Obama and US State Dept Hired Killers ~ Ukraine or Nevada same Hired Guns

800px-US_Sniper_Slunj-1560x690_c

By January 2012, the State Department will do something it’s never done before: command a mercenary army the size of a heavy combat brigade.  And no one outside State knows anything more, as the department has gone to war with its independent government watchdog to keep its plan a secret.

http://www.wired.com/2011/07/iraq-merc-army/

Obama and the US State Dept have their own Private Army and they will use them on Americans as well as Eastern Europe or Syria.  Wake up! This is not a party issue when hired killers take aim at civilians on US soil.  This is global land grab, the UN , Monsanto and big oil are running the BLM, the Bundy ranch is just tip of iceberg.  Obama has sold US out and destroyed constitution … we are all Syrians now.

New EPA Land Grab, Complete Control Over All Private Land in America

Rick Wells

Obama’s role: Plotting the Killings, Selecting the Victims ~ by Bill Van Auken

The EPA is in the process, right this very minute, of seizing control over all private land in the United States. They are following the United Nations blueprint, their minion Gina McCarthy is implementing it, and B. Hussein Obama is facilitating it.

Anywhere in America where it rains or where water collects or through which water moves will now, according to this new rule change they are implementing, be under their control. Not because Congress or the people give them that authority or jurisdiction, but simply because they are seizing the power. It is just another component of the illegitimate tyranny which is oppressing the American people.

On Tuesday the agency which operates as the misnamed Environmental Protection Agency unveiled their proposed change to the Clean Water Act, which would extend their regulatory control to temporary wetlands and waterways.

This definition consists of any water, including seasonal ponds, streams, runoff and collection areas and irrigation water. It could include runoff from watering your lawn, or puddles on your own property. They will control the presence of and can prohibit through regulation, your right to the water and your actions regarding water upon your own land. The opportunities for their abuse would be limitless.

Louisiana Senator David Vitter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, offered an understated precautionary objection stating, “The … rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history.”

The EPA proposal would extend their authority to include “pollution regulations” to “intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands” – which are created temporarily during wet seasons or following rainfall.

Recognize this for what it is America; The EPA is giving themselves legal jurisdiction to replace our rights with their permissions anywhere it rains or water exists.

They are expanding the same kind of California fish-based drought or Nevada tortoise land restrictions or Oregon spotted owl tyranny to every square inch of the United States.

The EPA is asserting that all ground water, whether temporary or not and regardless of size is part of the “waters of the United States.”

Their position is in contradiction to the Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006, restricting the EPA to flowing and sizeable, “relatively” permanent bodies of water such as “oceans, rivers, streams and lakes.” Of course, progressives just keep trying until they get what they want, and they never have enough.

The proposed rule change is now in a 90 day comment period during which they will assess just how much they can get away with, based upon public outcry and pushback.

Senator Vitter accused the EPA of “picking and choosing” their science and of attempting to “take another step toward outright permitting authority over virtually any wet area in the country.” He also warned that if approved, more private owners could expect to be sued by “environmental groups.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) shares Vitter’s concerns, warning of potential economic damage and questioning the EPA’s motivations.

She said, “[I]t appears that the EPA is seeking to dramatically expand its jurisdictional reach under the Clean Water Act. If EPA is not careful, this rule could effectively give the federal government control of nearly all of our state.

Of course, that is exactly what they are after, as well as 49 other states and territories.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/10/new-epa-land-grab-complete-control-over-all-private-land-in-america/

Neil Kornze, Principal Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management

Neil KornzeSince March 1, 2013, Neil Kornze has been leading the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the agency’s Principal Deputy Director. Kornze oversees the agency’s management of more than 245 million acres of public land nationwide.

Prior to serving in his current role, Kornze was the BLM’s Acting Deputy Director for Policy and Programs starting in October 2011. Kornze joined the organization in January 2011 as a Senior Advisor to the Director. In these roles, he worked on a broad range of issues, including renewable and conventional energy development, transmission siting, and conservation policy.

Kornze was a key player in the development of the Western Solar Plan and the agency’s successful authorization of more than 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy, surpassing a congressionally-established goal 3 years ahead of schedule. He has also been active in tribal consultation, especially as it relates to oil and gas and renewable energy development.

Before coming to the BLM, Kornze worked as a Senior Policy Advisor to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In his work for Senator Reid, which spanned from early 2003 to early 2011, he worked on a variety of public lands issues, including renewable energy development, mining, water, outdoor recreation, rural development, and wildlife. Kornze has also served as an international election observer in Macedonia, the Ukraine, and Georgia, and he is co-author of an article in “The Oxford Companion to American Law.”

Raised in Elko, Nevada, Kornze is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate with a degree in Politics from Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington. He earned a master’s degree in International Relations at the London School of Economics.

http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/blm-dir.cfm

UN, Monsanto, mining, oil & gas companies directing BLM plans for our public land

November 1, 2011

http://ppjg.me/2011/11/01/monsanto-mining-oil/

Bundy-ranch

usmercs

The Privatization of War: Mercenaries, Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC)

Beyond the WikiLeaks Files

Jose L. Gomez del Prado

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-privatization-of-war-mercenaries-private-military-and-security-companies-pmsc/21826

Bundy Ranch

The Government has now declared this area a new flight zone! We believe it is a reaction towards our aerial view of inside the compound as well as flying around the compound! There could be many other reasons as to why this has happened but up to this point we speculate that is was due to being able to still see within the restricted areas! You can find more information >>HERE<<

come and take it2

Why The Standoff At The Bundy Ranch Is A Very Big Deal

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-12/why-standoff-bundy-ranch-very-big-deal

sniper

Feds End Standoff on Bundy Ranch

http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-end-standoff-on-bundy-ranch/

Massacre at Ruby Ridge

http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm

 

Protest Movement in Eastern Ukraine: Security Forces Integrated by Foreign Mercenaries Hired by Private U.S. Military Outfit

http://www.globalresearch.ca/crisis-in-eastern-ukraine-security-forces-integrated-by-foreign-mercenaries/5377018

Western Mercenaries in Ukraine?

By Ulson Gunnar

Recent rumors of notorious Blackwater US mercenaries operating inside of Ukraine invoked a plausible narrative so convincing even news outlets across the West began echoing it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/western-mercenaries-in-ukraine/5374815

 

A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World

SOURCE
Night Drop

US Army

With huge cutbacks slated for the U.S. military, the Marines and Army in particular, private security firms are sure to be getting a boost.The Army is cutting 50,000 soldiers over the next few years and the Marines are looking to shave about 20,000 servicemembers over the same period of time.

So while business was booming for this group private military contractors, who take their military training and offer it to the highest bidder, it’s likely to grow even more.

Modern-day mercenaries are stationed throughout the world fighting conflicts for governments that are reluctant to use their own troops or where foreign troops are unable or unwilling to go.

An army of 5,000 heavily-armed contractors recently replaced official American forces in Iraq, and many more were recruited to protect private interests in the region.

These mercenaries (Mercs) are sent to many places that may surprise you.

Security giant G4S is the second-largest private employer on earth

Security giant G4S is the second-largest private employer on earth

YouTube

With more than 625,000 employees, this listed security giant is the second-largest private employer in the world (behind Wal-Mart). While some of its business is focused on routine bank, prison and airport security, G4S also plays an important role in crisis-zones right around the world.

In 2008, G4S swallowed up Armorgroup, whose 9,000-strong army of guards has protected about one third of all non-military supply convoys in Iraq (it’s also notorious for its wild parties and for having Afghan warlords on its payroll).

But the combined group has a security presence in more than 125 countries, including some of the most dangerous parts of Africa and Latin America, where it offers government agencies and private companies heavily-armed security forces, land-mine clearance, military intelligence and training.

Unity Resources Group is active in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas and Asia

Unity Resources Group is active in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas and Asia

Al Jazeera

With more than 1,200 staff worldwide, the Australian-owned Unity Resources has been able to grow its presence in Iraq as sovereign armies withdraw. Its management consists of veterans from Australia, the U.S. and Great Britain.

The private military firm is best-known for guarding the Australian embassy in Baghdad, where, as of 2010, it had trained Chilean soldiers to man gates and machine-gun nests. Unity personnel were also responsible for two controversial car shootings in Iraq: one killed an Australian professor, another resulted in the deaths of two civilian women.

Outside Iraq, Unity has assisted with security during parliamentary elections in Lebanon and helped evacuate private oil companies from crisis zones in Bahrain. The firm also operates throughout Africa, the Americas, Central Asia and Europe.

Erinys has guarded most of Iraq’s vital oil assets

Erinys has guarded most of Iraq's vital oil assets

YouTube

Erinys has also followed U.S. State Department contracts to Iraq. Its biggest mission in recent years took 16,000 of its guards to 282 locations around the country, where they protected key oil pipelines and other energy assets.

The group also maintains a presence in Africa, where it has traditionally focused its operations. Erinys was recently awarded two contracts in the Republic of Congo, for security at major iron ore and oil and gas projects.

Asia Security Group is a powerful Afghan force linked to president Karzai

Asia Security Group is a powerful Afghan force linked to president Karzai

AP

Formerly owned by Hashmat Karzai, the first cousin of Afghan president Hamid Karzai, Asia Security Group is a major local force in the war-torn nation. It employs about 600 guards.

The private army, headquartered in Kabul, has been awarded millions of dollars in contracts from the U.S. military and is said to protect Coalition supply convoys traveling in Afghanistan’s south. Mercenaries from Asia Security Group have also been recruited by DynCorp, a U.S.-owned contractor with a big footprint in the region.

DynCorp has battled Colombian rebels and drug-runners in Peru

DynCorp has battled Colombian rebels and drug-runners in Peru

YouTube

DynCorp, based in Virginia, is one of eight private military firms specially chosen by the U.S. State Department to remain in Iraq as official American forces pull out.

But the huge group, which brings in about$3.4 billion in revenue every year, is also active throughout Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America, with a staff in excess of 10,000. The firm earned a trigger-happy reputation as its soldiers fought rebel groups in Columbia in the early 2000s. Its troops have also engaged in anti-drug missions in Peru and were sent to disarm fighters in Somalia, Liberia and southern Sudan.

Triple Canopy has won a security contract in Iraq worth up to $1.5 billion

Triple Canopy has won a security contract in Iraq worth up to $1.5 billion

Triple Canopy

Another of the eight contractors recruited to replace official U.S. forces in Iraq, Triple Canopy has an army of about 1,800 troops in the country — mostly from Uganda and Peru — on contracts worth up to $1.5 billion.

An official review of the firm’s team in Iraq concluded it was a “well-trained, professional work force with significant prior experience.” But the private military — whose name refers to the canopies in the jungles where its founding Army specialists received their training — also employs another 3,000 personnel globally.

Contracts in other parts of the world have taken Triple Canopy to Haiti, where it guarded the U.S. embassy, and to Israel, where agents provided personal protective services for the U.S. State Department.

Aegis Defense Services works with the UN, US, and oil companies

Aegis Defense Services works with the UN, US, and oil companies

YouTube

Aegis supplies forces for private clients, U.N. missions and the U.S. government, especially in Iraq.

But its staff, estimated to be as big as 5,000, is also spread across offices in Afghanistan and Bahrain, where the contractor offers emergency response, risk assessments, and protects private oil interests.

The private military contractor is probably best-known for a video that surfaced in 2005, which allegedly showed Aegis forces firing at Iraqi civilians.

Defion Internacional recruits thousands of fighters from developing countries

Defion Internacional recruits thousands of fighters from developing countries

YouTube

In the past, Triple Canopy has recruited heavily from the ranks of Defion Internacional, which sources and trains private military personnel from Latin America for jobs right around the world.

Headquartered in Peru, and with offices in Dubai, Iraq, Philippines and Sri Lanka, the firm contracts and trains bodyguards, drivers, static guards and logistics specialists from a number of developing countries. In some cases, these agents are paid as little as $1,000 per month, which has drawn international ire — especially for jobs linked to the U.S. State Department.

At one stage there were more than 1,000 Latin Americans guns-for-hire in the Middle East, although it is unclear how many of those fighters Defion was responsible for given that it is not required to disclose numbers.

Academi owns and runs one of the most advanced private military training facilities in the world

Academi owns and runs one of the most advanced private military training facilities in the world

Formerly Blackwater, then Xe Services, Academi runs a 7,000 acre training facility deep in the North Carolina wilderness — one of the biggest and most complex private military training grounds in the world.

According to a book written on Blackwater in 2007, the facility had by then produced an army of 20,000 troops, 20 aircraft, a fleet of armored vehicles and trained war dogs. Most of those resources were shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan on U.S. government contracts.

Academi probably scaled back after a number of wrongful shootings and other controversiesangered the Iraq government and jeopardized important contracts.

Outside the Middle East, Academi was recruited to protect the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. It has also protected Japan’s missile defence systems and assisted with the war on drugs around the world.

BONUS: Starting out as a mercenary?

BONUS: Starting out as a mercenary?

Academi

Take a course at Academi’s premier training facility in North Carolina.

The firm offers custom courses for allied security forces and corporates, such as live-fire driving instruction, counter-terrorism training  — including dealing with weapons of mass destruction — and executive risk assessment.

You can also get equipped at the Academi web store, which stocks everything from protective sunglasses to sniper mission logs — even branded gifts.

http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-most-powerful-mercenary-armies-2012-06?op=1#ixzz2ylFSWNYl

Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

 and old harry thought he might as well cash in on the land grab … 

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

 

On the Day a Tragic Era Started by Milos Markovic

The Plight of Yugoslavia. ~On the Day a Tragic Era Started by Milos Markovic
http://www.globalresearch.ca 8 April 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR304A.html

I am writing these lines at the dawn of 24 March 2003, on the very day when the NATO, four years ago, started the destruction of my country, which in the meantime has lost even its name. I ask my profession for forgiveness if in this text emotions, even traumas, should give it more a character of a confession than a critical and analytical review. However, even though various feelings overwhelm me, I will not do injustice to facts or to logic resulting from these facts. It is not only a memory of commemorative character, but another kind of nightmare, an everlasting trauma, pain, insufferable grief. And while I watch the destruction of Baghdad by the Americans on the screen, it seems to me that each missile hits Belgrade, Serbia, destroying the bridges over the Danube, the Ibar, the Morava, striking schools, hospitals, churches.

As if once again I was suffocating from the smoke in the demolished basement of the devastated building of the Television of Serbia, as if I heard the screams of my colleagues that night and saw their bewildered eyes. The pictures of terror, chaos, catastrophe, death come alive. Between the floors of the destroyed building the body of a helpless man hangs upside down, quivering, while doctors on firemen’s ladders try to save his life. As if now, in my mind’s eye, I saw parts of the bodies of the killed on the roof of St. Marco’s church. As if I saw before me the images of the victims. I hear the cries for help, weeping, sobbing, screams. It seems to me that I am committing a sin when trying to push back such memories and feelings, when trying to calmly, collectedly and very rationally make an inventory of those tragic things. It seems to me that it would also be a kind of indifference no one is entitled to. I cannot agree to that, no matter how much the present government insist on ignoring this said anniversary.

On 24 March, not a single newspaper even mentioned on the front page that event, that is tragic not only for this country and its people, but also a tragic proclamation that the planet and the human civilization will be governed by the most brutal power, the one serving American interests. And all in the guise of human rights, freedom, democracy, humanness. What absurdity, what hypocrisy, what cynicism, what lies! And the Serbs as victims of the NATO bombing, as to date the greatest victims of American hegemony policy, they are forced to forget their tragedy! And not only forget it, but forgive and justify it as well! They can still, quite conventionally, almost discreetly and rather superficially mention it in the last minutes of news programs and back pages of the newspapers. Almost all the media in Serbia devoted more attention and time and space to the American Academy Awards, to winning Oscars, than to the anniversary of the beginning of the NATO bombing of our country! What is killed in that manner and how the bombing of this people is continued by other means – that is hopefully clear to every man capable of though at the level of an average teenager!

How many thousands of victims, how many thousands of missiles, how many thousands of kilos of explosive, how many cluster bombs, how many depleted uranium bombs, were used on Serbia? How many tens of bridges were destroyed, how many thousands of people are there with post-traumatic consequences? How many deformed children will be born, not only in Serbia, but in the whole of Europe as well? When the NATO protectors of Albanian terrorism came to Kosovo and Metohija, almost all of the Serbs were exiled, tens of thousands of their homes were burned down, hundreds of their churches and monasteries were destroyed. During almost four years of absolute domination of the NATO forces in Kosovo and Metohija, the alleged guarantor of the safety for the return to their homes, not even one percent of the exiled Serbs could go back to their homes! With all those wonders, all those terrible crimes in accordance with the American script, only one man was charged and sentenced! Only one!

The law of Hamurabi, ancient Roman laws, all the codes and legal systems of all countries must feel humiliation before this fact. So many killed, so many crimes of all kinds – and only one man sentenced!? How will the Minister of Justice in Serbian government find a logical, even in a most formal semblance of logic, answer that makes even a ghost of justice? This legal absurd, this corruption of law can take its place in any anthology of meaninglessness and humiliation of law. How is it possible – so many crimes, so many victims, and only one man guilty?

Let us see who that wonder man is, what his crime is, and what justifies the verdict and the sentence of the District Court in Belgrade.

The only one guilty for all the NATO crimes is Dragoljub Milanovic. He was a general manager of the Radio Television of Serbia. He held the same position at the time of the NATO bombing of the FR Yugoslavia. All the 78 days of aggression against our country he stayed in the RTS building until after midnight.

In the night between 22 and 23 April 1999 I was the chief editor on duty in the News Department of the RTS. That fact gives me not only the right, but also the duty of the highest moral order to say what happened and how it happened. One newspaper story is too short for such a delicate story, for such a monstrous crime, for such a big tragedy. I am saving all this for the book I am writing, and which will hopefully explain through arguments what happened in the night the television building was bombed, what had happened before, and what was to happen after.

In the night when the building was hit, manager Milanovic asked me, as the chief editor on duty, and in connection with the statement from Moscow regarding the talks Milosevic – Chernomyrdin, which were on the previous day (22 April 1999) in Belgrade. It was about 1 o’clock after midnight, or a couple of minutes to 1. Bearing in mind that the translation of the text was rather confusing, I saw right away that this important news would not be ready for the news program at 1 o’clock. After checking the translation and some stylistic interventions, I went out of Mr. Milanovic’s office. The time was about ten minutes past one. Milanovic stayed in his office with a man I did not know. The said news I prepared for the news program at 2 o’clock. My last editor’s action of that tragic night was to advise the news presenter Slobodan Kovacevic to read the said statement very clearly, since there were some linguistic adjustments in the translation.

Some time before 2 o’clock after midnight I was sitting in the office of the Culture Department, where I had spent twenty-five years as a journalist. There were Ljuba Vucicevic, in charge that night for the correspondents’ network, my colleague from the culture department, Dragan Srdanovic, and the secretary, Maja Andjelkovic. At 5 or 6 minutes after 2 – it struck! The building shook, we fell. There are moments in a great drama that the rational powers in man withdraw, and some miraculous instinct for self-preservation takes lead. I was trying to keep calm, collected, aware. I wanted to extend it to the others as well. I was afraid that panic would overwhelm me, the panic there were so many reasons for. All the stumbling, falling, running into the walls of the building basement, did not cause any pain, since, it seems to me, the organism in some wonderful way – was auto-anesthetized! Many things in those terrible events, not even four years later, cannot be explained, as if they were untranslatable to the language of logic.

