Lazarev accused Washington of "initia(ting) the campaign for strangling Damascus." Russia stresses dialogue for conflict resolution. "Washington obviously does not like the stand assumed by Moscow. By all appearances, it wishes to play first the Libyan and now the Syrian card" to ensure its regional interests "at all costs." Then on to new targets to control the entire region.

International Crisis Group (ICG) Comments on Syria

Founded in 1995 by World Bank vice president Mark Malloch Brown and former US diplomat Morton Abramowitz, ICG supports power, not popular interests. Comments on its Middle East Project Director Peter Harling's analysis follows below.

Titled, "Uncharted Waters: Thinking Through Syria's Dynamics," he assessed where things now stand, saying:

"The Syrian crisis may or may not have entered its final phase, but it undoubtedly has entered its most dangerous one to date. The current stage is defined by an explosive mix of heightened strategic stakes tying into a regional and wider international competition on the one hand and emotionally charged attitudes, communal polarisation and political wishful thinking on the other."
Based in Damascus, Harling's observing events firsthand. Entirely missing from current considerations, he believes, "is a sober assessment of the challenges provoked by (balance of power) shifts and the very real risk that they could derail or even foreclose the possibility of a successful transition."
Of course, it's for Syrians, not outside powers, to decide. Intervening in other nations' internal affairs is illegal. For Washington, its NATO partners, and Israel it's standard practice. Harding's analysis omitted international law issues, focusing on imperial ones instead.

Five key issues are excluded from Syria's debate, he believes, including:
  • the dominant Alawite community's fate;
  • Syrian and Lebanese ties;
  • implications of international intervention;
  • impact of the protest movement's militarization; and
  • "creeping social, economic and institutional decay."
Assad linked the Alawite community's fate to his own to assure loyalty among people who've gained little from the regime. Crisis conditions bonded them to Assad's government. The same holds for Syrian Christians.
Critically, the regime controls Damascus and Aleppo, Syria's largest city. It secured them because protests there remain peaceful. Its "divide-and-rule tactics have kept most Alawites, many Christians, as well as some Druze and Sunnis on its side."

Nonetheless, civil society segments support insurgents. The longer conflict persists, the greater the incentive for affected business, middle class, and other elements to seek ways to end it. At issue is protecting their own self-interest. They want calm to get back to business as soon as possible.
At the same time, Assad won't step down or be deposed internally. Regime officials need him. He's been instrumental in keeping support among BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and other countries. He's also popular so why remove a regime prop.
As for sanctions, civilians are mostly harmed much like everywhere they're imposed. Assad said parliamentary elections will be held next February or March. Constitutional review will follow. So will presidential elections if new provisions in it say so.
If Syrians agree to test him, violence might subside but won't end as long as criminal insurgents are encouraged by Washington, Turkey and other regional states to maintain pressure.
Nonetheless, without a political solution, violence will continue. Civilians will suffer horrifically. Military intervention may follow. For now, Assad's holding firm. Violence hasn't reached critical mass to topple him. Regime change isn't imminent. Syria's military supports him. Turkey's pressure is limited, he believes.
Arab League states have no credibility whatever. They condoned Libya's ravaging, say nothing about NATO's plans to colonize another Arab state, ignore Bahraini and other regional atrocities, and brutalize their own people protesting against political, economic and social injustice.

On November 27, DEBKAfile said Syria's neighbors are preparing for potential retaliation after League members imposed sanctions. Israel moved armored brigades to its Lebanese and Syrian borders. Turkey's military is on alert. Lebanon and Jordan also responded defensively.

"Military sources in the Gulf report that 150 Iranian Revolutionary Guards specialists had landed at a military airport south of Damascus on their way to Lebanon to join Hizbollah which began bringing its rockets out of their hideouts."

Russia's supplying Syria super-advanced S-300 anti-missile systems, as well as advanced Pantsir-1 (SA-22 Greyhound) anti-air missiles and supersonic Yakhont (SS-26) missiles for targeting vessels blockading Syria's coast.
Resolution's nowhere in sight. Conditions remain fluid. War winds are blowing. Redrawing the region is planned. Arab Spring talk belies strategies to do it. Perhaps destroying it comes first.

A Final Comment
On November 27, Arab League states approved stiff anti-Syrian economic sanctions. Their 14-point plan includes travel bans on regime officials, asset freezes, blocking sale of "nonessential" commodities, halting transactions with Syria's central bank, and ending financing for Arab-funded projects in the country.