It is not important now for this text. No less strange, irrational things happened even after that, and following the end of the NATO aggression against the FR Yugoslavia. There is rumor, even claims that it was known that the TV building would be bombed, and that we were, for propaganda goals, similar to those of Muslims in Sarajevo, to be sacrificed. I could not believe it. Such madness, such moral crime – no normal man could do it. However, those dilemmas, their final solutions, discovering the political layers of the whole case, both in the country and abroad – let us save it for the book.

Milanovic was in the top part of the ruling Socialist party of Serbia (SPS), the man of great, even greatest trust of the government and President Milosevic. They cannot have wanted to sacrifice him! He was in the building about half an hour before the bombing. General Wesley Clark or Xavier Solana cannot have called him on the mobile phone to tell him to go out, because their Merciful Angel was on the way to visit the RTS building! There were many enough assurances from various international institutions, even from Brussels itself, that the RTS building would not be targeted. Even the International Association of Journalists assured us of it! Our facilities were, for the reasons of safety, located on three different sites, outside Belgrade, and several of them in the basements and garages in the vicinity of the TV building. We had to be near the main building due to technical reasons, and the other building with similar facilities was located in such a manner hat it really represented an easy target for the NATO missiles. In the close vicinity of the main building in Aberdareva street there is General Post Office, National Bank of Yugoslavia, Russian church, St. Marco’s church, children’s theatre “Dusko Radovic”, Fifth Belgrade Highschool, and many residential buildings. We believed that the “Merciful Angel” would not target them. However, the RAF Harrier plane, with the necessary laser and other support from the ground, found the way to place his “smart missile” among us.

By means of the new regime in Serbia, on 5 October 2000, many things take on different shapes, which is quite understandable when it comes to politics. The symbol of the coming of the new policy was setting fire to the Federal Assembly building and the RTS building. At that time the documents of priceless value burned. The film history of a nation, collected there for almost half a century. Plentiful evidence of the NATO crimes were burned down, the film records on all the crimes, especially terrorist crimes, in Kosovo and Metohija, film documents on the war in Croatia and Bosnia. Several thousand cassettes where similar materials were kept were also burned to ashes. No one was ever charged for that, let alone convicted! The attitude towards the NATO also underwent some changes. Those in that military alliance most responsible for the bombing campaign against FR Yugoslavia are all of a sudden treated as friends, and the previous, even formal court sentences, were annuled and they were therefore absolved of all guilt. This was carried out by the Supreme Court of Serbia, of course by the orders of the new regime. They were absolved and promoted to friends, and the trial of Dragoljub Milanovic started, with the argument that he was responsible for the death of 16 employees of the RTS Television Belgrade, who had died in the bombing campaign of the NATO alliance. The hunt against journalist who were in the building that night started. The newly appointed manager of the RTS, Nenad Ristic, on the second anniversary of that tragic event, passed a judgement on us journalists – for having survived that awful night. He, with evident bitterness, in the live broadcast, yelled (I quote): “And the journalist, editors and propagators were not killed!” To the people who wondered at such a monstrous attitude towards the former colleagues, I “explained” that in that way Nenad Ristic was criticizing the NATO alliance – for inefficiency! By the way, Nenad Ristic spent all his working life (over thirty years) in high positions on that same television! He was an editor of this and that, a party chief known by frequently reporting fellow journalists to the police and party committees! Almost all of the journalist who were in the building on that tragic night, lost their right to work! I myself was told that I was “vocally and visually – undesirable”! After 28 years of working in that unfortunate Television, with all the highest domestic awards and prizes for my professional activities, I was left without means!

In such an atmosphere, what could have been expected in the court trial of Dragoljub Milanovic? As a witness, I did not want to take the side of defense nor the side of prosecution. I just wanted to contribute to the objective insight into the whole event. It was not my fault that the facts were on Milanovic’s side. I was not his friend, we just had a professional relationship. However, the Court Council interrupted me in my testifying when I announced that I was just about to shed light on some facts important for reviewing the whole event. It was clear to me immediately that the verdict had already been passed, and that the entire trial was just sheer formality, and a disguise for a political verdict. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, and that based on the non-existing document, a draft of the internal decision that was not signed nor stamped, without any legal effect. The known perpetrator of the crime was absolved, made a friend, and the one who objectively could not have done anything for our safety was convicted. Simply, the victim was convicted as a criminal, and the true criminal was promoted into a true merciful angel.

The convicted Milanovic did not report to the penitentiary to serve his sentence. It is not known where he is. It is clear that running away from justice is a new criminal act and it is clear that it is present in the penal codes of all countries. Formally and legally, Milanovic escaped justice, the court sentence. I do not know whether some legal expert in some legal manner can explain – running away from injustice?! Judging by the most common human sense of justice, Milanovic suffered great injustice. If I though that he was guilty, I myself would be the first to blame him for the great and consequential traumas of that night! Unless somebody convinces me that it is my fault for having survived! And such attempts, what absurdity, have already taken place! However, it is but one element in the delicate, and in good part irrational, reality in my country, which has found itself in the position of an American protectorate of the most humble kind. And, while I am trying to complete this text somehow, overwhelmed by dark thoughts and many associations, I hear on the radio that the Americans bombed the Iraqi television building in Baghdad! Like in some kind of a novel! It seems, when we think of what is happening to us, and especially what is yet to happen, that Orwell was a great – optimist.

Only now did I remember – Hans Frisch, Geobels’ deputy in Hitler’s ministry of propaganda, was found not guilty at the International Court in Nuremberg in 1946, with the explanation that he could not significantly influence the course of war! He was not guilty, and Dragoljub Milanovic is convicted! Goodbye, reason!

Note: If you would like to cooperate, if you have different thoughts or would like to say something, write to us – and sign your name!

Milos Markovic is a Yougoslav journalist based in Belgrade.He can reached at infograf@beograd.com Copyright Milos Markovic, 2003. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR304A.html

The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America ~ The Middle East 1957-1958


by William Blum “Killing Hope”

On 9 March 1957, the United States Congress approved a presidential resolution which came to be known as the Eisenhower Doctrine. This was a piece of paper, like the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine before it, whereby the US government conferred upon the US government the remarkable and enviable right to intervene militarily in other countries. With the stroke of a pen, the Middle East was added to Europe and the Western hemisphere as America’s field of play.

The resolution stated that “the United States regards as vital to the national interest and world peace the preservation of the independence and integrity of the nations of the Middle East.” Yet, during this very period, as we have seen, the CIA initiated its operation to overthrow the government of Syria.

The business part of the resolution was contained in the succinct declaration that the United States “is prepared to use armed forces to assist” any Middle East country “requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism”. Nothing was set forth about non-communist or anticommunist aggression which might endanger world peace.

Wilbur Crane Eveland, the Middle East specialist working for the CIA at the time, had been present at a meeting in the State Department two months earlier called to discuss the resolution. Eveland read the draft, which stated that “many, if not all” of the Middle East states “are aware of the danger that stems from international communism”.

Later he wrote:

I was shocked. Who, I wondered, had reached this determination of what the Arabs considered a danger? Israel’s army had just invaded Egypt and still occupied all of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. And, had it not been for Russia’s threat to intervene on behalf of the Egyptians, the British, French, and Israeli forces might now be sitting in Cairo, celebrating Nasser’s ignominious fall from power.1

The simplistic and polarized view of the world implicit in the Eisenhower Doctrine ignored not only anti-Israeli sentiments but currents of nationalism, pan-Arabism, neutralism and socialism prevalent in many influential quarters of the Middle East. The framers of the resolution saw only a cold-war battlefield and, in doing so, succeeded in creating one.

In April, King Hussein of Jordan dismissed his prime minister, Suleiman Nabulsi, amidst rumors, apparently well-founded, of a coup against the King encouraged by Egypt and Syria and Palestinians living in Jordan. It was the turning point in an ongoing conflict between the pro-West policy of Hussein and the neutralist leanings of the Nabulsi regime. Nabulsi had announced that in line with his policy of neutralism, Jordan would develop closet relations with the Soviet Union and accept Soviet aid if offered. At the same time, he rejected American aid because, he said, the United States had informed him that economic aid would be withheld unless Jordan “severs its ties with Egypt” and “consents to settlement of Palestinian refugees in Jordan”, a charge denied by the State Department. Nabulsi added the commentary that “communism is not dangerous to the Arabs”.

Hussein, conversely, accused “international communism and its followers” of direct responsibility for “efforts to destroy my country”. When pressed for the specifics of his accusation, he declined to provide any.

When rioting broke out in several Jordanian cities, and civil war could not be ruled out, Hussein showed himself equal to the threat to his continued rule. He declared martial law, purged the government and military of pro-Nasser and leftist tendencies, and abolished all political opposition. Jordan soon returned to a state of relative calm.

The United States, however, seized upon Hussein’s use of the expression “international communism” to justify rushing units of the Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean—a super aircraft carrier, two cruisers, and 15 destroyers, followed shortly by a variety of other naval vessels and a battalion of marines which put ashore in Lebanon—to “prepare for possible future intervention in Jordan”.2

Despite the fact that nothing resembling “armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism” had taken place, the State Department openly invited the King to invoke the Eisenhower Doctrine.3 But Hussein, who had not even requested the show of force, refused, knowing that such a move would only add fuel to the fires already raging in Jordanian political life. He survived without it.

Sometime during this year the CIA began making secret annual payments to King Hussein, initially in the millions of dollars per year. The practice was to last for 20 years, with the Agency providing Hussein female companions as well. As justification for the payment, the CIA later claimed that Hussein allowed American intelligence agencies to operate freely in Jordan. Hussein himself provided intelligence to the CIA and distributed part of his payments to other government officials who also furnished information or cooperated with the Agency.4

A few months later, it was Syria which occupied the front stage in Washington’s melodrama of “International Communism”. The Syrians had established relations with the Soviet Union via trade, economic aid, and military purchases and training. The United States chose to see something ominous in this although it was a state of affairs engendered in no small measure by John Foster Dulles, as we saw in the previous chapter. American antipathy toward Syria was heightened in August following the Syrian government’s exposure of the CIA-directed plot to overthrow it.

Washington officials and the American media settled easily into the practice of referring to Syria as a “Soviet satellite” or “quasi-satellite”. This was not altogether objective or spontaneous reporting. Kennett Love, a New York Times correspondent in close contact to the CIA (see Iran chapter), later disclosed some of the background:

The US Embassy in Syria connived at false reports issued in Washington and London through diplomatic and press channels to the effect that Russian arms were pouring into the Syrian port of Latakia, that “not more than 123 Migs” had arrived in Syria, and that Lieutenant Colonel Abdel Hameed Serraj, head of Syrian intelligence, had taken over control in a Communist-inspired coup. I travelled all over Syria without hindrance in November and December [1956] and found there were indeed “not more than 123 Migs”. There were none. And no Russian arms had arrived for months. And there had been no coup, although some correspondents in Beirut, just a two-hour drive from Damascus, were dispatching without attribution false reports fed to them by embassy visitors from Damascus and a roving CIA man who worked in the guise of a US Treasury agent. Serraj, who was anti-Communist, had just broken the clumsy British-US-Iraqi-supported plot [to overthrow the Syrian government]. Syria was quiet but worried lest the propaganda presage a new coup d’etat or a Western-backed invasion.5

As if to further convince any remaining skeptics, Eisenhower dispatched a personal emissary, Loy Henderson, on a tour of the Middle East. Henderson, not surprisingly, returned with the conclusion that “there was a fear in all Middle East countries that the Soviets might be able to topple the regimes in each of their countries through exploiting the crisis in Syria”.6 He gave no indication as to whether the Syrians themselves thought they were going through a crisis.

As an indication of how artificial were the crises announced by the White House, how arbitrary were the doomsday pronouncements about the Soviet Union, let us consider the following from a Department of Defense internal memorandum of June 1957, about two months before Henderson went to the Middle East:

The USSR has shown no intention of direct intervention in any of the previous Mid-Eastern crises, and we believe it is unlikely that they would intervene, directly, to assure the success of a leftist coup in Syria.7

In early September, the day after Henderson returned, the United States announced that the Sixth Fleet was once again being sent to the Mediterranean and that arms and other military equipment were being rushed to Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. A few days later, Saudi Arabia was added to the list. The Soviet Union replied with arms shipments to Syria, Egypt and Yemen.

The Syrian government accused the US of sending warships dose to her coast in an “open challenge” and said that unidentified planes had been flying constantly over the Latakia area day and night for four days, Latakia being the seaport where Soviet ships arrived.

Syria further claimed that the US had “incited” Turkey to concentrate an estimated 50,000 soldiers on Syria’s border. The Syrians ridiculed the explanation that the Turkish troops were only on maneuvers. Eisenhower later wrote that the troops were at the border with “a readiness to act” and that the United States had already assured the leaders of Turkey, Iraq and Jordan that if they “felt it necessary to take actions against aggression by the Syrian government, the United States would undertake to expedite shipments of arms already committed to the Middle Eastern countries and, further, would replace losses as quickly as possible.” The president had no quarrel with the idea that such action might be taken to repel, in his words, the “anticipated aggression” of Syria, for it would thus be “basically defensive in nature” (emphasis added).8

The American role here may have been more active than Eisenhower suggests.

One of his advisers, Emmet John Hughes, has written of how Under-Secretary of State Christian Herter, later to replace an ailing John Foster Dulles as Secretary, “reviewed in rueful detail… some recent clumsy clandestine American attempts to spur Turkish forces to do some vague kind of battle with Syria”.9

Dulles gave the impression in public remarks that the United States was anxious to somehow invoke the Eisenhower Doctrine, presumably as a “justification” for taking further action against Syria. But he could not offer any explanation of how this was possible. Certainly Syria was not going to make the necessary request.

The only solution lay in Syria attacking another Arab country which would then request American assistance. This appears to be one rationale behind the flurry of military and diplomatic activity directed at Syria by the US. A study carried out for the Pentagon some years later concluded that in “the 1957 Syrian crisis … Washington seem[ed] to seek the initial use of force by target”10 (emphasis added; “‘target” refers to Syria).

Throughout this period, Washington officials alternated between striving to enlist testimonials from other Arab nations that Syria was indeed a variety of Soviet satellite and a threat to the region, and assuring the world that the United States had received a profusion of just such testimony. But Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia all denied that they felt threatened by Syria. Egypt, Syria’s closest ally, of course concurred. At the height of the “crisis”, King Hussein of Jordan left for a vacation in Europe. The Iraqi premier declared that his country and Syria had arrived at a “complete understanding”. And King Saud of Saudi Arabia, in a message to Eisenhower, said that US concern over Syria was “exaggerated” and asked the president for “renewed assurances that the United States would refrain from any interference in the internal affairs of Arab states”. Saud added that “efforts to overturn the Syrian regime would merely make the Syrians more amenable to Soviet influence”, a view shared by several observers on all sides.

At the same time, the New York Times reported:

From the beginning of the crisis over Syria’s drift to the left, there has been less excitement among her Arab neighbors than in the United States. Foreign diplomats in the area, including many Americans, felt that the stir caused in Washington was out of proportion to the cause.

Eventually, Dulles may have been influenced by this lack of support for the American thesis, for when asked specifically to “characterize what the relation is between Soviet aims in the area and the part that Syria adds to them”, he could only reply that “The situation internally in Syria is not entirely clear and fluctuates somewhat.” Syria, he implied, was not yet in the grip of international Communism.

The next day, Syria, which had no desire to isolate itself from the West, similarly moderated its tone by declaring that the American warships had been 15 miles offshore and had continued “quietly on their way”.11

It appears that during this same restless year of 1957, the United States was also engaged in a plot to overthrow Nasser and his troublesome nationalism, although the details are rather sketchy. In January, when King Saud and Iraqi Crown Prince Abdul Illah were in New York at the United Nations, they were approached by CIA Director Allen Dulles and one of his top aides, Kermit Roosevelt, with offers of CIA covert planning and funding to topple the Egyptian leader whose radical rhetoric, inchoate though it was, was seen by the royal visitors as a threat to the very idea of monarchy.

Nasser and other army officers had overthrown King Farouk of Egypt in 1952. Ironically, Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA have traditionally been given credit for somehow engineering this coup. However, it is by no means certain that they actually carried this out.12

“Abdul Illah,” wrote Eveland, “insisted on British participation in anything covert, but the Saudis had severed relations with Britain and refused. As a result, the CIA dealt separately with each: agreeing to fund King Saud’s part in a new area scheme to oppose Nasser and eliminate his influence in Syria; and to the same objective, coordinating in Beirut a covert working group composed of representatives of the British, Iraqi, Jordanian, and Lebanese intelligence services.”13

The conspiracy is next picked up in mid-spring at the home of Ghosn Zogby in Beirut. Zogby, of Lebanese ancestry, was the chief of the CIA Beirut station. He and Kermit Roosevelt, who was staying with him, hosted several conferences of the clandestine planners. “So obvious,” Eveland continued, “were their ‘covert’ gyrations, with British, Iraqi, Jordanian and Lebanese liaison personnel coming and going nightly, that the Egyptian ambassador in Lebanon was reportedly taking bets on when and where the next U.S. coup would take place.” At one of these meetings, the man from the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) informed the gathering that teams had been fielded to assassinate Nasser.

Shortly afterwards, Eveland learned from a CIA official that John Foster Dulles, as well as his brother Allen, had directed Roosevelt to work with the British to bring down Nasser. Roosevelt now spoke in terms of a “palace revolution” in Egypt.14

From this point on we’re fishing in murky waters, for the events which followed produced more questions than answers. With the six countries named above, plus Turkey and Israel apparently getting in on the act, and less than complete trust and love existing amongst the various governments, a host of plots, sub-plots and side plots inevitably sprang to life; at times it bordered on low comedy, though some would call it no mote than normal Middle East “diplomacy”.

Between July 1957 and October 1958, the Egyptian and Syrian governments and media announced the uncovering of what appear to be at least eight separate conspiracies to overthrow one or the other government, to assassinate Nasser, and/or prevent the expected merger of the two countries. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the United States were most often named as conspirators, but from the entanglement of intrigue which surfaced it is virtually impossible to unravel the particular threads of the US role.15

Typical of the farcical goings-on, it seems that at least one of the plots to assassinate Nasser arose from the Dulles brothers taking Eisenhower’s remark that he hoped “the Nasser problem could be eliminated” to be an order for assassination, when the president, so the story goes, was merely referring to improved US-Egyptian relations. Upon realizing the error, Secretary Dulles ordered the operation to cease.16

(Three years later, Allen Dulles was again to “misinterpret” a remark by Eisenhower as an order to assassinate Patrice Lumumba of the Congo.)

Official American pronouncements during this entire period would have had the world believe that the Soviet Union was the eminence grist behind the strife in Jordan, the “crisis” in Syria, and unrest generally in the Middle East; that the Soviet aim was to dominate the area, while the sole purpose of US policy was to repel this Soviet thrust and maintain the “independence” of the Arab nations. Yet, on three separate occasions during 1957—in February, April and September—the Soviet Union called for a fourpower (US, USSR, Great Britain and France) declaration renouncing the use of force and interference in the internal affairs of the Middle Eastern countries. The February appeal had additionally called for a four-power embargo on arms shipments to the region, withdrawal of all foreign troops, liquidation of all foreign bases, and a conference to reach a general Middle East settlement.

The Soviet strategy was clearly to neutralize the Middle East, to remove the threat it had long felt from the potentially hostile control of the oil region by, traditionally, France and Great Britain, and now the United States, which sought to fill the “power vacuum” left by the decline of the two European nations as Middle East powers.

History does not relate what a Middle East free from big-power manipulation would have been like, for neither France, Great Britain, nor the United States was amenable to even calling the Soviet “bluff”, if that was what it was. The New York Times summarized the attitude of the three Western nations to the first two overtures as one that “deprecated the Soviet proposals as efforts to gain recognition of a Soviet right to a direct voice in the affairs of the Middle East. They have told the Russians to take up their complaints through the United Nations.”

Following the September proposal, John Foster Dulles, replying to a question at a press conference, said that “the United States is skeptical of these arrangements with the Soviet Union for ‘hands-off. What they are apt to mean is our hands off and their hands under the table.” This appears to be the only public comment the US government saw fit to make on the matter.17

It may be instructive to speculate upon the reaction of the Western nations if the Soviet Union had announced a “Khrushchev Doctrine”, ceding to itself the same scope of action in the Middle East as that stipulated in the Eisenhower Doctrine.

In January 1958, Syria and Egypt announced their plans to unite, forming the new nation of the United Arab Republic (UAR). The initiative for the merger had come from Syria who was motivated in no small part by her fear of further American power plays against her. Ironically, under the merger arrangement, the Communist Party, already outlawed in Egypt, was dissolved in Syria, an objective which a year and a half of CIA covert activity had failed to achieve.

Two weeks after the birth of the UAR, and in direct response to it, Iraq and Jordan formed the Arab Union, with the United States acting as midwife. This union was short lived, for in July a bloody coup in Iraq overthrew the monarchy, the new regime establishing a republic and promptly renouncing the pact. The trumpets of Armageddon could once more be heard distinctly in the Oval Office. “This somber turn of events,” wrote Eisenhower in his memoirs, “could, without vigorous response on our part, result in a complete elimination of Western influence in the Middle East.”18

Although the president would not be so crass as to mention a concern about oil, his anxiety attack was likely brought on by the fact that one of the greatest oil reserves in the world was now under rule of a government which might well prove to be not as pliable an ally as the previous regime, and too independent of Washington.

The time for a mere show of force was over. The very next day, the marines, along with the American navy and air force, were sent in—not to Iraq, but to Lebanon.

Of all the Arab states, Lebanon was easily the United States’ closest ally. She alone had supported the Eisenhower Doctrine with any enthusiasm or unequivocally echoed Washington’s panic about Syria. To be more precise, it was the president of Lebanon, Camille Chamoun, and the foreign minister, Charles Malik, a Harvard Ph.D. in philosophy, who had put all their cold-war eggs into the American basket. Chamoun had ample reason to be beholden to the United States. The CIA apparently played a role in his 1952 election,19 and in 1957 the Agency furnished generous sums of money to Chamoun to use in support of candidates in the Chamber of Deputies (Parliament) June elections who would back him and, presumably, US policies. Funds were also provided to specifically oppose, as punishment, those candidates who had resigned in protest over Chamoun’s adherence to the Eisenhower Doctrine.

As is customary in such operations, the CIA sent an “election specialist” along with the money to Beirut to assist in the planning. American officials in Washington and Lebanon proceeded on the assumption, they told each other, that Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia would also intervene financially in the elections. The American ambassador to Lebanon, Donald Heath, argued as well, apparently without ironic intention, that “With both the president and the new chamber of deputies supporting American principles, we’d also have a demonstration that representative democracy could work” in the Middle East.

To what extent the American funding helped, or even how the money was spent, is not known, but the result was a landslide for pro-government deputies; so much so, that it caused considerable protest within Lebanon, including the charge that Chamoun had stacked the parliament in order to amend the constitution to permit him to seek an otherwise prohibited second six-year term of office the following year.20

By late April 1958, tensions in Lebanon had reached bursting point. The inordinate pro-American orientation of Chamoun’s government and his refusal to dispel rumors that he would seek a second term incensed both Lebanese nationalists and advocates of the Arab nationalism, which Nasser was promoting throughout the Middle East. Demands were made that the government return to the strict neutrality provided for in the National Pact of 1943 at the time of Lebanon’s declaration of independence from France.

A rash of militant demonstrations, bombings and clashes with police took place, and when, in early May, the editor of an anti-government newspaper was murdered, armed rebellion broke out in several parts of the country, and US Information Agency libraries in Tripoli and Beirut were sacked. Lebanon contained all the makings of a civil war.

“Behind everything,” wrote Eisenhower, “was out deep-seated conviction that the Communists were principally responsible for the trouble and that President Chamoun was motivated only by a strong feeling of patriotism.”

The president did not clarify who or what he meant by “Communists”. However, in the next paragraph he refers, without explanation, to the Soviet Union as “stirring up trouble” in the Middle East. And on the following page, the old soldier writes that “there was no doubt in our minds” about Chamoun’s charge that “Egypt and Syria had been instigating the revolt and arming the rebels”.21

In the midst of the fighting, John Foster Dulles announced that he perceived “international communism” as the source of the conflict and for the third time in a year the Sixth Fleet was dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean; police supplies to help quell rioters, as well as tanks and other heavy equipment, were airlifted to Lebanon.

At a subsequent news conference, Dulles declared that even if international communism were not involved, the Eisenhower Doctrine was still applicable because one of its provisions stated that “the independence of these countries is vital to peace and the national interest of the United States.” “That is certainly a mandate,” he said, “to do something if we think that out peace and vital interests are endangered from any quarter.”22 Thus did one of the authors of the doctrine bestow upon himself a mandate.

Egypt and Syria, from all accounts, supported the rebels’ cause with arms, men and money, in addition to inflammatory radio broadcasts from Cairo, although the extent of the material support is difficult to establish. A UN Observation Group went to Lebanon in June at the request of Foreign Minister Malik and reported that they found no evidence of UAR intervention of any significance. A second UN report in July confirmed this finding. It is open to question, however, what degree of reliance can be placed upon these reports, dealing as they do with so thorny an evaluation and issued by a body in the business of promoting compromise.

In any event, the issue was whether the conflict in Lebanon represented a legitimate, home-grown civil war, or whether it was the doing of the proverbial “outside agitators”. On this point, historian Richard Barner has observed:

No doubt the Observation Group did minimize the extent of UAR participation. But essentially they were correct. Nasser was trying to exploit the political turmoil in Lebanon, but he did not create it. Lebanon, which had always abounded in clandestine arsenals and arms markets, did not need foreign weapons for its domestic violence. Egyptian intervention was neither the stimulus nor the mainstay of the civil strife. Once again a government that had lost the power to rule effectively was blaming its failure on foreign agents.23

President Eisenhower—continuing his flip-flop thinking on the issue—wrote that it now seemed that Nasser “would be just as happy to see a temporary end to the struggle … and contacted our government and offered to attempt to use his influence toend the trouble.”24

Camille Chamoun had sacrificed Lebanon’s independence and neutrality on the altar of personal ambition and the extensive American aid that derived from subscribing to the Eisenhower Doctrine. Lebanese Muslims, who comprised most of Chamoun’s opposition, were also galled that the Christian president had once again placed the country outside the mainstream of the Arab world, as he had done in 1956 when he refused to break relations with France and Great Britain following their invasion of Egypt.

Chamoun himself had admitted the significance of his pro-American alignment in a revealing comment to Wilbur Crane Eveland. Eveland writes that in late April, I’d suggested that he might ease tensions by making a statement renouncing a move for reelection. Chamoun had snorted and suggested that I look at the calendar: March 23 was a month behind us, and no amendment to permit another term could legally be passed after that date. Obviously, as he pointed out, the issue of the presidency was not the real issue; renunciation of the Eisenhower Doctrine was what his opponents wanted.25

Instead of renouncing the doctrine, Chamoun invoked it. Although scattered
fighting, at times heavy, was continuing in Lebanon, it was the coup in Iraq on 14 July that tipped the scales in favor of Chamoun making the formal request for military assistance and the United States immediately granting it. A CIA report of a plot against King Hussein of Jordan at about the same time heightened even further Washington’s seemingly unceasing sense of urgency about the Middle East.

Chamoun had, by this time, already announced his intention to step down from office when his term expired in September. He was now concerned about American forces helping him to stay alive until that date, as well as their taking action against the rebels. For the previous two months, fear of assassination had kept him constantly inside the presidential palace, never so much as approaching a window. The murder of the Iraqi king and prime minister during the coup was not designed to make him feel more secure.

The Eisenhower Doctrine was put into motion not only in the face of widespread opposition to it within Lebanon, but in disregard of the fact that, even by the doctrine’s own dubious provisions, the situation in Lebanon did not qualify: It could hardly be claimed that Lebanon had suffered “armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism”. If further evidence of this were needed, it was provided by veteran diplomat Robert Murphy who was sent to Lebanon by Eisenhower a few days after the US troops had landed. Murphy concluded, he later wrote, that “communism was playing no direct or substantial part in the insurrection”.26

Yet, Eisenhower could write that the American Government “was moving in accord with the provisions of the Middle East Resolution [Eisenhower Doctrine], but if the conflict expanded into something that the Resolution did not cover, I would, given time, go to the Congress for additional authorization”.27 Apparently the president did not place too much weight on John Foster Dulles having already determined that the Resolution’s mandate was open-ended.

Thus it was that American military forces were dispatched to Lebanon. Some 70 naval vessels and hundreds of aircraft took part in the operation, many remaining as part of the visible American presence. By 25 July, the US forces on shore totaled at least 10,600. By August 13, their number came to 14,000, more than the entire Lebanese Army and gendarmerie combined.28

“In my [radio-TV] address,” wrote Eisenhower, “I had been careful to use the term ‘stationed in’ Lebanon rather than ‘invading’.”29 This was likely a distinction lost upon many Lebanese, both high and low, supporters of the rebels and supporters of the government, including government tank forces who were prepared to block the entrance into Beirut of US troops; only the last-minute intercession on the spot by the American ambassador may have averted an armed clash.30

At a meeting between Robert Murphy and Lebanese Commander-in-Chief General Faud Chehab—related by Eveland who was briefed by Murphy afterwards— the American diplomat was warned that the Lebanese people were “”restless, resentful, and determined that Chamoun should resign and U.S. troops leave at once. Otherwise the general could not be responsible for the consequences. For fifteen years his officers had acted behind his back; now, he feared, they might revolt and attack the American forces.”

Murphy had listened patiently, Eveland relates, and then …

escorted the general to a window overlooking the sea. Pointing to the supercarrier Saratoga, swinging at anchor on the horizon, the President’s envoy had quietly explained that just one of its aircraft, armed with nuclear weapons, could obliterate Beirut and its environs from the face of the earth. To this, Murphy quickly added that he’d been sent to be sure that it wouldn’t be necessary for American troops to fire a shot. Shehab [Chehab], he was certain, would ensure that there were no provocations on the Lebanese side. That, Murphy told me, ended the conversation. It now seemed that the general had “regained control” of his troops.31

None of the parties seem to have considered what would have been the fate of the thousands of American military personnel in a Beirut obliterated from the face of the earth.

Civil warfare in Lebanon increased in intensity in the two weeks following the American intervention. During this period, CIA transmitters in the Middle East were occupied in sending out propaganda broadcasts of disguised origin, a tactic frequently employed by the Agency. In the case of one broadcast which has been reported, the apparent aim was to deflect anti-US feelings onto the Soviet Union and other targets.

But the residents of the Middle East were not the only ones who may have been taken in by the spurious broadcast, for it was picked up by the American press and passed on to an unwitting American public; the following appeared in US newspapers:

BEIRUT, July 23 (UPI)—A second mysterious Arab radio station went on the air yesterday calling itself the “Voice of Justice” and claiming to be broadcasting from Syria. Its program heard here consisted of bitter criticism against Soviet Russia and Soviet Premier Khrushchev. Earlier the “Voice of Iraq” went on the air with attacks against the Iraqi revolutionary government. The “Voice of Justice” called Khrushchev the “hangman of Hungary”and warned the people of the Middle East they would suffer the same fate as the Hungarians if the Russians got a foothold in the Middle East.32

On 31 July, the Chamber of Deputies easily chose General Chehab to succeed Chamoun as president in September, an event that soon put a damper on the  fighting in Lebanon and marked the beginning of the end of the conflict which, in the final analysis, appears to have been more a violent protest than a civil war. Tension was further eased by the US announcement shortly afterwards of its intention to withdraw a Marine battalion as a prelude to a general withdrawal.

The last American troops left Lebanon in late October without having fired a shot in anger. What had their presence accomplished?

The authors of the Pentagon study referred to earlier concluded that “A balanced assessment of U.S. behavior in the Lebanon crisis is made difficult by the suspicion that the outcome might have been much the same if the United States had done nothing.

Even Eisenhower expressed some doubt on this score.”33

American intervention against the new Iraqi government was more covert. A secret plan for a joint US-Turkish invasion of the country, code-named Operation CANNON-BONE, was drafted by the US joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the coup in 1958. Reportedly, only Soviet threats to intercede on Iraq’s side forced Washington to hold back. But in 1960, the United States began to fund the Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq who were fighting for a measure of  autonomy.34

At the same time, the Iraqis, under Brig. General Abdul Karim Kassem, started to work towards the creation of an international organization to counter the power of the Western oil monopolies. This was to become OPEC, and was not received with joy in certain Western quarters. In February 1960, the Near East Division of the CIA’s clandestine services requested that the Agency find a way to “incapacitate” Kassem for “promoting Soviet bloc political interests in Iraq”. “We do not consciously seek subject’s permanent removal from the scene,” said the Near East Division. “We also do not object should this complication develop.”

As matters turned out, the CIA mailed a monogrammed handkerchief containing an “incapacitating agent” to Kassem from an Asian country. If the Iraqi leader did in fact receive it, it certainly didn’t kill him. That was left to his own countrymen who executed him three years later.35

The significance of the Lebanese intervention, as well as the shows of force employed in regard to Jordan and Syria, extended beyond the immediate outcomes. In the period before and after the intervention, Eisenhower, Dulles and other Washington officials offered numerous different justifications for the American military action in Lebanon: protecting American lives; protecting American property; the Eisenhower Doctrine, with various interpretations; Lebanese sovereignty, integrity, independence, etc.; US national interest; world peace; collective self-defense; justice; international law; law and order; fighting “Nasserism” … the need to “do something” …36

In summing up the affair in his memoirs, president Eisenhower seemed to settle upon one rationale in particular, and this is probably the closest to the truth of the matter. This was to put the world—and specifically the Soviet Union and Nasser—on notice that the United States had virtually unlimited power, that this power could be transported to any corner of the world with great speed, that it could and would be used to deal decisively with any situation with which the United States was dissatisfied, for whatever reason.37

At the same time, it was a message to the British and the French that there was only one Western superpower in the post-war world, and that their days and that their days as great powers in the Lands of Oil were over.

Washington and Syria ~ 1956-1957


weather events took out internet giving me time to study some history, which is a good thing.  the present can always be understood better by studying the past …. found this jewel of excerpt from“Killing Hope” by William Blum


Purchasing a New Government

“Neutrality,” proclaimed John Foster Dulles in 1956, “has increasingly become an obsolete conception, and, except under very exceptional circumstances, it is an immoral and shortsighted conception.”1

The short-sightedness of the neutralist government lay perhaps in its inability to perceive that its neutralism would lead to John Foster Dulles attempting to overthrow it.

Syria was not behaving like Washington thought a Third World government should. For one thing, it was the only state in the area to refuse all US economic or military assistance.

Damascus did not much care for the strings which came attached— the acceptance of military aid usually meant the presence of American military advisers and technicians; furthermore, the US Mutual Security Act of 1955 specified that the recipient country agree to make a contribution to “the defensive strength of the free world”, and declared it US policy “to encourage the efforts of other free nations … to foster private initiative and competition [i.e., capitalism].”2

Another difficulty posed by Syria was that, although its governments of recent years had been more or less  conservative and had refrained from unpleasant leftist habits like nationalizing American-owned companies, US officials—suffering from what might be called  anti-communist paranoia or being victims of their own propaganda—consistently saw the most ominous handwritings on the walls. To appreciate this, one has to read some of the formerly-secret-now-declassified documents of the National Security Council (NSC), based in part on reports received from the American embassy in Damascus during 1955 and 1956 …

“If the popular leftward trend in Syria continues over any considerable period, there is a real danger that Syria will fall completely under left-wing control either by coup or usurpation of authority” … “the fundamental anti-US and anti-West orientation of the Syrians is  stimulated by  inevitable political histrionics about the Palestine problem” …

“Four successive short-lived governments in Syria have permitted continuous and increasing  Communist activities” … “the Communists support the leftist cliques [in] the army” … “apathy towards Communism on the part of politicians and army officers” is a threat to security … “the Arab Socialist Resurrectionist Party (ASRP)” and “the Communist Party of Syria are capable of bringing about further deterioration of Syrian internal security” … danger of ASRP “coup d’etat” and “increased Communist penetration of government and army” … “Of all the Arab states.

Syria is at the present time the most wholeheartedly devoted to a neutralist policy with strong anti-Western overtones” … “If the present trend continues there is a strong possibility that a Communist-dominated Syria will result, threatening the peace and stability of the area and endangering the achievement of out objectives in the Near East”  … we “should give priority consideration to developing courses of action in the Neat East designed to affect the situation in Syria and to recommending specific steps to combat communist subversion” …3

It would appear that the idea of military men who were leftist and/or apathetic to communists must truly have been an incongruous phenomenon to the American official mind. But nowhere in any of the documents is there mention of the  leftists/Communists/ASRP having in fact done anything illegal or wicked, although the language employed is similar to what we saw in the Guatemala chapter: These people don’t join anything, they “infiltrate”, they “penetrate”; they “control”, they’re “opportunistic”.

In actuality, the behavior described is like that of other political animals: trying to influence key sectors of the society and win allies. But to the men holding positions of responsibility in the National Security Council and the State Department, the evil intent and danger of such people was so self-evident as not to require articulation.

There is one exception, perhaps expressed to explain away an uncomfortable observation:

In fact, the Communist Party does not appear to have as its immediate objective seizure of power. Rather it seeks to destroy national unity, Co strengthen support for Soviet policies and opposition to Western policies and to exacerbate tensions in the Arab world. It has made significant progress coward these objectives.4

There is no indication of what the author had in mind by “national unity”.

A leftist-oriented or communist-dominated Syrian government, reasoned the US ambassador to Syria, James Moose, Jr., would clearly threaten American interests in neighboring Turkey, which, in turn, could outflank all the states of the NATO alliance, and so forth and so on.5 It was clear that since the Syrian government could not be relied upon to do anything about this major impending disaster, something would have to be done about the Syrian government.

To this we add the usual Middle-Eastern intrigue: in this case, Iraq plotting with the British to topple the governments in both Syria and Nasser’s Egypt; the British pressuring the Americans to join the conspiracy;6 and the CIA compromising—leave Nasser alone, at least for the time being, and we’ll do something about Syria.7

An implausible scenario, scandalous, but in the time-honored tradition of the Middle East. The British were old hands at it. Dulles and the Americans, still exulting in their king-making in Iran, were looking to further remake the oil region in their own image.