Sanctions are effective immediately. Ordinary people will be hurt most. At issue is weakening popular support for Assad to facilitate regime change more easily. In fact, people under duress usually rally behind sitting governments for support. It remains to be seen if Syrians follow suit.
On November 28, Mathaba.net reported that Kuwait's al Rai daily learned from unnamed senior European sources that Arab states, with US logistical support, will impose a no-fly zone over Syria once an authorizing Arab League charter decree is issued, calling for the protection of Syrian civilians.

With or without one, attacking a nonbelligerent state is illegal. Nations may only respond against others defensively. Intervening militarily in their internal affairs is prohibited. Nonetheless, doing it for humanitarian reasons will be invoked. It doesn't wash but may work, with or without a Security Council resolution.

America and NATO partners aren't deterred by international or statute laws. As a result, Syria is increasingly vulnerable.

According to al Rai, a no-fly ban will target Syrian artillery and military vehicles, including tanks and armored personnel carriers. They'll be prohibited from moving freely. European sources say they'd be crippled "in less than 24 hours."
War winds are blowing stronger.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:07 AM 

Rania Masri: Arab League’s Syria sanctions reveal its lack of credibility


Contributed by Maidhc Ó Cathail

Innovating for Palestine

Marwa Haidar
Lots are those who are dreaming of Palestine, its soil, air, water, and olive trees. They even dream of a tent on that holy land.
Although they were forced out of it, they still hope to return. While they wait, they’ve decided to innovate for their dear Palestine. They became pioneers in writing, painting, singing , sciences, and medicine, among other fields.

Creative Cartoonist Naji Al-Ali Draws Refugee’s Injuries

Naji al-Ali was born in 1938 in the northern Palestinian village of Al-Shajara, between Tiberias and Nazareth. He was forced to leave his country to the south of Lebanon with his family after the 1948 Palestinian Catastrophe (Nakba) and lived in Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp near Sidon.

He moved to Beirut, where he lived in a tent in the Shatila refugee camp and worked in various industrial jobs. In 1957 he travelled to Saudi Arabia, where he worked for two years.
In 1959 Naji returned to Lebanon and joined the Arab Nationalist Movement (ANM), but was expelled four times in one year for lack of party discipline. Between 1960 and 1961, along with comrades from the ANM, he published a handwritten political journal Al-Sarkha ('The Outcry').

In 1960, he joined the Lebanon Academy of Arts, but was unable to continue his studies there as he was imprisoned for political reasons soon afterwards. After his release he moved to Tyr, south of Lebanon, where he worked as a drawing instructor in the Ja'fariya College.

In 1963 Al-Ali moved to Kuwait. There he worked as an editor, cartoonist, designer and newspaper producer for the Arab nationalist Al-Tali'a newspaper.
From 1968 on he worked for the Kuwaiti daily As-Siyasa. In the course of these years he returned to Lebanon several times. In 1974 he started working for the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which facilitated his return to Lebanon for longer periods.

During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, he was briefly detained by the occupation forces along with other residents of Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp. In 1983 he returned to Kuwait to work for the Al-Qabas newspaper, and in 1985, Al-Ali moved to London where he worked for its international edition until his death.
He published three books about his cartoons, in 1976, 1983 and 1985, and was preparing another at the time of his death.

In 1979, Al-Ali was elected president of the League of Arab Cartoonists. In 1979 and 1980, he received the first prize in the Arab cartoonists exhibitions held in Damascus. The International Federation of Newspaper Publishers awarded him the "Golden Pen of Freedom" posthumously in 1988.

He created the character Handhalah, who was depicted as a ten-year old boy, and appeared for the first time in the As-Siyasa daily in Kuwait in 1969. The figure (Handhalah) turned his back to the viewers from 1973, and clasped his hands behind his back. The artist explained that the ten-year old represented his age when forced to leave Palestine and would not grow up until he could return to his homeland; his turned back and clasped hands symbolized the character's rejection to outside solutions. In later cartoons, Handhalah got to actively participate in the caricature’s subject not only observe it.

Handhalah then became the signature of Naji'Al-Ali’s cartoons and remains an iconic symbol of the Palestinian identity and defiance.

Other characters in Al-Ali’s cartoons included Fatima and her husband. Fatima symbolized the strong and defiant Palestinian woman who didn’t agree to make peace with the invaders. Her husband was a thin, hard-working man.

There were also two more characters, a thin, miserable-looking man representing the Palestinian as the defiant victim of Israeli oppression and other hostile forces, and a fat man representing the Arab regimes and Palestinian political leaders who led an easy life and engaged in political compromises which the artist fervently opposed.

July 22, 1987, while outside the London offices of al-Qabas newspaper, Naji Al-Ali was shot in the face. He remained unconscious in the hospital until his death on 29 August 1987.

“Prince of Poets”: Tamim Bargouthi

In 1977, Tamim Bargouthi, a Palestinian poet and political scientist, was born in Cairo. He comes from a lineage that is well known in Arabic literature. His father is the Palestinian poet Mourid Barghouthi, and his mother is the Egyptian novelist and scholar, Radwa Ashour.

He obtained a B.A. in Political Sciences from the University of Cairo in 1999, and specialized in International Relations at the American University of Cairo, from which he graduated in 2001. He received a PhD in political sciences from the Boston University in 2004, and became an assistant professor at the American University of Cairo in 2005.

Tamim was well known as he delivered poems for al-Quds during the “Prince of Poets” program, broadcast by Abu Dhabi Channel.

He has written four poetry collections: Meejana (Ramallah 1999), Al-Manzar (Cairo 2000), Qaluli Bethebb Masr (Cairo 2005), and Maqam Iraq (Cairo 2005). He is also the author of Benign Nationalism: Egyptian Nation State Building under Occupation (2007) and has recently published a book entitled "The Umma and The Dawla: The Nation State and the Arab Middle East" (Pluto Press, 2008).

Between 1996 and 1997, he won the music prize of his faculty at the Cairo University. The faculty awarded him the poetry prize in 1998. During that same year, he won the poetry medal of the High Institute of Applied Arts. In 2000, he received the poetry prize of the Regional Cultural Foundation in Marrakesh, Morocco.

He is currently a visiting Assistant Professor at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, where he teaches on Comparative Politics of the Middle East, Arab nationalism, and Islamic political thought.

The Palestinian creativity wasn’t restricted within arts and poetry. However it exceeded to reach the sciences.

“Jenin” Carved in Stone Sent to Moon

Issam Nemer, a Palestinian astronaut who had sent to the moon a stone with the name of his town, “Jenin” carved in it.
Nemer was born in 1926 in Jenin, where he has his elementary and secondary education. In 1949 he traveled to the United States of America to attend Uota University (University of the Arts) where he graduated in 1953 with a degree in engineering.

He continued his high education in the New York University where he received a PhD in Calculating Quantities. Then he worked at a pioneer missiles production factory in California.
After that, Nemer moved to work for NASA in Houston, Texas, where he led the experiment group of the moon spacecraft. He achieved several medals and certificates of appreciation.

In addition to these scientific achievements, Issam Nemer sent a small stone with the name of his hometown “Jenin” carved in it, with the Apollo 11 astronauts.

Political Palestinian writer, Hafez Touqan, said, in an essay published in the “Nablus” newspaper, that he had asked Nemer: “Why didn’t you write the name of Palestine”?
“He answered while laughing: so that the stone can reach the moon”, Touqan added.

And till now, the municipality’s library preserves an image, signed by Apollo’s astronauts, offered by Issam Nemer to the city residents in the first visit to his country following his travel.

Heredity Scientist: Doctor Ahmad Tibi

Doctor Ahmad Teebi, a prominent doctor in genetics field, especially in the Arab world.
He is the Charge d’affaire of the genetic diseases data base in the Arab world. He is also reputed as a genetics teratology researcher.

Teebi now heads the department of clinical genetics in the Hospital for Sick Children (also known as SickKids Hospital) in Toronto. He is also the deputy chief and pediatrics professor in Weill Cornell Medical College in New York and Qatar.

Doctor Teebi prepared more than 200 researches in genetics field. He noted to 38 new types of genetic disturbances. He also made several researches based on Mendelian inheritance law. He was an editor in several magazines specialized in genetics in the US.

Doctor Teebi also wrote, along with Talaat Farag, a book, of 25 chapters, on the genetic disturbances upon the Arabs. This book was published in 1997 by Oxford University.
He shared in developing the genetics services in several Arab countries, like Gulf States, Jordan, occupied Palestinian territories, Egypt and Tunisia.