Wilbur Crane Eveland was a staff member of the National Security Council, the high-level inter-agency group in Washington which, in theory, monitors and controls CIA clandestine activities. Because of Eveland’s background and experience in the Middle East, the CIA had asked that he be lent to the Agency for a series of assignments there.

Archibald Roosevelt was, like his cousin Kermit Roosevelt, a highly-placed official of the CIA; both were grandsons of Teddy. Kermit had masterminded the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953. Archie had fond hopes of doing the same in Syria.

Michail Bey Ilyan had once served as Syria’s foreign minister. In 1956 he was the leader of the conservative Populist Party.

At a meeting of these three men in Damascus, Syria on 1 July 1956, as described by Eveland in his memoirs, Roosevelt asked Ilyan “what would be needed to give the Syrian conservatives enough control to purge the communists and their leftist sympathizers. Ilyan responded by ticking off names and places: the radio stations in Damascus and Aleppo; a few key senior officers; and enough money to buy newspapers now in Egyptian and Saudi hands.”

“Roosevelt probed further. Could these things, he asked Ilyan, be done with U.S. money and assets alone, with no other Western or Near Eastern country involved?”

“Without question, Ilyan replied, nodding gravely.”

On 26 July, Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser announced that his government was taking over the operation of the Suez Canal. The reaction of the Britishand French was swift and inflamed. The United States was less openly hostile, though it was critical and Egyptian government funds in the US were frozen. This unexpected incident put a crimp in the CIA’s plans, for—as Ilyan explained to Eveland in despair— Nasser was now the hero of the Arab world, and collaboration with any Western power to overthrow an Arab government was politically indefensible.

Eventually the coup was scheduled for 25 October. The logistics, as outlined by Ilyan, called for senior colonels in the Syrian army to: take control of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Hamah. The frontier posts with Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon would also be captured in order to seal Syria’s borders until the radio stations announced that a new government had taken over under Colonel Kabbani, who would place armored units at key positions  throughout Damascus. Once control had been established, Ilyan would inform the civilians he’d selected that they were to form a new government, but in order to avoid leaks none of them would be told until just a week before the coup.

For this operation, money would have to change hands. Ilyan asked for and received half a million Syrian pounds (approximately $167,000). The Syrian further stipulated that to guarantee their participation the Syrian plotters would require assurance from the highest level of the American government that the US would both back the coup and immediately grant recognition to the new government. This, Ilyan explained, could be communicated as follows: in April, President Eisenhower had said that the United States would oppose aggression in the Middle East, hut not without congressional approval. Could the president repeat this statement, in light of the Suez crisis, he asked, on a specified date when Ilyan’s colleagues would be told to expect it?

Eisenhower’s words would provide the guarantees they were seeking.

An affirmative reply to Ilyan’s plan arrived in Damascus from Washington the next day. A proper occasion for the requested statement would have to be found and Secretary Dulles would be the one to use it. The scheme was for Dulles to make public reference to Eisenhower’s statement between 16 and 18 October, thus giving Ilyan the week he needed to assemble his civilian team.

Before long, John Foster Dulles held a press conference. In light of recent Israeli attacks on Jordan, one of the  reporters present asked whether the United States might come to Jordan’s aid per “our declaration of April 9″.

Yes, replied the Secretary of State, repeating the reference to the April statement. The date was 16 October.

But following close on the heels of this was a message from Ilyan in Damascus to Eveland in Beirut postponing the date of the coup for five days to 30 October because Colonel Kabbani had told Ilyan that his people weren’t quite ready.

The postponement was crucial. Early in the morning of the 30th, a very distraught Michail Ilyan appeared at Eveland’s door. “Last night,” he cried, “the Israelis invaded Egypt and are right now heading for the Suez Canal! How could you have asked us to overthrow our government at the exact moment when Israel started a war with an Arab state?”8

The leftist-trend-in-Syria bell continued to ring in Washington. In January 1957, wrote President Eisenhower later, CIA Director Alien Dulles “submitted reports indicating that the new Syrian Cabinet was oriented to the left”.9

Two months later, Dulles prepared a “Situation Report on Syria” in which he wrote of an “increasing trend toward a decidedly leftist, pro-Soviet government”. Dulles was  concerned with “organized leftist officers belonging to the Arab Socialist Resurrection Party”.10 That same month, a State Department internal document stated:

The British are believed to favor active stimulation of a change in the present regime in Syria, in an effort to assure a pro-Western orientation on the part of future Syrian governments. … The United States shares the concern of the British Government over the situation in Syria.11

Then, in June, an internal Department of Defense  memorandum spoke of a possible “leftist coup”. This was to be carried out, according to the memo, against “the leftist Syrian Government”.12

Thus it was that in Beirut and Damascus, CIA officers were trying their hands again at stage-managing a Syrian coup. On this occasion, Kermit Roosevelt, rather than cousin Archibald, was pulling the strings.

He arranged for one Howard (“Rocky”!) Stone to be transferred to Damascus from the Sudan to be sure that the “engineering” was done by a “pro”. Stone was, at thirty-two, already a legend in the CIA’s clandestine service as the man who had helped Kim Roosevelt overthrow the Iranian government four years earlier, though what Stone’s precise contribution was has remained obscure.

The proposed beneficiary of this particular plot was to be Adib Shishakly, former right-wing dictator of Syria, living covertly in Lebanon. Shishakly’s former chief of security, Colonel Ibrahim Husseini, now Syrian military attache in Rome, was secretly slipped into Lebanon under cover of a CIA-fabricated passport. Husseini was then to be smuggled across the Syrian border in the trunk of a US diplomatic car in order to meet with key Syrian CIA agents and provide assurances that Shishakly would come back to rule once Syria’s government had been overthrown.

But the coup was exposed before it ever got off the ground.

Syrian army officers who had been assigned major roles in the operation walked into the office of Syria’s head of intelligence, Colonel Sarraj, turned in their bribe money and named the CIA officers who had paid them. Lieut. Col. Robert Molloy, the American army attache, Francis Jeton, a career CIA officer, officially Vice Consul at the US Embassy, and the legendary Howard Stone, with the title of Second Secretary for Political Affairs, were all declared personae -non gratae and expelled from the country in August.

Col. Molloy was determined to leave Syria in style. As his car approached the Lebanese border, he ran his Syrian motorcycle escort off the road and shouted to the fallen rider that “Colonel Sarraj and his commie friends” should be told that Molloy would “beat the shit out of them with one hand tied behind his back if they ever crossed his path again.”

The Syrian government announcement which accompanied the expulsion order stated that Stone had first made contact with the outlawed Social Nationalist Party and then with the army officers. When the officers reported the plot, they were told to continue their contacts with the Americans and later met Shishakly and Husseini at the homes of US Embassy staff members.

Husseini reportedly told the officers that the United States was prepared to give a new Syrian government between 300 and 400 million dollars in aid if the government would make peace with Israel.

An amusing aside to the affair occurred when the Syrian Defense Minister and the Syrian Ambassador to Italy disputed the claim that Husseini had anything to do with the plot. The Ambassador pointed out that Husseini had not been in Syria since 20 July and his passport showed no indication that he had been out of Italy since that time.

The State Department categorized the Syrian charge as “complete fabrications” and retaliated by expelling the Syrian ambassador and a Second Secretary and recalling the American ambassador from Syria. It marked the first time since 1915 that the United States had expelled a chief of mission of a foreign country.13

In the wake of the controversy, the New York Times reported that:

There are numerous theories about why the Syrians struck at the United States.

One is that they acted at the instigation of the Soviet Union. Another is that the Government manufactured an anti-U.S. spy story to distrait public attention from the significance of Syria’s negotiations with Moscow.14

In the same issue, a Times editorial speculated upon other plausible-sounding explanations.15

Neither in its news report nor in its editorial did the New York Times seem to consider even the possibility that the Syrian accusation might be true.

President Eisenhower, recalling the incident in his memoirs, offered no denial to the accusation. His sole comment on the expulsions was: “The entire action was shrouded in mystery but the suspicion was strong that the Communists had taken control of the government. Moreover, we had fresh reports that arms were being sent into Syria from the Soviet bloc.”16

Syria’s neutralism/” leftism” continued to obsess the United States. Five years later, when John F. Kennedy was in the White House, he met with British Prime Minister Macmillan and the two leaders agreed, according to a CIA report, on “Penetration and cultivation of disruptive elements in the Syrian armed forces, particularly in the Syrian army, so that Syria can be guided by the West.”17

Decades later, Washington was still worried, though Syria had still not “gone communist”.

***************
Killing Hope PDF Here … lots more info

What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War?

side note from me after reading this: have been digging for why Egypt decided to attack, and now I know why, it was set up. this is same time frame of the attack on USS Liberty (a two hour long attack, where US Govt turned help for ship back around and were told to stand down, like Benghazi). this, in my opinion, is when US really started militarizing Israel as beachhead in ME, and in return for the favor Israel government wants to run USA.

What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War?

by ISRAEL SHAMIR

Moscow

Here in Moscow I recently received a dark-blue folder dated 1975. It contains one of the most well-buried secrets of Middle Eastern and of US diplomacy. The secret file, written by the Soviet Ambassador in Cairo, Vladimir M. Vinogradov, apparently a draft for a memorandum addressed to the Soviet politbureau, describes the 1973 October War as a collusive enterprise between US, Egyptian and Israeli leaders, orchestrated by Henry Kissinger. If you are an Egyptian reader this revelation is likely to upset you. I, an Israeli who fought the Egyptians in the 1973 war, was equally upset and distressed, – yet still excited by the discovery. For an American it is likely to come as a shock.

According to the Vinogradov memo (to be published by us in full in the Russian weekly Expert next Monday), Anwar al-Sadat, holder of the titles of President, Prime Minister, ASU Chairman, Chief Commander, Supreme Military Ruler, entered into conspiracy with the Israelis, betrayed his ally Syria, condemned the Syrian army to destruction and Damascus to bombardment, allowed General Sharon’s tanks to cross without hindrance to the western bank of the Suez Canal, and actually planned a defeat of the Egyptian troops in the October War. Egyptian soldiers and officers bravely and successfully fought the Israeli enemy – too successfully for Sadat’s liking as he began the war in order to allow for the US comeback to the Middle East.

He was not the only conspirator: according to Vinogradov, the grandmotherly Golda Meir knowingly sacrificed two thousand of Israel’s best fighters – she possibly thought fewer would be killed — in order to give Sadat his moment of glory and to let the US secure its positions in the Middle East. The memo allows for a completely new interpretation of the Camp David Treaty, as one achieved by deceit and treachery.

Vladimir Vinogradov was a prominent and brilliant Soviet diplomat; he served as ambassador to Tokyo in the 1960s, to Cairo from 1970 to 1974, co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference, ambassador to Teheran during the Islamic revolution, the USSR Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. He was a gifted painter and a prolific writer; his archive has hundreds of pages of unique observations and notes covering international affairs, but the place of honor goes to his Cairo diaries, and among others, descriptions of his hundreds of meetings with Sadat and the full sequence of the war as he observed it unfold at Sadat’s hq as the big decisions were made. When published, these notes will allow to re-evaluate the post-Nasser period of Egyptian history.

Vinogradov arrived to Cairo for Nasser’s funeral and remained there as the Ambassador.

three year war

He recorded the creeping coup of Sadat, least bright of Nasser’s men, who became Egypt’s president by chance, as he was the vice-president at Nasser’s death. Soon he dismissed, purged and imprisoned practically all important Egyptian politicians, the comrades-in-arms of Gamal Abd el Nasser, and dismantled the edifice of Nasser’s socialism.

Vinogradov was an astute observer; not a conspiracy cuckoo. Far from being headstrong and doctrinaire, he was a friend of Arabs and a consistent supporter and promoter of a lasting and just peace between the Arabs and Israel, a peace that would meet Palestinian needs and ensure Jewish prosperity.

The pearl of his archive is the file called The Middle Eastern Games. It contains some 20 typewritten pages edited by hand in blue ink, apparently a draft for a memo to the Politburo and to the government, dated January 1975, soon after his return from Cairo. The file contains the deadly secret of the collusion he observed. It is written in lively and highly readable Russian, not in the bureaucratese we’d expect.

Two pages are added to the file in May 1975; they describe Vinogradov’s visit to Amman and his informal talks with Abu Zeid Rifai, the Prime Minister, and his exchange of views with the Soviet Ambassador in Damascus. Vinogradov did not voice his opinions until 1998, and even then he did not speak as openly as in this draft. Actually, when the suggestion of collusion was presented to him by the Jordanian prime minister, being a prudent diplomat, he refused to discuss it.

The official version of the October war holds that on October 6, 1973, in conjunction with Hafez al-Assad of Syria, Anwar as-Sadat launched a surprise attack against Israeli forces.

They crossed the Canal and advanced a few miles into the occupied Sinai. As the war progressed, tanks of General Ariel Sharon crossed the Suez Canal and encircled the Egyptian Third Army.

The ceasefire negotiations eventually led to the handshake at the White House.

For me, the Yom Kippur War (as we called it) was an important part of my autobiography. A young paratrooper, I fought that war, crossed the canal, seized Gabal Ataka heights, survived shelling and face-to-face battles, buried my buddies, shot the man-eating red dogs of the desert and the enemy tanks. My unit was ferried by helicopters into the desert where we severed the main communication line between the Egyptian armies and its home base, the Suez-Cairo highway. Our location at 101 km to Cairo was used for the first cease fire talks; so I know that war not by word of mouth, and it hurts to learn that I and my comrades-at-arms were just disposable tokens in the ruthless game we – ordinary people – lost. Obviously I did not know it then, for me the war was a surprise, but then, I was not a general.

Vinogradov dispels the idea of surprise: in his view, both the canal crossing by the Egyptians and the inroads by Sharon were planned and agreed upon in advance by Kissinger, Sadat and Meir. The plan included the destruction of the Syrian army as well.

At first, he asks some questions:

“how the crossing could be a surprise if the Russians evacuated their families a few days before the war? The concentration of the forces was observable and could not escape Israeli attention. Why did the Egyptian forces not proceed after the crossing but stood still? Why did they have no plans for advancing? Why there was a forty km-wide unguarded gap between the 2d and the 3d armies, the gap that invited Sharon’s raid? How could Israeli tanks sneak to the western bank of the Canal? Why did Sadat refuse to stop them? Why were there no reserve forces on the western bank of the Canal?”

Vinogradov takes a leaf from Sherlock Holmes who said: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. He writes:

“These questions can’t be answered if Sadat is to be considered a true patriot of Egypt. But they can be answered in full, if we consider a possibility of collusion between Sadat, the US and Israeli leadership – a conspiracy in which each participant pursued his own goals. A conspiracy in which each participant did not know the full details of other participants’ game. A conspiracy in which each participant tried to gain more ground despite the overall agreement between them.”

 

Sadat’s Plans

Before the war Sadat was at the nadir of his power: in Egypt and abroad he had lost prestige. The least educated and least charismatic of Nasser’s followers, Sadat was isolated. He needed a war, a limited war with Israel that would not end with defeat. Such a war would release the pressure in the army and he would regain his authority. The US agreed to give him a green light for the war, something the Russians never did. The Russians protected Egypt’s skies, but they were against wars. For that, Sadat had to rely upon the US and part with the USSR. He was ready to do so as he loathed socialism.

He did not need victory, just no defeat; he wanted to explain his failure to win by deficient Soviet equipment. That is why the army was given the minimal task: crossing the Canal and hold the bridgehead until the Americans entered the game.

 

Plans of the US

During decolonisation the US lost strategic ground in the Middle East with its oil, its Suez Canal, its vast population. Its ally Israel had to be supported, but the Arabs were growing stronger all the time. Israel had to be made more flexible, for its brutal policies interfered with the US plans. So the US had to keep Israel as its ally but at the same time Israel’s arrogance had to be broken. The US needed a chance to “save” Israel after allowing the Arabs to beat the Israelis for a while. So the US allowed Sadat to begin a limited war.

 

Israel

Israel’s leaders had to help the US, its main provider and supporter. The US needed to improve its positions in the Middle East, as in 1973 they had only one friend and ally, King Feisal. (Kissinger told Vinogradov that Feisal tried to educate him about the evilness of Jews and Communists.) If and when the US was to recover its position in the Middle East, the Israeli position would improve drastically. Egypt was a weak link, as Sadat disliked the USSR and the progressive forces in the country, so it could be turned. Syria could be dealt with militarily, and broken.

 

The Israelis and Americans decided to let Sadat take the Canal while holding the mountain passes of Mittla and Giddi, a better defensive line anyway. This was actually Rogers’ plan of 1971, acceptable to Israel. But this should be done in fighting, not given up for free.

As for Syria, it was to be militarily defeated, thoroughly. That is why the Israeli Staff did sent all its available troops to the Syrian border, while denuding the Canal though the Egyptian army was much bigger than the Syrian one. Israeli troops at the Canal were to be sacrificed in this game; they were to die in order to bring the US back into the Middle East.

However, the plans of the three partners were somewhat derailed by the factors on the ground: it is the usual problem with conspiracies; nothing works as it should, Vinogradov writes in his memo to be published in full next week in Moscow’s Expert.

Sadat’s crooked game was spoiled to start with. His presumptions did not work out. Contrary to his expectations, the USSR supported the Arab side and began a massive airlift of its most modern military equipment right away. The USSR took the risk of confrontation with the US; Sadat had not believed they would because the Soviets were adamant against the war, before it started. His second problem, according to Vinogradov, was the superior quality of Russian weapons in the hands of Egyptian soldiers — better than the western weapons in the Israelis’ hands.

As an Israeli soldier of the time I must confirm the Ambassador’s words. The Egyptians had the legendary Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles, the best gun in the world, while we had FN battle rifles that hated sand and water. We dropped our FNs and picked up their AKs at the first opportunity. They used anti-tank Sagger missiles, light, portable, precise, carried by one soldier. Saggers killed between 800 and 1200 Israeli tanks. We had old 105 mm recoilless jeep-mounted rifles, four men at a rifle (actually, a small cannon) to fight tanks. Only new American weapons redressed the imbalance.

Sadat did not expect the Egyptian troops taught by the Soviet specialists to better their Israeli enemy – but they did.

They crossed the Canal much faster than planned and with much smaller losses.

Arabs beating the Israelis – it was bad news for Sadat. He overplayed his hand. That is why the Egyptian troops stood still, like the sun upon Gibeon, and did not move. They waited for the Israelis, but at that time the Israeli army was fighting the Syrians. The Israelis felt somewhat safe from Sadat’s side and they sent all their army north. The Syrian army took the entire punch of Israeli forces and began its retreat. They asked Sadat to move forward, to take some of the heat off them, but Sadat refused. His army stood and did not move, though there were no Israelis between the Canal and the mountain passes.

Syrian leader al Assad was convinced at that time that Sadat betrayed him, and he said so frankly to the Soviet ambassador in Damascus, Mr Muhitdinov, who passed this to Vinogradov. Vinogradov saw Sadat daily and asked him in real time why he was not advancing. He received no reasonable answer: Sadat muttered that he does not want to run all over Sinai looking for Israelis, that sooner or later they would come to him.

The Israeli leadership was worried: the war was not going as expected. There were big losses on the Syrian front, the Syrians retreated but each yard was hard fought; only Sadat’s passivity saved the Israelis from a reverse. The plan to for total Syrian defeat failed, but the Syrians could not effectively counterattack.

This was the time to punish Sadat: his army was too efficient, his advance too fast, and worse, his reliance upon the Soviets only grew due to the air bridge. The Israelis arrested their advance on Damascus and turned their troops southwards to Sinai.

The Jordanians could at this time have cut off the North-to-South route and king Hussein proposed this to Sadat and Assad. Assad agreed immediately, but Sadat refused to accept the offer. He explained it to Vinogradov that he did not believe in the fighting abilities of the Jordanians. If they entered the war, Egypt would have to save them. At other times he said that it is better to lose the whole of Sinai than to lose a square yard on the Jordan: an insincere and foolish remark, in Vinogradov’s view. So the Israeli troops rolled southwards without hindrance.

During the war, we (the Israelis) also knew that if Sadat advanced, he would gain the whole of Sinai in no time; we entertained many hypotheses why he was standing still, none satisfactory. Vinogradov explains it well: Sadat ran off his script and was waited for US involvement. What he got was the deep raid of Sharon.

This breakthrough of the Israeli troops to the western bank of the Canal was the murkiest part of the war, Vinogradov writes. He asked Sadat’s military commanders at the beginning of the war why there is the forty km wide gap between the Second and the Third armies and was told that this was Sadat’s directive. The gap was not even guarded; it was left wide open like a Trojan backdoor in a computer program.

Sadat paid no attention to Sharon’s raid; he was indifferent to this dramatic development. Vinogradov asked him to deal with it when only the first five Israeli tanks crossed the Canal westwards; Sadat refused, saying it was of no military importance, just a “political move”, whatever that meant. He repeated this to Vinogradov later, when the Israeli foothold on the Western bank of became a sizeable bridgehead. Sadat did not listen to advice from Moscow, he opened the door for the Israelis into Africa.

This allows for two explanations, says Vinogradov: an impossible one, of the Egyptians’ total military ignorance and an improbable one, of Sadat’s intentions. The improbable wins, as Sherlock Holmes observed.

The Americans did not stop the Israeli advance right away, says Vinogradov, for they wanted to have a lever to push Sadat so he would not change his mind about the whole setup. Apparently the gap was build into the deployments for this purpose. So Vinogradov’s idea of “conspiracy” is that of dynamic collusion, similar to the collusion on Jordan between the Jewish Yishuv and Transjordan as described by Avi Shlaim: there were some guidelines and agreements, but they were liable to change, depending on the strength of the sides.

 

Bottom line

The US “saved” Egypt by stopping the advancing Israeli troops. With the passive support of Sadat, the US allowed Israel to hit Syria really hard.

The US-negotiated disengagement agreements with the UN troops in-between made Israel safe for years to come

(In a different and important document, “Notes on Heikal’s book Road to Ramadan”, Vinogradov rejects the thesis of the unavoidability of Israeli-Arab wars: he says that as long as Egypt remains in the US thrall, such a war is unlikely. Indeed there have been no big wars since 1974, unless one counts Israeli “operations” in Lebanon and Gaza.)

The US “saved” Israel with military supplies.

Thanks to Sadat, the US came back to the Middle East and positioned itself as the only mediator and “honest broker” in the area.

Sadat began a violent anti-Soviet and antisocialist campaign, Vinogradov writes, trying to discredit the USSR. In the Notes, Vinogradov charges that Sadat spread many lies and disinformation to discredit the USSR in the Arab eyes.

His main line was:

“the USSR could not and would not liberate Arab soil while the US could, would and did.”

Vinogradov explained elsewhere that the Soviet Union was and is against offensive wars, among other reasons because their end is never certain.

However, the USSR was ready to go a long way to defend Arab states. As for liberation, the years since 1973 have proved that the US can’t or won’t deliver that, either – while the return of Sinai to Egypt in exchange for separate peace was always possible, without a war as well.

After the war, Sadat’s positions improved drastically. He was hailed as hero, Egypt took a place of honor among the Arab states. But in a year, Sadat’s reputation was in tatters again, and that of Egypt went to an all time low, Vinogradov writes.

The Syrians understood Sadat’s game very early: on October 12, 1973 when the Egyptian troops stood still and ceased fighting, President Hafez el Assad said to the Soviet ambassador that he is certain Sadat was intentionally betraying Syria. Sadat deliberately allowed the Israeli breakthrough to the Western bank of Suez, in order to give Kissinger a chance to intervene and realise his disengagement plan, said Assad to Jordanian Prime Minister Abu Zeid Rifai who told it to Vinogradov during a private breakfast they had in his house in Amman. The Jordanians also suspect Sadat played a crooked game, Vinogradov writes. However, the prudent Vinogradov refused to be drawn into this discussion though he felt that the Jordanians “read his thoughts.”

When Vinogradov was appointed co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference, he encountered a united Egyptian-American position aiming to disrupt the conference, while Assad refused even to take part in it.

Vinogradov delivered him a position paper for the conference and asked whether it is acceptable for Syria. Assad replied: yes but for one line. Which one line, asked a hopeful Vinogradov, and Assad retorted:

“the line saying “Syria agrees to participate in the conference.”

Indeed the conference came to nought, as did all other conferences and arrangements.

Though the suspicions voiced by Vinogradov in his secret document have been made by various military experts and historians, never until now they were made by a participant in the events, a person of such exalted position, knowledge, presence at key moments. Vinogradov’s notes allow us to decipher and trace the history of Egypt with its de-industrialisation, poverty, internal conflicts, military rule tightly connected with the phony war of 1973.

A few years after the war, Sadat was assassinated, and his hand-picked follower Hosni Mubarak began his long rule, followed by another participant of the October War, Gen Tantawi.

Achieved by lies and treason, the Camp David Peace treaty still guards Israeli and American interests. Only now, as the post-Camp David regime in Egypt is on the verge of collapse, one may hope for change. Sadat’s name in the pantheon of Egyptian heroes was safe until now. In the end, all that is hidden will be made transparent.

Postscript. In 1975, Vinogradov could not predict that the 1973 war and subsequent treaties would change the world. They sealed the fate of the Soviet presence and eminence in the Arab world, though the last vestiges were destroyed by American might much later: in Iraq in 2003 and in Syria they are being undermined now. They undermined the cause of socialism in the world, which began its long fall. The USSR, the most successful state of 1972, an almost-winner of the Cold war, eventually lost it. Thanks to the American takeover of Egypt, petrodollar schemes were formed, and the dollar that began its decline in 1971 by losing its gold standard – recovered and became again a full-fledged world reserve currency. The oil of the Saudis and of sheikdoms being sold for dollars became the new lifeline for the American empire.

Looking back, armed now with the Vinogradov Papers, we can confidently mark 1973-74 as a decisive turning point in our history.

ISRAEL SHAMIR has been sending dispatches to CounterPunch from Moscow.

*************

Related …..

A veteran of the October 1973 “Yom Kippur” war (“Harb Ramadan”), Henry Lowi ~ Sharon – the End of an Era?

Israel’s Coming “Civil War”: The Haredi Jews Confront the Militarized Secular Zionist State


By Prof. James Petras

Israel is heading towards a profound internal crisis: a Jew-on-Jew confrontation, which has major implications for its relations with the Palestinians, as well as its Arab neighbors.  The conflict is between the highly militarized Zionist state and the Haredi religious movement over a number of issues, including recent proposals by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to end the religious exemption of Haradi youth from serving in Israel ’s colonial armed forces.

Haredim and the Zionist Colonial State

Even before the forcible imposition (‘founding’) of the state of Israel , the Haredim were opposed to Zionism.  Today the vast majority of Haredim in Israel remain staunchly opposed to the Zionist state for religious, ethical and political reasons.  Haredi religious teaching claims that the Jewish people are bound by three oaths: (1) not to settle in Israel by using force or violence, (2) not to make war with other nations and (3) not to act as if the other nations of the world would persecute Israel .

Haredim opposed Israel ’s violent ethnic cleaning of over 850,000 Palestinians in the course of establishing the Israeli State and continues to oppose Israeli settlers’ violently land grabs against Palestinians.  Unlike other so-called ‘ultra-Orthodox’ sects, who support Zionist colonialism and bless the Israeli military, the Haredim maintain that militarism corrupts the spirit and that Zionists have transformed Jews from righteous followers of the Torah into rabid ethnocentric supporters of a militarist state.  For the Haredim, ‘state worship’, especially the waving of the Israeli flag in the temple, is a sacrilege comparable to the renegade Jews condemned by Moses for worshipping the Golden Calf.

The majority of Haredim boycott elections, organize their own schools (Yeshivas), encourage students to deepen their religious studies, emphasize community and family values (of a profoundly patriarchal sort) with numerous children and strongly reject the Zionist state’s efforts to conscript Haredi youth into their colonial occupation army, the so-called Israeli Defense (sic) Force (IDF).  All major Zionist political parties and the ruling colonial regime unite to demonize the Haredim, claiming they are shirking their patriotic military responsibilities. Via the mass media and public pronouncements Zionist politicians and the state incite Israeli hatred against the Haredim:  A study in 2006 claimed that over a third of Israeli Jews identified the Haredim as the most unpopular group in Israel .

The Haredim, on the other hand, have reason to fear and loath the secular militarist Zionist state and politicians:  They claim that after World War II in the Zionist-controlled relocation camps for refugee Jewish children in Teheran, the Jewish Agency imposed Zionist ideology and militarist anti-religious policies in order to cut Haredim children off from their spiritual roots.  According to one Haredim report many religious Jewish youth from Poland , mostly survivors of the Holocaust and Soviet Russia, were subjected to “unimaginable mental and physical cruelty with one goal in mind: (the) obliteration of Judaism”.  Given the Israeli drive today to harness a corrupted form of Judaism to serve colonial militarism, the Haredim have every reason to believe that the conscription of their sons and daughters will be accompanied by cruel, systematic Zionist brainwashing to ensure they make efficient (brutal) occupation soldiers.

Haredim versus Israeli State Values

The Haredim fervently believe in and practice the Biblical teaching: “Be fruitful and multiply”. They have large families and the median age among the Haredim is 16 years.  Their peaceful message to the militarist Zionists could be summed up as: “Make babies, not bombs”.

Some Haredim leaders have met with Palestinian and Iranian officials and, in line with their religious doctrine, have declared their support for peaceful resolution of conflicts and denounced Israel ’s aggressive military posture.

Haredim are intensely religious and dedicate their time to discuss and debate the readings of their great religious scholars:  Their message to the Zionists is to read Maimonides’ ethical treatises rather than listen to Netanyahu’s bellicose, blood curdling rants.

Haredim live and study largely within the confines of their close communities.  They insist on sending their sons to the yeshivas to study religious doctrine rather than to the West Bank to kill Palestinians. They call on their children to serve G-d – not the IDF.  They seek truth in the Torah – not in conquest via the Preventive War Doctrines espoused by prestigious Israeli and overseas Zionist academic militarists.

Haredim focus on building a better life within their community; they reject the efforts of the Zionist state to entice them into joining the violent self-styled ‘Jewish’ settlers engaged in brutal land grabs in the West Bank , in the name of “contributing to society (sic)”.  The ‘introverted Haredi way of life’ is seen as a righteous alternative to the crass militarism, money laundering, financial speculation, human body part trafficking and real estate swindles rife among the elite Israelis and among sectors of overseas Zionists engaged in procuring multi- billion dollar tribute from the US Treasury.

Haredim believe, with exemplary evidence, that conscripting their youth into the Israeli colonial army would destroy their moral values, as their sons would be forced to grope and search Arab women at checkpoints, break the legs of stone-throwing Palestinian children, defend lawless self-styled ‘Jewish’  settlers as they paint obscene graffiti in mosques and churches and attack Arab children on their way to school … not to speak of the ill effects of what secular Israeli Jews call a “modern education”, full of historical fabrications about the origins of Israel, scientific readings on high tech war-making and “advanced” economic doctrines proclaiming the sacred role of the free market, and  justifying the 60% poverty rate among Haredim as “self-induced”.

The Haredim demand that the Israeli Jewish elite stop trying to conscript their youth into the IDF and stop the job discrimination, which has trippled the unemployment rate among Haredim.

The Coming ‘Civil War’:  Zionist State versus the Haredim

The elected leader, Yair Lapid, of newly formed Yesh Atid Party, dubbed a “centrist” by the New York Times,  and a ‘moderate’ by the leading ideologues of the US Zionist “lobby”, ran on a platform of forcibly ending the Haredi exemption from conscription into the colonial military service.  Yair Lapid, in the run-up to joining a new Netanyahu coalition regime, has launched a vicious attack on the Haredim. Lapid premises his agreement to joining Netanyahu’s war machine on his plans to forcibly confront the Haredi leadership.  Yair Lapid taps the class and secular resentments of Israel’s upwardly mobile youth who bitterly complain of having to serve in the army, thus delaying their money-making opportunities, while the poor, semi-literate “blacks” (a derogatory term referring to the clothing of Haredim) engage in “worthless studies” of the Torah.  Lapid, using the same perverted logic as Netanyahu, claims that “Ten percent of the population cannot threaten 90 percent with civil war”, (Financial Times, 2/14/13, p. 6.).

Once again, the executioner (Lapid) accuses the victim (Haredim) of the violence he is about to commit.  Lapid’s Yesh Atid, the centrist (sic) party, has allied with Naftali Bennett’s neo-fascist ‘Jewish Home Party’ (pushing for the annexation of all of Palestine and expulsion of non-Jews) in smashing Haredi exemption to military conscription.  They hold veto power over the next cabinet.  This rabidly secular militarist assault has provoked great opposition and united the otherwise Zionist-religious parties:  The Shas Party (Sephardic Haredim) and United Torah Judaism have taken up the defense of the Haredim.

Lines are being drawn far beyond a Haredim-Zionist State confrontation.

The Larger Meaning of the Haredim-Zionist Conflict

The Haredim hostility to the secular Zionist state is in part based on its opposition to military conscription, thus calling into question Israeli militarism, in general, and specifically its policy of colonial occupation and regional aggression.  While some Haredim may oppose conscription for religious reasons and seek exemption solely for its own youth, objectively, the effect is to undermine Israel ’s violation of Palestinian rights and to call into question the entire apartheid system.  By speaking to spiritual values, they deny the legitimacy of the idea of a Jewish police state based on force, violence, torture and disappearance of political prisoners.  Their questioning of the institutional configuration upholding Jewish supremacy and Israel as the homeland of the Chosen People, they strike a powerful blow at the ideological underpinnings of the overseas activity of the Zionist power configuration.  Their animosity to the fusion of Jewish chauvinism and religious rituals and the tribal deification of the Israeli state is counterposed to their embrace of Moses Ten Commandments.

The Haredim study the teaching of the profound Judaic philosopher Maimonides and abhor Zionist militaristic strategists like Walzer, Dershowitz, Kagan, Feith, Netanyahu, etc. who preach colonial “just war” doctrines.  Representing 10% of the Israeli population and a far greater percentage of military age youth, the Haredim are in a position to sharply limit the scope of future Zionist wars. If they succeed in blocking conscription, they would provide a lasting contribution to making the world in general, and the Middle East in particular, a more secure and peaceful place to live.

Facing the prospect of a loss of future cannon fodder to sustain its colonial ventures, and in their frenzied attacks on the Haredim, the Israeli-Zionist elite have incited the majority of Israeli Jews to demonize them as ‘backward’, illiterate, freeloaders and to blame the religious curriculum for their growing and current 60% rate of poverty and high unemployment.  Israel ’s war machine needs fresh recruits to maintain its imperial quest for a Greater Israel.

Demographics – with families exceeding five children –indicate the Haredim are likely to double their percentage of the Israeli population over the next two decades.  Faced with the ‘facts on the ground and in the cradle’, the colonial expansionist imperative drives all the leading Zionist parties to end Haredi exemptions.  In response Haredi leaders threaten to engage in massive civil disobedience if the Zionists impose conscription, rightly seeing conscription of its youth as an assault on its most profoundly held spiritual and family values and as an opening wedge in destroying traditional community solidarity and reciprocal relations.

The Haredim share a common plight with Israel ’s Arab population:  Both communities face increasing police harassment, discrimination, religious persecution and rising levels of poverty.  A Haredim-Arab alliance would unite 30% of the population against a common secular militarist and plutocratic enemy.  Farfetched as it seems on the subjective level, there are objective historical and structural processes which are driving the two groups together.

It is one of the great ironies of history that the world’s modern secular anti-imperialist movements should find their most consequential allies among Israel ’s most traditional and deeply religious movement.

Defeat and Victory ~ Bill the Butcher

I get it – I understand your message
In terms of blood and iron.
You are strong
You have power over me.

And so –
What use is your power?

What is the worst you can do to me
Kill me?
Tear apart my body
Leave me a bleeding corpse?

Yes, you can do that
If you want. Is that your victory?

Everyone has to die someday.
Killing me is not your victory.

I will not bow to you
You will not make me cower
In fear. You can kill me
But you can’t frighten me
You can’t keep me silent.

You can crush me
But you can’t frighten me
You can defeat me
But you can’t conquer me.

And you can knock me down
But you can’t make me bow down
And that is your defeat
That is my victory.

 

Copyright B Purkayastha 2013

 

Civil Resistance / First Lady Asmaa’ Al Assad

Civil Resistance / First Lady Asmaa’ Al Assad ~ By Daniel Mabsout


The greatest of challenges are facing Syria and the Syrians and the president of Syria . The forces who succeeded in carrying on the western scheme of destabilization and chaos in countries like Iraq and Libya are trying to do the same in Syria . Under the pretext of removing a dictator , they are destroying the country . It is not that they want to …replace something with something else; what they seek rather is the destruction of Syria , they seek the decomposition of the constituents of the society as such . They seek the despair of people and their turning against the president and the regime ; they target the children and mothers with such pressure seeking that they give up on the struggle and give in to the intervention out of despair and wanting to stop more blood spilling . Therefore the society in all its colors and categories should answer the call and face this challenge and refuse to be cornered and blackmailed and deprived of its alternatives by the forces of evil . Everything depends on and lies within the capacity of the Syrians to stand up to the challenge and not bend before the difficulty or give up or run away or be trapped in the fear of destiny and panic of want . What is required –in other terms- is Resistance , all kinds of Resistance , forbearance and Resistance : peoples’ Resistance and social Resistance .The enemy is betting on your surrender and weakness and testing your abilities and valor . Syria has become the center of the world . The outcome of this assault is not be decided in the battleground itself but in the capacity of the Syrians to resist .

The choices are not many and the alternatives are limited, and what is at stake is the capacity of the people , of all people and of any people to continue existing with dignity without being affiliated to western powers and subdued to Israel and to predator countries . The Syrians have to prove themselves, to prove that they can survive the circumstance and the challenge and come out of it safe and wholesome and mentally and emotionally sound . There is no greater defeat for the enemy than seeing Syrians undergoing bravely all these circumstances without giving up their basic principles of co-existence and solidarity and openness .

In this instance we salute lady Asmaa’ al Assad – the first Lady of Syria -who is leading the Resistance of the civilians : the Resistance of the mothers and sisters and children of Syria by standing by and supporting her people and their army and embodying the true example of commitment . God bless the first lady and bless each mother and father and brother in Syria who is refusing to sell Syria cheap to its enemies . Thus Syria shall reap victory over all and this should be the victory of all.