We the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria,

"We, the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, emphasize that the interview broadcast on the Israeli Channel Two – in the context of the bilateral campaign of the Zionists and the media of the Syrian regime – is aimed at tarnishing the image of the Muslim Brotherhood. This interview was originally made with Mr. al-Bayanouni in 2006 for a Spanish television channel. The interview has been tampered with and fabricated so as to serve the cheap and common goals of the Syrian and the Zionist regimes."

"They even support peace with Israel' ."

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/23/2016
TAGS: PREL, PTER, LE, SY
SUBJECT: LEBANON: SAAD HARIRI CALLS FOR SYRIAN REGIME
CHANGE; MAYBE IRAN TOO


Saying that he maintains close contact with Khaddam (in Paris) and Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leader-in-exile Ali Bayanuni (in London), Saad urged us to "talk to Bayanuni. See what he's like. You will see wonders."....."

Wikileaks: Hariri to Talwar: "A partnership between the 'Brotherhood & Khaddam' ... They support peace with Israel"

Khaddam interview with Israeli TV Channel

Ron Paul: Only Republican candidate ‘not owned by AIPAC’

The Passionate Attachment

Laura Stuart: Can the Solidarity Movement Contain Apologists ?


As an activist against Human Rights abuses, particularly of the sort that the Nazi style entity called Israel inflicts on Palestinians on a daily basis, I have been fortunate to be involved in some direct actions which were very effective in exposing among other things the illegal collective punishment on one and a half million Palestinians a.k.a. the Siege of Gaza. More recently I have had the privilege to attend many lectures by intellectuals on various subjects relating to zionism and it's evil ideology. A learning process which often finds me agreeing with most of what someone states as the issues facing Palestinians but perhaps not always agreeing on how each person or group sees the solution, such as was the case with the amazing Dr Norman Finkelstein lecture recently.

All protests, flotillas, convoys and lectures feature people of different religions (or none) from a broad spectrum of political backgrounds, yet amazingly there is a huge amount of solidarity across the board with everyone contributing in many different ways within their own area of expertise. The common thread holding us all together is a firm belief in Truth and Justice.

The Meir Institute report after the Mavi Marmara particularly noted, to their great consternation that Muslims (Islamists as they call politically active muslims) and people from every kind of religious and political background were able to unite against the common enemy of Zionist oppression. This is the real meaning of Solidarity.

Muslims in particular are keenly aware that Zionists are actively engaged in oppressing Muslims in the west as well as in Palestine. One only has to read Zionists blogs to understand that their main obsession is Islam, and their main activity is trying to provoke never ending war between western powers and Muslim countries. The Fox/Werrity/Gould agenda of pushing for war on Iran exposes the money and power behind the decisions that western governments take and why. The recent report by Spin Watch called "The Cold War on British Muslims", into lobby groups such as Policy exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion expose another agenda of increasing suspicion against Muslims in the U.K. promoting fear of terrorism from Muslims and increasingly an agenda of restricting personal freedoms for everyone in the name of security.

All activists who expose the truth about Zionist politics and the racial supremacy which is integral to that ideology are labelled as anti semitic, a bit of research uncovers the driving forces behind the changing definition of what anti semitism is. Groups such as C.S.T. want the British government to adopt the E.U. working document on anti semitism which has never been used and would make anyone critical of Israel and it's policies anti semitic. When I look at the websites of my local M.P.'s I find they attend C.S.T. annual dinners and in the case of Mike Freer even get named as a "Friend" of CST. It is frightening to discover that lobby groups whose primary interest is a foreign country's security and expansionist agenda, and whose policies continue to cause so much death and human suffering in the region, even when it leads to our government waging illegal wars and the death of millions of innocents not to mention the British soldiers who are operating at the heart of British Politics, by now we the British public should be very concerned.

With the amount of funding that our government receives from wealthy Jewish business men and with wealthy Jewish business men donating heavily to Jewish interest lobby groups, it is no surprise that pro Palestine Campaigners are up against a formidable force. Not only do we have to expose and take on the Israeli government but we also have to expose and take on the Western governments as well. How simple would it be for Western Governments to insist that Israel would comply with International Law and so bring an end to a lot of misery and suffering of the Palestinians, but Governments such as the U.K. for one seem terminally helpless when it comes to Israel.

Realising that Zionist interests are not contained within Israel/Palestine alone but reach out and shape western foreign policy, means that there can be no peace, as long as the Zionist agenda is the oppression and complete subjugation of billions of people, every single one whom they believe is a security threat, or at least wish to portray as such.