Posted by Daniel Mabsout

Satyagraha – A Poem

By Abdul Karim Sabawi – Gaza 

I testify,

There are no weapons more lethal than yours

No men and horses mightier than yours

And of all those who have occupied my land

Yours is the darkest, most dreadful occupation

You choose to kill

But killing is a parasite

It will eat away your spirit
Take aim

Kill

Until you’re exhausted

I am not like you

I wont allow you to stain my soul

And to seduce me into killing you

Three things stop me

My beliefs*, values and heritage
I am not like you

Ignorant

Arrogant of your ignorance

Why not ask the sea waves

Ask the sand

where did the past invaders go?

Visit the museums,

The size of your head is no different to theirs

Neither is the size of your shoes

Nor will your fate be any different
I am not like you

Raised in isolation

In closed communities

Apart from all the others

I am an Arab

My seas are wide open

My sky is without end

With enduring sunshine

I am not looking to eat someone’s food

Or steal someone’s land

I inherited my land

From my father and his ancestors

I inherited all religions

And I pray on Friday, Saturday and on Sunday
I am not like you

Pretending to sit on God’s lap

Carrying a vengeful sword

Starting war after war

My God is in my heart

Light, love and mercy

I walk slowly

I plant a seed for charity

It yields a tree

I dig for water wells with a needle

I build an ark for the survivors

And wait for the rain

Which will bring in the flood

I wait for the breeze of revolution

To come and take away the oppressors
I am in no hurry

The sun that will set today

Will rise again tomorrow

I have patience

I have strength

I have mercy

I have forgiveness

My God is compassion

In his name

I will liberate my land

And all the lands.

I will restore humanity

In the soul of man

I am not like you

So take aim

Kill

Until you’re exhausted

- Abdul Karim Sabawi is Palestinian poet from Gaza. This poem was contributed to PalestineChronicle.com.

*Satyagraha is the Philosophy of nonviolent protest, or passive resistance. Mohandas K. Gandhi introduced it in South Africa (1906) and, from 1917, developed it in India in the period leading up to independence from Britain.

*Islam has strict rules for killing in the battlefield and forbids the intentional targeting of civilians in times of war.
If you like this article, please consider making a contribution to the Palestine Chronicle.

Link to this Article

Gabriel García Márquez: March 6, 1927-April 17, 2014

Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:

Gabriel García Márquez: Five wars and seventeen military coups

Anti-war essays, poems, short stories and literary excerpts

Gabriel García Márquez
From Nobel Prize in Literature lecture (1982)

Eleven years ago, the Chilean Pablo Neruda, one of the outstanding poets of our time, enlightened this audience with his word. Since then, the Europeans of good will – and sometimes those of bad, as well – have been struck, with ever greater force, by the unearthly tidings of Latin America, that boundless realm of haunted men and historic women, whose unending obstinacy blurs into legend. We have not had a moment’s rest. A promethean president, entrenched in his burning palace, died fighting an entire army, alone; and two suspicious airplane accidents, yet to be explained, cut short the life of another great-hearted president and that of a democratic soldier who had revived the dignity of his people. There have been five…

View original 622 more words

Audio Interview: NATO Includes All Former Fascist Powers In Europe

Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:

Voice of Russia
April 18, 2014

“NATO includes all former fascist powers in Europe” – Expert

Audio:

Download audio file

9nato-rus-flag

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO’s building up its presence along its eastern borders. The move was supported by the White House. According to an AP report, Rasmussen said the new NATO deployments are about “deterrence and de-escalation in the face of Russia’s aggressive behavior in Ukraine”, which is not a member of the 28-nation alliance.

Why would NATO get so actively involved in a country which is not a member of the alliance? And how come it has sided with the nazi-installed government, in which the interim vice-premier, minister of defence, minister of agriculture, and minister of environment, belong to a fascist Svoboda party?

Voice of Russia is looking into the US and NATO role in Ukraine crisis with Rick Rozoff, a US journalist covering NATO enlargement…

View original 13 more words

Jack Lindsay: Who Will Dare Look This Child in the Eyes?

Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:

Anti-war essays, poems, short stories and literary excerpts

Jack Lindsay
Who Will Dare Look This Child in the Eyes? (1950)

lindsay jack 5 (1)

This leprosy of death, this delicate
device of pain as vast as a star gone rotten
with some shrewd virus of decay:

This intricate defilement of deepest springs,
this pus of death that blotches and blots the sun
across the pitted face of day:

This Thing was made by man, his brain, his hands.
You are a man, accomplice of this Thing.
Redeem your birthright while you may.

Hell has another name now, Hiroshima,
darker than all the rings of burning darkness
where Dante clambered his accusing way.

Can you escape the ghosted night, the eyes
of children scraped to ragged bone?
You are a man. What word have you to say?

View original

Proxy Conflict With Russia: Ukraine Descends Into Open Warfare

Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:

Stop NATO
February 20, 2014

1) Western news media coverage of Ukraine perverted: Russian foreign minister
2) “The West makes no comment on throwing of cocktail bombs or seizing of buildings”: Russian foreign minister says U.S. responsible for armed extremists in Ukraine
3) Speaker of the Crimean parliament: Well-train and well-armed contingent of 5,000 foreign mercenaries active in Kiev
4) Russian Foreign Ministry blames extremist gunmen for Ukrainian violence
5) Russia demands Ukrainian opposition halt violence
6) In consultation with Western patrons, Ukrainian insurgents engage in delaying tactics in order to accumulate arms: Presidential administration
7) Ukrainian Interior Ministry: Rioters employing specialized ammunition
8) Conflict with Moldova and Romania pending? Transdniester now effectively blockaded
9) British foreign secretary: “Violence against peaceful protestors is unacceptable and the Ukrainian gov should be held accountable”
10) Weimar Triangle meets Maidan Triumvirate: French, German, Polish foreign ministers meet with Tyagnybok, Klitschko, Yatseniuk
11) As…

View original 2,809 more words

Syrians celebrate Independence Day and army’s victories

indday7Provinces, (SANA) Crowds of people took to the streets in cities across the country on Wednesday to celebrate the Syrian army’s achievements against the armed terrorist groups, which coincide with the April holidays of the Independence Day and Easter.

Rallies in Damascus marking Independence Day

A huge crowd of youths gathered in Youssef al-Azmeh Square in Damascus to mark the 68th anniversary of the Independence Day, a national day commemorating the evacuation of the last French soldier and the end of the French mandate of Syria on April 17, 1946.

The gathering was organized by the Organization of the Revolutionary Youth Union.

Residents of al-Zahira neighborhood in the city of Damascus also held a massive gathering on the occasion.

The participants said the Syrian people, armed with awareness and national unity, won’t allow conspirators to undermine Syria, adding that they will remain committed to supporting the Syrian army against the conspiracy.

They waved Syrian flags and raised banners underscoring allegiance to homeland and martyrs and commitment to Syria’s sovereign decision.

The participants affirmed that the gatherings send a strident message to the whole world that the Syrian people are supportive of the Syrian army until the last Takfiri terrorist is eliminated.

People of Golan marks Independence Day, stresses support to army

People of the occupied Syrian Golan stressed the importance of the Independence Day in the history of Syria as a symbol of national sovereignty and dignity.

In a statement made on Wednesday, they highlighted that the Syrians are always ready to confront challenges and defend their country, adding that Syria is facing an aggressive war waged for the same reasons that made it the beacon of all freemen and freedom fighters.

They stressed their full support for the Syrian army and the Syrian leadership and its icon, President Bashar al-Assad, reiterating that the Golan will remain a part of Syria and they will always be committed to their Syrian nationality and identity.

A 7-km march in support of army in Sweida

Marking the 68th anniversary of the Independence Day and in appreciation of the sacrifices made by the Syrian army, 75 youths made a 7-km march in Sweida.

The participants stressed that the Independence Day is a bright page in the history of the Arab nation, reiterating their loyalty to the homeland and solidarity with the army in facing the armed terrorist groups.

They expressed their pride in the achievements of the Syria Arab Army in repelling the terrorists and restoring stability and security to many areas, adding that the Syrians will repelled the mercenary terrorists as they had done with the French colonization.

Solidarity stand in Hama in support of the army

Meanwhile, a crowd of citizens and representatives of popular and unionist bodies in Hama staged a solidarity stand in support of the Syrian Army in confronting the armed terrorist groups.

The participants in the stand, which was held in the Orontes Square in the city of Hama, expressed their faith in the ability of the Syrian army in achieving victory and repelling terrorism.

They stressed that the Syrian have introduced examples of sacrifice and unity to the whole world, adding that the Syrians are united behind their army in facing and overcoming all challenges and plots.

Rally at al-Furat University saluting the army

On a relevant note, al-Furat University in Deir Ezzor city staged a rally outside the university to mark the Independence Day and express support to the Syrian Arab Army in its battle to restore stability to the country.

Participants said that the evacuation of French colonialism from Syria marked a turning point in the country’s history, and that Syrians continue to draw inspiration from it today in their battle against terrorism.

They said that neo-colonialism is now attempting to undermine Syria by exporting terrorists to it, but these plots will be foiled by the rallying of the Syrians around their army.

Thousands march in Hasaka to voice support for the army

Thousands from Hasaka city and its countryside organized a march to express support for the army, denounce the massacres committed by terrorists, and mark Independence Day.

The participants carried Syrian flags and chanted slogans saluting martyrs and calling for national unity in the face of those who conspire against Syria.

They pledged to continue supporting the Syrian Arab Army in its battle to preserve the country, asserting that Syrians will stand fast in the face of hardships and obstacles, adhering to their noble and deep rooted values.

Tartous farmers voice support to army

The Tartous branch of the Farmers Union staged a rally to express solidarity with the Syrian Arab Army and mark the 68th anniversary of Independence Day.

The participants, gathering at the Union branch headquarters, asserted determination to work hard to support and strengthen national economy, asserting that the steadfastness of Syrians today shows fealty to the legacy of the heroes who created independence.

indday1

indday2

indday3

indday4

indday5

indday6

20140416-135212

http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/04/16/539324.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Russian president congratulates President al-Assad on Independence Day

pa1642014Damascus, (SANA) President Bashar al-Assad received Wednesday a cable from Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulating him on the Evacuation (Independence) Day.

President Putin said he is confident that a continued bolstering of traditional friendly relations between Russia and Syria and the constructive bilateral cooperation will help ensure stability and security in the Middle East.

President Putin wished President al-Assad health and success and the Syrian people peace and wellbeing.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Dr. Wael al-Halqi received a cable from his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, congratulating him on the occasion.

Medvedev said he is sure that a continued consolidating of mutual, multi-faceted ties between Syria and Russia and developing cooperation of mutual benefits in the trade, economic, scientific, artistic and cultural fields serves the interests of the two friendly nations.

Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem, for his part, received a congratulation cable from his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. In his letter, Lavrov expressed confidence that the Syrian people can overcome ordeals, restore security and stability and lay the groundwork of prosperity for all citizens in a strong, democratic and undivided state.

Lavrov said that he highly appreciates close cooperation between Russia and Syria on all regional and international issues, affirming that Russia will continue to fully back the inter-Syrian dialogue and work to prevent external meddling in the affairs of the sovereign Syrian state.

M. Ismael

http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/04/16/539484.htm

Raghead: Crimea River

Originally posted on Raghead The Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist:

 

I believe this link ought to be interesting to those who wonder what I’m talking about.

 

Copyright B Purkayastha 2014

 

View original

Inside the Private Prison Industry’z Alarming Spread Across America

Originally posted on Moorbey'z Blog:

For-profit companies like Geo-Group are buying up any politician they can find to expand their share of the “market.”

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Dooder

On a recent Friday afternoon, with budget negotiations winding down, Arizona state representative John Kavanagh was racing against the clock. His position as House Appropriations Chairman afforded him the opportunity to stuff whatever minor extra provisions he wanted into the budget before it went to a vote the following Monday, and he only had a few hours left to do it.

What was Kavanagh frantically trying to accomplish for his constituents at the last minute? Extra funding for education, since Arizona spends less on educating its children than all but three states? No, Rep. John Kavanagh was trying to secure an extra $900,000 gift for the GEO Group, the billion-dollar private prison corporation whose state lobbyists came to him at the last second begging with…

View original 957 more words

Video: NATO, Ukraine and U.S. Imperialism

Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:

  IF YOU HAVEN’T GIVEN YET, MAKE YOUR DONATION NOW TO KEEP LABOR BEAT ALIVE:
 
 
NATO, Ukraine and U.S. Imperialism
with Rick Rozoff
 
On YouTube at:
  
 
Also archived at:
 
Rick Rozoff, internationally recognized critic of NATO http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com>, spoke on April 12, 2014 at a Chicago teach-in titled “Stop U.S./NATO’s New Cold War Over Ukraine.”
 
He described the geo-political background to the current crisis resulting from the recent right-wing coup of the Kiev government in Ukraine and U.S./NATO sable-rattling. The key to understanding the present situation is to look at the historically aggressive objectives of NATO.
 
“The Ukrainian crisis is simply the pretext for the U.S. and its NATO allies of moving more military equipment up to the Russian border…to besiege [it]. And there’s only one reason you besiege a country — either to starve it out or…

View original 365 more words

Ukraine: U.S. Proxies Launch Bloody Civil War

Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:

Sofia News Agency
April 15, 2014

Ukraine’s Army Starts Anti-Terror Operation in Kramatorsk

photo_verybig_159851

The Ukrainian army has stormed Kramatorsk Airfield in Donetsk region, in a moved that has marked the beginning of a long-forewarned “anti-terrorist operation”.

A series of shots and explosions could be heard in the area, according to reports by the local newspaper Novosti Kramatorska cited by Lenta.ru.

A video footage earlier published on YouTube purportedly shows deployment of Ukrainian special forces beginning around the airfield.

Ukrainian aircraft seem to be taking part in the operation.

The country’s Defense Ministry announced an anti-terrorist operation had been launched in Kramatorsk, but refused to provide further details.

Unconfirmed reports by sources cited by Lenta.ru suggest Interior Ministry’s forces have also arrived in Slaviansk, which was virtually sealed off by rebel pro-Russian groups during Sunday and Monday.

On Tuesday afternoon local time, Andriy Parubiy, who heads the National Security Council of…

View original 155 more words

One Child killed, 60 others, mainly pupils, injured in terrorist attacks on schools in Damascus ~ Soccer player Tarek Ghrair martyred in terrorist mortar shell in Homs

Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress network:

Sinar Antonios

Sinar Antonios is the name of the child killed by the Obama’s cannibals in Damascus today

Sinar Antonios, a new child martyr in Damascus by the hands of the Obama’s cannibals.

Minister of Heath Dr. Saad al-Nayef said that terrorist mortar attacks against schools in the areas of Bab Touma and al-Dwailaa, in Damascus residential area, have claimed the life of one child and injured 60 others, which the majority of them were pupils.

During a tour at the hospital in Damascus Minister al-Nayef said that 5 public and private hospitals have received the injured students and are providing them with medical services and any kind of assistance to their relatives.

He confirmed that emergency rooms at hospitals are ready to receive all emergency cases, as well as full assistance to the parents of the kids to be able to stay close to them.

Soccer player Tarek Ghrair martyred in…

View original 95 more words

USA and several allied countries involved in appalling carnages in Syria

Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress network:

Syria holds US, Turkish government, Saudi Arabia, Zionist entity… and several allied countries, responsible for previous and potential chemical massacres in Syria

obama-is-a-terrorist-20140414

Damascus, (SANA/M. Ismael) ~ The countries involved in the conspiracy against Syria, particularly the US, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have sought since day one to create excuses for justifying a continuation of the aggression against it, the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said.

The ministry cited, in two identical letters addressed to the United Nations Secretary-General and head of the UN Security Council, the accusations against the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against its own citizens in the Eastern Ghouta massacre on August 21, 2013, which killed scores of Syrian citizens.

“Less than a year after the crisis, facts are starting to surface day after day,” the ministry said. “Reports, studies and documented researches abound as to the involvement of the US, Turkey and several other countries…

View original 408 more words

Syria’s enemies nightmares

 | BEIRUT (LEBANON) | 14 APRIL 2014 
FRANÇAIS 

JPEG - 16.7 kb

Syria’s enemies nightmares

By Ghaleb Kandil

The famous American investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, has made important revelations on an agreement by the United States with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for the transfer of weapons from Libya to Al-Qaeda in Syria [1]. But the most serious in what he wrote regarding the crime committed with chemical weapons by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyeb Erdogan, in the eastern Ghouta of Damascus in late August 2013, and the decision of Barak Obama to waive military aggression against Syria, not because of the discovery of Turkish conspiracy but because of the assessment of military balances. These revelations -NewOrientnews.com publishes an Arabic translation of Seymour Hersh article- and other facts prove that the victory of Syria and President Bashar al-Assad is inevitable and imminent, causing the worst nightmares in Washington, Paris and London, particularly in Riyadh, Doha and Ankara.

- First: Seymour Hersh reveals that the United States has created what the CIA called “rats channel” to support Al-Qaeda groups in Syria. Financing and transfer of weapons recovered in Libyan arsenals were entrusted to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. These facts are confirmed by the seizure by the Lebanese Army, in May 2012, of Lutfallah II ship, carrying 60 tons of weapons from Libya. The Lebanese authorities have smothered the case to protect the political and security officials close to former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, involved in trafficking. Obviously, the attitude of the Lebanese leaders came after Saudi-American pressures, according to information published by Hersh.

- Second: The facts reported by Seymour Hersh, citing sources of U.S. intelligence, concerning the role of Erdogan and Al-Qaeda show that neo-Ottoman Prime Minister is suffering from hysteria because of defeats inflicted to terrorist groups by the Syrian army. Erdogan provides unlimited assistance to Al- Nosra Front, with the blessing of the United States.
Al- Nosra is the official representative of Al-Qaeda in Syria and was officially dubbed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a key partner in the aggression against Syria. The actions of Al-Qaeda leader have coverage and support of the United States, Western States, and Saudi, Turkish and Qatari governments. This proves that all statements on the fight against terrorism, initiated by these countries, are just pure lies.

- Third: The information cited in Hersh’s article, without a shadow of a doubt, that Erdogan is a war criminal. He helped Al-Qaeda to obtain toxic gas for use in massacres against the Syrian people in Khan al-Assal and eastern Ghouta, to justify the NATO war against Syria, funded by the Saudi Arabia.

Seymour Hersh reveals that the US-NATO attack, scheduled to begin Sept. 2, 2013, was in fact a war of extermination against the Syrian army and the country’s infrastructure. This information highlights the leadership qualities of President Bashar al-Assad, when he decided to resist aggression and then to accept the compromise on chemical weapons, proposed by Russia.

- Fourth: Seymour Hersh says the decision of Barak Obama to cancel the attack against Syria came after the evaluations of army joint staff, which were forwarded to the U.S. president by General Martin Dempsey. These evaluations emphasized that any strike against Syria might plunge the United States and NATO in a costly regional and global war whose outcome is uncertain.
This proves that the Syrian decision to resist, the clear warnings of Iran and the firm stance of Russia curbed Washington.