To be successful against the Zionist machine we have one weapon in our favour and that is solidarity, every person following alternative media and who discovers the truth about injustice and the perpetrators of oppression finds it difficult to sit and do nothing. As a Muslim I have to operate within Islamic methodology, the left wing activists have their own views and they don't agree with some of our religious restrictions, however, on the whole we do not attack each other publicly or seek to disown, distance or discredit each other. A chain is as strong as it's weakest link, and sadly at this time we are witnessing a weak link right at the head of the PSC leadership. Some statements of appeasement to Zionists have been made by PSC leadership, this immediately led to another article on Zionist blogs which condemned the statement, twisting it's words and saying it was not enough. Even more worrying, is the fact that PSC leadership have released a statement saying they do not work with Gilad Atzmon. Why ? What possible reason is there for that statement? The immediate result was further comments on Zionists blogs asking well if the PSC is distancing themselves from Gilad Atzmon why don't they distance themselves from Sheik Raed Salah? In reality Gilad Atzmon has huge support at PSC branches around the UK.

You see now? There can be no appeasement, there can be no weakest link, anything said to curry favour with Zionists fails miserably and only creates more demands. Gilad Atzmon is not anti semitic or his book would not be endorsed by some of the top humanists of our time. Sheik Raed Salah is also not anti semitic and the accusations against him made by the very dubious translations of CST failed to stand up to scrutiny.

Some very good activists have been encouraged to fall on their swords by the PSC leadership because they hold views where they would wish some aspects of the holocaust to be re-examined. If they are not using a PSC platform to express those views why is it any business of the PSC? For example if I believe the only solution to the Israel/Palestine situation is global jihad, isn't that my business as long as I am not saying it is PSC policy or using my position within the PSC to promote that view?

There is an endless witch hunt going on in the UK by Zionists and a very small group of particularly venomous anti Zionists who want to control every group of activists including those activists personal views. It is very shameful, but by now equally well known that the small group of anti Zionists are like a cancer within the movement, writing vile accusations on blogs and in emails about people (including me) and phoning people up insisting to control who speaks or performs in public. Recently we saw how even men of the cloth were subject to a concerted hate campaign to halt a jazz concert, an action which had echos of the Third Reich's censorship of Jazz players in Nazi Germany. It was no surprise to me (an ex Christian) when the Dean of Bradford tried to appease all sides in the dispute and ended up looking very wobbly and upsetting everyone.

There has to be real belief in our hearts that we are able to stand firm in the onslaught of lies, libelous blogs and in my case even anonymous and threatening emails but if I can withstand those rather sinister attacks then surely for those who are leaders within the movement, it should be like water off a ducks back.

We now are at a crisis point, the leadership of the PSC has to firm up, because the vultures are already circling in the belief that the solidarity has been broken and the movement is falling apart.

Laura Stuart
The wandering who- Gilad Atzmon

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”: Divide, Conquer and Rule the “New Middle East”

Posted by on November 27, 2011



by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, GB

The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge of the region, know very little about the Arabs. What is unfolding amongst the Arab peoples is naturally a mixed package. Insurgency is part of this package as is opportunism. Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution.



The upheavals in the Arab World are not an Arab “awakening” either; such a term implies that the Arabs have always been sleeping while dictatorship and injustice has been surrounding them. In reality the Arab World, which is part of the broader Turko-Arabo-Iranic World, has been filled with frequent revolts that have been put down by the Arab dictators in coordination with countries like the United States, Britain, and France. It has been the interference of these powers that has always acted as a counter-balance to democracy and it will continue to do so.


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



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



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


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



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



The Yinon Plan: Order from Chaos…



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



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


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



Securing the Realm: Redefining the Arab World…



Although tweaked, the Yinon Plan is in motion and coming to life under the “Clean Break.” This is through a policy document written in 1996 by Richard Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel at the time. Perle was a former Pentagon under-secretary for Roland Reagan at the time and later a U.S. military advisor to George W. Bush Jr. and the White House. Aside from Perle, the rest of the members of the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ consisted of James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), and Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University). A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is the full name of this 1996 Israel policy paper.



In many regards, the U.S. is executing the objectives outlined in Tel Aviv’s 1996 policy paper to secure the “realm.” Moreover, the term “realm” implies the strategic mentality of the authors. A realm refers to either the territory ruled by a monarch or the territories that fall under a monarch’s reign, but are not physically under their control and have vassals running them. In this context, the word realm is being used to denote the Middle East as the kingdom of Tel Aviv. The fact that Perle, someone who has essentially been a career Pentagon official, helped author the Israeli paper also makes one ask if the conceptualized sovereign of the realm is either Israel, the United States, or both?