The nightmare that scares the covenant of war against Syria is becoming a reality with each advance of the Syrian army in the field and with the renewed popularity of President Assad, who is seen by more Syrians as the only man capable of saving the country from the threat of terrorism, to preserve its unity and restore calm and security. The nightmare will reach the peak of horror for Washington and its allies when Bashar al-Assad will be reelected for another term and the steamroller of the Syrian army continued its progress in different parts of Syria, crushing his passing terrorist groups.

Time will tell.

Statements

BASHAR AL-ASSAD, Syria’s President
«This is a turning point in the crisis, both militarily in terms of the army’s achievements in the war against terror, and socially in terms of national reconciliation processes and growing awareness of the truth behind the attacks targeting the country.»

HASSAN NASRALLAH, Hezbollah Secretary General
«Hezbollah has decided the name of the presidential candidate that it would support and vote for. Announcing the name of our candidate requires a convenient time and coordination among our political alliance. Hezbollah’s stance regarding the extension of the president’s term is definitive and final… threatening the Lebanese people with the possibility of a political void should not scare them. Bkirki was at the forefront of those calling for electing a new president. Regardless of our assessment of Geagea, his stances, biography, principles and political goals, and regardless of our assessment of any March 14 candidate, it is normal and logical for us to support our candidate. Some Christians politicians accountable for hindering the arrival of the most popular Christian to the presidency. The stances of President Michel Suleiman in the last months have lost him the position of one who can run a national dialogue to discuss an issue as important as the defense strategy. There should be an approach on the political, economic, social and developmental levels, in addition to holding reconciliations among political parties. It is important to have a political, economic, social, and developmental approach to the situation in both areas, rather than just a security and judicial approach. It is the Resistance that had planted the bomb that targeted an Israeli patrol in the Shebaa farms in mid-March. This was a part of the retaliation against Israel for its raid that targeted one of the resistance’s locations in the town of Janta. Israel understood the message well. It is not about the rules of engagement, it is about deterrence. Had the resistance remained silent over the Janta raid, the enemy would have come the next day and strike any truck, any target, any home, or any location under the pretext of striking advanced weapons (…) The military developments in Syria worry the Israelis, who are wondering whether this experience would lead Hezbollah, in case of any war with Israel, to go toward new directions. In this context, the enemy is shedding light on the area of Galilee. The resistance is not facing a problem with its supporters regarding its participation in [the war] in Syria. Some of our supporters were hesitant, but now they have made up their minds and support our fighting in Syria… I can say that some of the March 14 coalition’s supporters favor our intervention in Syria to protect Lebanon from terrorist takfiri groups. President Assad’s enemies can wage a war of attrition as long as there are still countries that are financing and arming rebel groups for this purpose, but there is nothing in the horizon that shows that the opposition is capable of waging a big war. In the last three years, the developments have proven that the regime is not weak, and has strong popular support. Many Arab countries are in contact with the Syrian regime under the table and tell [President Bashar al-Assad]: we are with you, hang in there. I know that some Arab countries support the resistance ostensibly, but under the table they want the regime to win the war quickly. Before the start of the so-called Arab Spring, the Americans were seriously discussing the future of Saudi Arabia, and I was informed that the discussions tackled the necessity to divide Saudi Arabia into several countries. The French and British were involved in these discussions.»

BESHARA RAÏ, Maronite Patriarch
«What we said was that if consensus is not reached on a March 8 or March 14 candidate, another person will be considered for the presidency. I have no authority to eliminate anyone. Any person that might be elected from the March 8 or 14 coalitions or outside the two political groups…will be our president. I will not nominate anyone, but I will not eliminate anyone either because I respect the parliament and the constitution. Speaker Nabih Berri promised to call for presidential election sessions next week.»

SAMIR GEAGEA, Lebanese Forces leader
«There is no deliverance without a strong republic, no strong republic without a strong president, no strong president without clarity, and no strong president without rectitude and a firm stance. There is no strong president who wears multiple colors. He who is with the state alone is the only strong president, he who does not flirt with the statelet, does not fear the statelet, and does not have a thousand tongues and faces. The strong president is he who states clearly what he wants, he who enters the battlefield in front of the people, not in embassies or closed rooms. The strong, strong president is he who has not once sought a position, office or interest, but has sought only to be a strong president in a strong republic.»

NAJIB MIKATI, Former Lebanese Prime Minister
«The information I am seeing today is not in keeping with the election of a unifying president. At around 45 days before the end of the deadline for presidential elections. I don’t see any positive indicators in that area. Despite this I hope an all-encompassing personality will be chosen because we need one in these very difficult circumstances. It is our duty to elect a president who has a conciliatory background and brings the Lebanese together

ELIAS BOU SAAB, Lebanese Education Minister
«If the situation remains as is, the number of Syrian students will exceed that of the Lebanese in Lebanese schools, which could lead to the collapse of the educational system in all of Lebanon. There has to be an educational plan for Lebanon, which would consist of providing one hundred million dollars, then two hundred million in annual aid from donors.»

Events

• The Lebanese Armed Forces’ Intelligence Branch arrested a “dangerous” person for rigging cars with explosives at the Wadi Hmeid checkpoint in Beqaa’s Arsal Saturday evening. The man was identified as Ahmad al-Atrash, who is known by the alias “The Falcon of Arsal.” Army units later raided a house Atrash used on the outskirts of Arsal, and seized a number of stolen cars found parked in the garage. Ahmad is the brother of Sami al-Atrash, who died two weeks ago of wounds suffered in an LAF pursuit. Sami al-Atrash was wanted for firing rockets at towns in the Beqaa, preparing booby-trapped cars, detaining citizens, providing aid to Syrian rebel fighters, participating in the killing of four civilians in Arsal’s Wadi Rafeq, killing soldiers in Arsal’s Wadi Hamid, and plotting to target an LAF officer.

• Development and Liberation bloc MP Kassem Hashem said on Saturday that the parliament will pass the ranks and salaries system next week. Hashem also noted that Nabih Berri, speaker of the parliament and head of the Development and Liberation bloc, was keen on having the issue of the public workers’ salary raise worked out “quickly, but not hastily.” Parliament’s joint committees finished discussing the ranks and salaries system late Friday and announced that they have reached a consensus on the articles dealing with living expenses and that the legislation will be forwarded to the parliament.

• A number of refugees from the Syrian village of Fleeta returned home from refugee camps in the eastern Beqaa town of Arsal on Thursday. The refugees, who had fled to Arsal during fighting between opposition and regime forces in Syria’s Qalamoun region, left Lebanon via the Al-Qaa crossing, passing through the Syrian towns of Qusair and Qara before reaching Fleeta, the National News Agency reported. The NNA added that the group of refugees which returned to Syria on Thursday was the second to leave refugee camps in Arsal in the past twenty-four hours.

• Hezbollah condemned on Thursday the attempted murder of a member of the Charity and Islamic Projects Foundation, Sheikh Arsan Suleiman in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain al-Hilweh in South Lebanon’s Sidon. “The assailants are people who hate plurality of opinions, reject the diversity in jurisprudences and kill those who have different thoughts and affiliations, thus offering a favor to the Zionist entity,” Hezbollah said in a statement. On Wednesday, Arsan was gunned down by unknown masked men in the Ain al-Hilweh camp. He was severely injured and transported to the Hammoud Hospital. He remains in a critical condition. A number of angry youths reacted to the incident and closed the vegetables market and the shops in the camp’s Al-Fawqani Street.

Press Review

AS SAFIR (LEBANESE DAILY CLOSE TO MARCH-8 COALITION)
IMAD MARMAL (APRIL 11,2014)
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said that he would preserve the Lebanese army’s current combat doctrine which categorized Israel as an enemy, and promised to make the army the sole institution responsible for applying it.

“The army is capable of replacing Hezbollah, [because] the elite forces that include the Special Forces unit, the Strike Force, the Airborne Regiment and the Commandos can deploy and work as required by the specificity of the conflict with Israel,” Geagea told As-Safir.

Geagea also said that Hezbollah should offer the army all “the tactics and experience that it gained through its combat with Israel.”

The LF leader also said that if he was elected president, he would cooperate with Hezbollah to build a real state. “I will suggest partnership in building a real state that would be the only [party] responsible for defending all the citizens, based on making the army’s weapons the only recognized weapons.”

Geagea also noted that he was aware that it would be difficult for him to win enough votes to become president, but voiced his optimism that he could gain the needed votes. “I am very aware that [my journey to Baabda] is very difficult, but nothing is impossible in politics,” he said.

He also said that besides the March 14 MPs votes, he would still need six other votes to become president. “If the [parliamentary session was held based on the two-third quorum, it would be difficult for any candidate to win the required majority on the first round of voting. However, on the second round of voting, the winner needs half-plus-one majority [65 votes], and I think I have the chance to provide these votes,” Geagea said.

“I have the support of 59 MPs, who belong to the March 14 coalition, and would still need 6 other votes. In principle, winning those [six] votes is not impossible,” he added.

However, Geagea noted that running for president was as important as winning the race, adding that by announcing his candidacy, he restored the orderliness of the election. “Through my candidacy, I wanted to restore the orderliness of the election and lay new traditions in approaching it, so that it would not remain captive in closed rooms, embassies, deals and secret codes.”

AN NAHAR (LEBANESE DAILY CLOSE TO MARCH-14 COALITION)
SARKIS NAOUM (APRIL 11, 2014)
While visiting the United States, I met the head of a major research center in Washington. The official said that U.S. President Barack Obama is opposed to any U.S. military intervention in Syria and the Middle East in general. “He will do nothing, either in Syria or in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I also think that because of the presence of Islamist-Takfirists Bashar al-Assad might ultimately win in the sense that it can remain in power, “said the analyst.

AN NAHAR (APRIL 10, 2014)
SAMIR MANSOUR
What are the prospects of the dialogue that was initiated between Hezbollah and the Future Movement concerning security issues. Security sources indicate that the links were never broken between Hezbollah security official Wafiq Safa and Minister Ashraf Rifi, since he was leading the Internal Security Forces (ISF). The same sources add that there is nothing new on the political level between the two parties, noting that the divergent questions remain unchanged, and no political contact has been made with a view to treated. Resolving contentious issues -the withdrawal of Hezbollah from Syria, weapons, defense strategy, and STL- requires a serious, frank and deep dialogue, the security coordination between the two formations may be the first step.

AL AKHBAR (LEBANESE DAILY CLOSE TO THE LEBANESE RESISTANCE)
NICOLAS NASSIF (APRIL 12, 2014)
The situation today is different from 2008. Back then President Michel Suleiman was elected following a written agreement to name him as a candidate within the framework of the Doha Accord- a first in the history of the Lebanese presidential elections. Six years have passed but divisions between March 8 and March 14 have yet to be bridged.

In 2007, potential candidates were more evident and their campaigns were less confusing. However, today March 8 and 14 Forces are still pushing constitutional time limits just like they did in the last elections, when the president’s post remained vacant for six months.

Back then, March 14 equally named four candidates: MP Boutros Harb, MP Robert Ghanem, late MP Nassib Lahoud and former President Amin el-Gemayel, though the latter had a lesser chance as he had already been a president in the past.

March 14 said that choosing the final candidate would depend on the prevailing situation as the elections approach and would require a consensus between all four candidates. Afterwards, three of them would withdraw.

March 14 linked the political situation to the profile of its candidate. Some even suggested that there was a conflict between March 14 leaders. Head of the Progressive Socialist Party MP Walid Jumblatt and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora supported Lahoud, while MP Saad Hariri supported Ghanem and head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea stood by Boutros Harb.

Political maneuvering that started even months before the end of President Emile Lahoud’s mandate linked between the candidacy of these four figures and a quorum in the parliament. Accordingly, Nassib Lahoud appeared to win only half of the MPs’ votes, Harb the required two-thirds, while Ghanem was considered a consensus candidate. But in the end, March 14 took a whole different approach that their leadership had objected to before; it opted to amend the constitution to elect the army commander as the new president.

In 2007, and even though no actual elections took place, the Future Movement abandoned its four proposed candidates, exactly 48 hours before President Emile Lahoud’s term came to an end.
In a meeting attended by Siniora, Hariri and Jumblatt, which excluded their two main Christian allies, Gemayel and Geagea, a plan was drawn up to elect the army commander as a consensus candidate. The surprising announcement revealed a trick that the four candidates have fallen into.

Today, the Future Movement is playing the same game. Like it did in 2007 with its proposed candidates, today it is saying that Samir Geagea is its candidate but so are the other individuals. However, the final decision is not up to the Future Movement alone but also to its allies, including new candidates: Gemayel, Harb, Ghanem and Geagea.

The Future Movement put Geagea, Harb and Ghanem on the same level but refrained from mentioning Gemayel a lot. It has so far showed an announced commitment to a March 14 candidate but it its saying that it all depends on “the prevailing situation,” as an excuse for not choosing the president at this time, maybe so it won’t choose any of them like it did in 2007.

Contrary to the situation in 2007, when Shia ministers withdrew from the Siniora government and Hezbollah and the Future Movement were in a fierce confrontation, today it seems that both parties within the coalition government have agreed to realistically approach the presidential elections and refrain from provocations that would result in clashes like those of May 7, 2008.

However, Geagea has a different point of view. For him, he is more qualified than all other Christian factions in March 14 to give Hariri and the Future Movement Christian support that it would need in the battle against Hezbollah and its Christian ally Michel Aoun. The goals of Geagea’s campaign and the methods he has been adopting don’t exactly fit with Hariri’s position who has remained silent about Geagea’s candidacy since he announced it on April 4, leaving his deputies to comment about it.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has implied that it supports the nomination of General Michel Aoun without publicly announcing that he is the party’s only candidate, but Speaker Nabih Berri has yet to send his approval. Hezbollah found itself in a similar position back in 2007 and had to go along with the election of Suleiman as an integral part of the Doha Accord. Back then, Hezbollah gave Aoun an unrealistic veto about the appointment of a new army commander, which was later traded to get Aoun a better representation in the government under the new president.

Just like the March 14 candidates, Aoun was described as a polarizing candidate and it was hard to elect him amid such a deep Shia – Sunni split. Nothing has changed about March 8, but Aoun himself has apparently changed. Unlike Geagea who is presenting himself as a one-sided candidate, Aoun seeks to appear like a consensus nominee supported by Sunnis and Shia alike, while- as in the years that preceded the Taef Accord – also chosen by Christians, or at least a majority of them.

Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri was asked why he hasn’t announced a clear position about naming Aoun as a candidate following Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s statement saying that his presidential candidate is already known. Berri said: “Did Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah name his candidate?” “No” he was told, “Then the one who hasn’t given a name is just like the one who hasn’t taken a position,” he answered.

AL AKHBAR (APRIL 11, 2014)
SAMI KLEIB
Hezbollah did not withdraw from Syria, yet it sits with its adversaries in the government. Hezbollah did not deliver its weapons, yet some of its adversaries have been disarmed and are being prosecuted through a security plan, in which it is participating. It did not announce a change in its strategy to confront Israel, but the West is knocking on its door again. Hezbollah is a difficult but necessary partner that must be consulted, according to a European diplomat.

What are the reasons behind these new stances taken by Europe? There are many, but four of them are the most significant:

A conviction, that grows day by day, is that Hezbollah is unbreakable, on the security, social, and political levels. The party has the proper capabilities, expertise, and weapons to serve as a counterbalance against Israel and its local and regional rivals.

The party went from being accused by NATO of terrorism to becoming a partner in counter-terrorism. The Lebanese army cannot succeed in its current and future plans without at least moral support from Hezbollah. It would not be possible to eliminate terrorist and takfiri groups in Syria without the party. Security actors are aware of the important intelligence role played by the party in uncovering bombs and networks aiming to terrorise Lebanon and ignite strife. The party and its allies form a heavy political force, making it impossible to take any major national political decision against the party or without it. The presidential elections are the best example.

Oil exploration in Lebanon will not happen if the oil companies were enemies of the party. Simply, Hezbollah could prohibit their involvement under the pretext of protecting Lebanese interests against Israel. It could also facilitate the operation if the interests converged, even with international adversaries. This situation will be reinforced if negotiations between Iran and the international community continue at their current pace.

Despite all the social calamities of the Israeli war prior to the victory of 2006 and its repercussions, the party’s remained firm and steadfast, especially when the areas destroyed by Israel were rebuilt better than how they had been. The organic alliance between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement did not disintegrate, despite disagreements on some occasions.

The party’s involvement in Syria did not weaken the party, although martyrs are continuing to fall. The general situation of the regional environment is still supportive of the Resistance and its leader.
There is no doubt that Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian war tarnished the party’s image on the domestic and regional scene. The propaganda machine against this involvement was ready to incite confessional strife, but now the tide is turning. There are serious changes in Arab public opinion. Various delegations have visited Hezbollah on their way to Syria. They represent anti-Israeli national, Arabist, and Nasserite political factions. Even members of the Syrian opposition visit in response to the the party’s role in promoting reconciliation and reducing the tragedy of the war.

In the past two days, statements from the US, France, Iran, and Arab countries called for the election of a consensus Lebanese president. Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi announced his rejection of a president from either March 8 or March 14.

Hezbollah is publicly supporting MP Michel Aoun for the presidency and Hassan Nasrallah is resolute on this issue. But those seeking a consensus president are hoping, more than ever before, to convince the party of changing its position. However, the doors are still closed to anyone who wishes to discuss a name other than Aoun.

The presidency is important. But what is more important is that Hezbollah finds itself today a major player in the presidential elections in Lebanon, even though it was expected to disappear by those who believed in the imminent fall of the Syrian regime.

The party is able to reach consensus with the Amal Movement, Aoun’s parliamentary bloc, and even MP Walid Jumblatt since the interests of the mountain and his relationship with the party require him to do so.

Hezbollah is also capable of reaching an agreement between its allies and the Future Movement on a consensus candidate, if it could convince Aoun of the futility of his bid for presidency (even though this is impossible at the time being). If all channels of communication between political factions breakdown and a strong anti-Resistance presidential candidate is imposed, the party is able to disrupt the presidential elections.

More than ever before, Hezbollah has strengthened its role as a part of a major regional and global axis, which believes it carried out a strategic achievement in Syria. However, on the domestic Lebanese political scene, it acts from the rationale of being a mere party of a social fabric requiring consensus. Some believe this to be a weakness, but for those who are politcally aware they know that this is the beginning of a phase of regional and international transformations, which are more important than a ministerial declaration or a presidency.

The distance between Beirut, Tehran, and Crimea has become smaller.

AL AKHBAR (APRIL 11, 2014)
GHASSAN SAOUD
Ashraf Rifi’s pictures are still here. The sun – which feels as if it is shining on Tripoli for the first time in a long time – rises from behind his posters. The steel doors on Azmi Street roll up gracefully as though the shop owners’ arms rolling them have regained their youth. The water washing the pavements outside the stores suggests that the pavements have not been washed in months. Taxi drivers, the bustle of the elderly in the cafes, kaak sellers, students and street vendors with their colorful stalls all come out at the same time. One kilogram of cucumber (2.2 pounds) was 2 thousand Lebanese Lira (LL) ($1.32), now it is LL 750 ($.50) again.

Owners of sweet shops, for which the city is famous, say that they sold last week more than they have sold in the past three years. A real estate agent celebrates selling an apartment for the first time in two years. Shops that have not changed the clothes of their mannequins in the past two years finally changed them in preparation for the summer season. The alleyways once again see pedestrian traffic as people frequent stores again. The bullets that used to fly all over the city have suddenly disappeared and the panting of those escaping sniper fire has faded away.