Securing the Realm: The Israeli Blueprints to Destabilize Damascus



The 1996 Israeli document calls for “rolling back Syria” sometime around the year 2000 or afterward by pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing the Syrian Arab Republic with the help of Jordan and Turkey. This has respectively taken place in 2005 and 2011. The 1996 document states: “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [1]



As a first step towards creating an Israeli-dominated “New Middle East” and encircling Syria, the 1996 document calls for removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim “Central Iraq.” The authors write: “But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.” [2]



Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ also call for driving the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing Syria by using Lebanese opposition figures. The document states: “[Israel must divert] Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.” [3] This is what would happen in 2005 after the Hariri Assassination that helped launch the so-called “Cedar Revolution” and create the vehemently anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance controlled by the corrupt Said Hariri.



The document also calls for Tel Aviv to “take [the] opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime.” [4] This clearly falls into the Israeli strategy of demonizing its opponents through using public relations (PR) campaigns. In 2009, Israeli news media openly admitted that Tel Aviv through its embassies and diplomatic missions had launched a global campaign to discredit the Iranian presidential elections before they even took place through a media campaign and organizing protests in front of Iranian embassies. [5]



The document also mentions something that resembles what is currently going on in Syria. It states: “Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.” [6] With the 2011 upheaval in Syria, the movement of insurgents and the smuggling of weapons through the Jordanian and Turkish borders has become a major problem for Damascus.



In this context, it is no surprise that Arial Sharon and Israel told Washington to attack Syria, Libya, and Iran after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [7] Finally, it is worth knowing that the Israeli document also advocated for pre-emptive war to shape Israel’s geo-strategic environment and to carve out the “New Middle East.” [8] This is a policy that the U.S. would also adopt in 2001.

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



There are unknown snippers who are targeting Syrian civilians and the Syrian Army with a view of causing chaos and internal fighting. The Christian communities in Syria are also being targeted by unknown groups. It is very likely that the attackers are a coalition of U.S., French, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi, and Khalij (Gulf) Arab forces working with some Syrians on the inside.



A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It has been reported that - Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be either the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region or demarcate them into enclaves. Both could be objectives.



This project is meant to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations and falls into accordance with both the Yinon Plan and the geo-political objectives of the U.S. to control Eurasia. A major war may be its outcome. Arab Christians now have a lot in common with black-skinned Arabs.



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



In regards to Africa, Tel Aviv sees securing Africa as part of its broader periphery. This broader or so-called “new periphery” became a basis of geo-strategy for Tel Aviv after 1979 when the “old periphery” against the Arabs that included Iran, which was one of Israel’s closest allies during the Pahlavi period, buckled and collapsed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In this context, Israel’s “new periphery” was conceptualized with the inclusion of countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, and Kenya against the Arab states and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is why Israel has been so deeply involved in the balkanization of Sudan.



In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets: (1) ethno-linguistics; (2) skin-colour; and, finally, (3) religion. To secure the realm, it also so happens that the the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the Israeli think-tank that included Perle, also pushed for the creating of the Pentagon’s U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).


An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway. It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”



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



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



Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”



It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.
The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place. The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.



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



After Iraq and Egypt, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic are both important points of regional destabilization in North Africa and Southeast Asia respectively. What happens in Libya will have rippling effects on Africa, as what happens in Syria will have rippling effects on Southeast Asia and beyond. Both Iraq and Egypt, in connection with what the Yinon Plan states, have acted as primers for the destabilization of both these Arab states.



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



This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies. [9] Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.



In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the 'Global War on Terror'].” [10] Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” [11]



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

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



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



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



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



Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an award-winning writer from Ottawa, Canada. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He was a witness to the “Arab Spring” in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign he was Special Correspondent for the syndicated investigative KPFA program Flashpoints, which is aired from Berkeley, California.

NOTES

[1] Richard Perle et al., A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), 1996.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Barak Ravid, “Israeli diplomats told to take offensive in PR war against Iran,” Haaretz, June 1, 2009.
[6] Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[7] Aluf Benn, “Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, September 30, 2009.
[8] Richard Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[9] Robert Marquand,”Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.
[10] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211
[11] Ibid.