The fighting began in Tripoli as a rebellion during the Future Movement’s anger over the appointment of Najib Mikati to lead a new government after Saad Hariri’s government collapsed. Then people started to publicly arm themselves under the eyes and ears of the Future Movement after the death of Sheikh Ahmed Abdel Wahed. Soon, various regional security agencies found in this overwhelming chaos an opportunity to prove their existence. Many political factions were preoccupied with turning the city into a field feeding the Homs countryside with everything that its fighters need.

The Future Movement thought that one day, Hezbollah will come exhausted to the negotiating table and give up the party’s weapons in return for army weapons that come from the hands of the Future Movement. Tripoli, donning an armed takfiri mask, was part of a project aimed at blocking the way of the Resistance in Saida and sending car bombs through Ersal.

Hariri’s attempt to sell the theory that Hezbollah took power by force was a preface to saying that what was taken by force can not be restored except by force. In light of the international indifference to Saad Hariri being deposed, Islamist figures like Jamal Jarrah, Khalid Zahraman, Badr Wannous, Ziad Allouki and his colleagues were the only lifeline available to Hariri’s supporters.

When Hezbollah became the target of terrorist attacks, the Future Movement publicly put forward a clear formula abandoning fundamentalists, but no one paid attention. When they realized that there was an international decision to announce the withdrawal of support for Islamist groups, which they had heavily backed, they dropped most of their demands. The offered to abandon their popular, political and financial backing for Islamist groups in return for handing over Rifaat Eid himself, emptying the heavy and light weapons caches in Jabal Mohsen and changing the leaders of the security agencies in the city, starting with the army intelligence official of North Lebanon, Amer al-Hassan.

But once again, it appears that the Future Movement exaggerated the price of the project that cost Tripoli 238 casualties, more than 2,000 injured and threatened the city’s entire economy. The strategy of Abra in return for Haret Saida did not work, neither did that of Tripoli in return for the Dahiyeh of course. Rifaat and Ali Eid did not hand themselves over and Amer al-Hassan did not leave the playing field entirely for Rifi. The arrest warrants did not touch Hezbollah’s closest ally in the city, Sheikh Bilal Shaaban.

The most that the Future Movement could do was spare the city’s major militia leaders – Amid Hamoud, Sheikh Salem al-Rafai and three other figures affiliated with Rifi – arrest warrants. It was clear that the purpose of the decision was to weaken and not crush the Islamists. From Bab Amr to al-Qusair, Abra, Yabroud, Qalaat al-Hosn and all of Qalamoun, there was always a safe way for the takfiris to get out. What is important is to isolate them from their supporting milieu. Ali and Rifaat Eid will find at least three countries that will embrace them and allow them to live in utter freedom. The other fugitives have no place to go.

The arrest warrants, in principle, targeted the city’s local militia leaders, but in reality these warrants went after the heart of the Islamists in Tripoli. At the forefront of the Islamists there is Hussam Sabbagh. He was not a local militia leader and he always criticized the clashes between Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen if they were not aimed at disarming Jabal Mohsen completely.

Dai al-Islam al-Shahal tried to preempt the arrest warrants by visiting Saudi Arabia. Security sources say that he provided all the guarantees needed to the intelligence agencies that fight terrorism. That, however, did not prevent the army from stopping his car convoy and keeping two of the cars that were found to be stolen. The Army Intelligence is raiding the homes of local militia leaders and their weapons caches, while the Information Branch is raiding the places where Islamists are suspected of hiding.

Surely, the Future Movement does not have a problem with arresting Islamists. However, Rifi prefers that the local militia leaders escape given his previous close and personal relationship with them and his fear of their confessions in court. According to one insider, the actual goal of the security plan has been achieved: scattering the Islamists, isolating them from their supportive environment and ending the mutual bleeding between Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh. After some of the wanted men demonstrated amongst their allies in Bab al-Tabbaneh a few days ago, the security agencies intensified their raids in their neighborhoods to send a clear message that it is one thing to turn a blind eye to their escaping but they will not allow the city to revert to chaos again.

At the local level, there are two major political alliances in the city and each one has its own point of view of the current events. In the milieu that really supports the fighters, the Islamists and those sympathetic to them, there is an overwhelming feeling that the Future Movement betrayed them. It brings to mind one of the discourse of Fatah al-Islam after the Information Branch confronted them, and the subsequent assassination of Future MP Walid Eido. This is countered by a view timid in its justification of the “necessities of the Future,” pointing out that the party sent messages prior to the arrest warrants warning against them and delayed launching the security plan.

Those who suffered from the extortion imposed by the fighters, who destroyed Tripoli’s economy and its social and educational life, are divided on who to hold accountable. There are those who hold the Future Movement responsible for its failure to stop the fighting in the past, especially now that it has proven its ability to do so in record time. And those who think the link between stability and the government’s security plan orchestrated by the Future Movement believe that Mikati’s government did not want stability in Tripoli.

The tragedy of the Future Movement goes beyond people’s comments. It lies in their belief that their men’s military control over their areas will definitely destroy their opponents. But the influence of former Prime Minister Najib Mikati did not evaporate, Faisal Karami did not immigrate, and Mohammed al-Safadi did not retire. They are still there, at least where they were three years ago. The Future Movement on the other hand needs to unify its officials, MPs, and candidates to reconcile with the community that supports the fighters.

Three years ago, Tripoli’s security officials, the Mufti of Tripoli Malek al-Shaar, the head of the municipality Nader Ghazal and all the directors of the public administration departments were with the Future Movement. The party telling the public what it wanted to hear. Rifi at the time was an employee in a machine that worked in the service of MPs Samir al-Jisr and Mohammed Kabbara. Safadi was one of the pillars of March 14 and Karami was an obscure political heir. Today, the security is not in the hands of the Future Movement, half of the directors of the public administration departments are not with Hariri, the head of the municipality is reeling under the weight of his own failure, the Mufti gives priority to himself over everybody else and no one knows if Rifi will join the Future Movement or if the Future Movement will join Rifi.

THE INDEPENDENT (BRITISH DAILY, APRIL 10, 2014)
ROBERT FISK
Had yet another Middle East ’strongman’ turned into a tin-pot (and dangerous) dictator? Or had a conservative, level headed democrat suddenly shown his true colours? When the Arab awakening began to destroy the local dictators in 2011, Erdogan was the first Muslim leader to grasp its significance and praise its revolutionaries. Who would have believed that the old Ottoman flag – or the current Turkish version of it – would be flown once more with pride over Arab homes in Gaza and Egypt? Even when the latter’s elected president Mohamed Morsi was chucked out by that wonderful democracy-loving Egyptian deputy prime minister, defence minister and chief of staff – Erdogan could scarcely bring himself to pronounce General al-Sissi’s name – the Turkish prime minister, like Qatar, insisted that Morsi was still the leader of Egypt.

Next on his target list, I suspect, will be the Daily Zaman, one of the most feisty and provocative of Turkish newspapers which will soon – its journalists fear – feel Erdogan’s lash. The paper this week trashed the prime minister’s attacks on his Islamist antagonist Fetullah Gulen, currently residing in Pennsylvania, as having no basis in law, approvingly quoting a retired supreme appeal court prosecutor as saying that Erdogan was trying to influence the justice system. The paper, regarded as close to Gulen ideologically, has carried articles asking if corruption and bribery contributed to Erdorgan’s 45 per cent Justice and Development Party election victory. And in an unprecedented reporyeaht, it also wrote that Armenians driven on 16 March from their homes in the Syrian town of Kassab by Islamist rebels supported by Turkey, were drawing parallels with the 1915 mass killings – which the paper was not quite brave enough to call a genocide.

Turkey denies all this, just as it denies the genocide. Both statements are nonsense. The Jabhat al-Nusra men who stormed into Kassab did not come from Iraq or Jordan. The town, in which thousands of Armenians lived in the very last part of what had been Ottoman Armenia, is only a few miles from the Syrian border where the Turks have been furnishing their Syrian rebel allies – both Islamist and secular – with arms. The Armenian expulsions have provided ample opportunity once again for the Assad regime to demonstrate the cruelty of its opponents.

But there is growing evidence that Turkey’s – or rather Erdogan’s – involvement with the revolt against Assad is critical to his relationship with Obama. The Syrian government were, of course, the first to claim that the sarin gas which killed hundreds of Syrian civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta last August had come from Turkey – and had then been used by Islamist groups in the hope that the West would blame Assad and turn its strategic weapons against the regime. WhenThe Independent enquired about the attacks in Syria, Russian sources stated that the chemicals had not been sold to Assad. They had come from stocks sold by Moscow to the former Gaddafi regime in Libya.

Syrian army officers and one figure close to Assad complained to me, too, that when the US and its allies insisted the regime was to blame for the gas attack – which of course they did at once – no heed was paid to public evidence that sarin gas was being transported through part of Turkey for rebels in the north of Syria. They constantly referred to a 130-page Turkish indictment of ten al-Nusra men accused of transporting through southern Turkey what local police identified as chemical precursors for sarin. They were correct. The ringleader of the group, Haytham Qassab, appeared in court where a Turkish prosecutor demanded 25 years imprisonment, but he was later released “pending trial”. They have all since disappeared, while Turkey’s ambassador to Moscow was later to dismiss the arrests, claiming – with almost Saddam-like conviction – that the ’sarin’ was “anti-freeze”. That most controversial of American investigative journalists, Seymour Hersh – I confess he is an old mate of mine even though he often uses my most hated phrase, anonymous “officials” and “experts”, as his sources – has now published his own disturbing and compelling research on the use of chemicals in Syria and points the finger at Turkey for allowing rebels to use sarin in an earlier chemical attack against the Syrian village of Khan al-Assal.

Far more explosively, he claims that the British Porton Down defence laboratory examined the sarin used in Ghouta (courtesy of a Russian military intelligence operative) – this was the attack that propelled Obama and his administration into paroxysms of rage against Assad – and that British intelligence confirmed to the Americans that the gas did not come from stocks in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons’ arsenal.

This, according to Hersh – who naturally has his own detractors – was enough to persuade the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to tell President Obama that he must not use the Ghouta attack as an excuse for a military strike against Syria. Obama finally agreed – although he used a sudden (and still unexplained) decision to seek congressional approval for a bombardment of Syria – permission he knew he was unlikely to get. The Turks – and here comes the Erdogan connection – were outraged that the Americans had not fallen into their trap of destroying Assad.

Erdogan, according to Hersh, had allowed the Americans to ship a ’rat line’ of weapons from Libya via Turkey to the Syrian rebels – hence the connection to earlier shipments of sarin to Libya from the then Soviet Union. Hersh says that for months after the Ghouta attack occurred, this ’rat line’ continued. So did permission to the Turks to trade in gold with Iran – a profitable enterprise which created a slush fund of billions of dollars, the very same corruption money which later appeared to fall into the hands of senior figures around Erdogan.

One Turkish journalist insisted to me in Istanbul this week that Erdogan’s ’madness’ – although already evident – reached ferocity pitch after the Ghouta sarin attack in Damascus which was supposed to drive Obama to attack the Assad regime, but which ultimately failed to do so. If the US bombardment had taken place, Turkey would have been the ’kingmaker’ in any new Syria, and that ancient nation might even have become part of a putative, enlarged, Ottoman-style empire. This is taking things too far. Erdogan is, like Yossarian in Catch 22, a very odd person. There are signs of political megalomania.

But Hersh does detail a dinner on 16 May last year between Erdogan and Obama – and a senior Turkish intelligence official called Hakan Fidan – at which Obama angrily pointed at Fidan and said: “We know what you’re doing with the (rebel) radicals in Syria.” The dinner took place. No-one, of course, will reveal on the record what was said.

Turkey’s meddling in the Syria war will continue, whatever the Americans do. Obama believes the rebels are both untrustworthy, dangerous and are being beaten. But one of the tapes which so enraged Erdogan when it appeared on YouTube – hence the ban – showed an apparent conversation between Turkish officials seeking an excuse to stage their own attack on Syria. “Manipulated,” screamed the Turkish government. No doubt.

HAARETZ (ISRAELI DAILY, APRIL 7, 2014)
The pro-Palestinian “hacktivist’ collective broke into the Education Ministry’s website, as well as the websites of the Israel Postal Service and the Central Bureau of Statistics, Ynet reported.

Anonymous struck first in November 2012 after Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense assault on Gaza, and again on April 7, 2013. It issued a warning message on Sunday that stated:

“This is a message from Anonymous Operation Israel, Anonymous Special Operations, Pillars of Anonymous, the Anonymous Collective of the cyber warriors from across the planet: on April 7, 2014, we call upon our brothers and sisters to hack, deface, hijack, database leak, admin takeover, and DNS terminate the Israeli Cyberspace by any means necessary,” read a robotic-sounding narrator on a YouTube video the group posted on Sunday.

The cyberattack a year ago took down scores of Israeli websites, as Anonymous claimed to have hacked into the websites of the Prime Minister’s Office, Defense Ministry, Shin Bet and other state agencies. The group also published a long list of Israeli email addresses and credit card numbers reportedly taken from the site of a business that sells equipment to the Israel Defense Forces.

However, Israeli authorities said at the time that Anonymous had not caused significant damage to state or civilian Internet operations.

The YouTube video said the group was acting in retaliation for Israel’s “crimes against humanity” visited on the Palestinians.

“You can NOT hide a demolished home. You can NOT hide the barrage of bullets you use to kill and maim Palestinians. You can NOT hide apartheid roads. The further assault on the people of Gaza, who have been flooded by your sewage, terrorized by your military apparatus, and left to die at the border while waiting for medical attention will NOT be tolerated anymore. Your vicious campaigns to attack Palestinian solidarity groups worldwide through censorship and legal wrangling has also NOT gone unnoticed.”

Wassim Raad

http://www.voltairenet.org/article183225.html

Obama’s Private Army to Shoot US Citizens but Bankers and War Criminals walk free ….


what say you ??? are you awake ???

 

bundy_ranch_wide-704b0b86e80151da2a5d3c9f6fdb095073ed9ae2-s40-c85

 

U.S. Agency Backs Down In Standoff With Cattle Rancher

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302351783/u-s-agency-backs-down-in-standoff-with-cattle-rancher

_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!tumblr_n3y524FGMp1qjc44oo1_500

1797339_638507876203960_3619925556402162686_n

BLM stole Moms left calves to die, Go Obama! No big surprise he shoots unarmed women too eh ...

BLM stole Moms left calves to die, Go Obama! No big surprise he shoots unarmed women too eh …

 

1390526_544523285616155_1290409713_n

benghazi-liars

Oramai lo sanno anche i sassi, l’uso di armi chimiche in Siria porta la firma di al Qaeda

Originally posted on Terra Santa Libera:

chemical-terrorists-sarin-2013

~

Riportiamo questa interessante intervista fatta dal ‘il Sussidiario’ a Gianni Micalessin, della quale sottoscriviamo la sostanza, sebbene con alcune obiezioni, secondo noi importanti e affatto trascurabili, che ci riserviamo di esporre come nostra ‘nota’ e che troverete alla fine di questo testo/intervista.

~

L’uso di armi chimiche in Siria
porta la firma di al Qaeda

‘Il Sussidiario’ intervista Gianni Micalessin il 13 aprile 2014

INTRODUZIONE DE “IL SUSSIDIARIO”
Nuovo uso di armi chimiche in Siria. Un attacco con il gas è infatti stato scagliato nel villaggio di Kfar Zeita, nel cuore della Siria. In attesa di un conteggio ufficiale, i morti sarebbero sette, e centinaia, secondo la televisione di stato, i feriti. Da giorni la stampa inglese parlava di attacchi con armi chimiche avvenuti a partire da gennaio in almeno tre occasioni, confermati anche da Israele. Sempre secondo Israele i gas usati non sarebbero i devastanti sarin o gas…

View original 1,184 more words

BREAKING NEWS: As we were already warning, a chemical attack by mercenary terroristic forces targeted the Syrian territory ~ (Eng-Ita)

Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress network:

syria-chem-20140413

BREAKING NEWS:

As we were already warning, a chemical attack by mercenary terroristic forces (directed by foreign military intelligences) targeted the Syrian territory, in Hama province

Syria’s official TV said few hours ago that the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front used toxic gas in the central province of Hama, killing at least two people and causing suffocation to hundred others.

The TV said the Nusra Front fighters used the Chlorine gas against the town of Kafr Zaita in the northern countryside of Hama, adding that Nusra Front was also planning to use the toxic gas against the Wadi al-Daif area in the countryside of Idlib province in northwestern Syria and the town of Mork in Hama countryside.

The first use of chemical gas was reported in an attack on March 19, 2013 in the government-controlled Aleppo suburb of Khan al-Assal, which killed 26 people, including 16 military personnel, and injured 86 others.

View original 774 more words

President al-Assad: intellectual war one of gravest aspects of aggression against Syria

4adra

Damascus, (SANA) President Bashar al-Assad said Sunday the intellectual war and attempts to abolish or replace identity are one of the gravest aspects of the colonial aggression targeting Syria.

President al-Assad was speaking during a meeting with the teaching staff and post-graduate students at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Damascus.

The Arab region is originally based on an ideology of correlation between Arabism and Islam, the President said, “which makes adherence to this principle one of the most important factors for restoring intellectual and social security to Arab societies.”

The West has sought to abolish this ideology so as to dominate the region and the role of Arab countries. Having failed to do so, the President said, the West turned to play on concepts to alter the essence of the ideology.

President al-Assad said the intellectuals and academics have a role to look into concepts and furnish them with clear-cut meanings to confront attempts to market different meanings that seek to empty ideologies of their content,” which risks a loss of belonging and deviation from principles causes for which we have been struggling for decades.”

Syria is targeted, not only for its weighty geopolitical position, but also for its pivotal role in the region and the sway it has on the Arab street, the President said.

He indicated that the war against Syria is an attempt to control its sovereign decision and have it weakened to reverse its policies that meet the aspirations of the Syrian people and are out of pace with the US and Western interests in the region which, the President said, explains the emergence of the Israeli factor that has a major role in backing terrorist groups.

President al-Assad said the crisis in Syria is passing through a turning point on the military side due to the continuous achievements of the army and armed forces in the war against terrorism, and on the social front in terms of national reconciliations and a growing popular awareness of the aggression’s goals.

The Syrian state seeks to restore security and stability to the main areas rocked by terrorism before turning to strike pockets and dormant cells.

There had been dialogue during the meeting about the importance of universities, as well as scientific and strategic studies’ research centers in providing the state with qualified cadres.

M. Ismael

http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/04/13/538812.htm

SAA-20140316

Video Shows NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organization) involved the War on Syria

nato

 


Military Equipment intended for NATO, chemicals in hands of terrorists in Syria

After receiving information from the local residents, a unit of NDF [National Defense Forces] in Qara area – Damascus countryside raided on a house under construction in Qara and found (fuel tanks) buried underground with huge amounts of military equipment intended for NATO and chemicals used for the manufacture of narcotic pills hidden inside it.

Related posts:

  1. Videos, documents show Turkey speed up any supports to terrorists in Syria
  2. Important- Thousands of Terrorists Cross Turkish Border to Join Terrorist War Aleppo
  3. Shocking Video shows Saudi Muhammed Arefe desecrating Holy Quran
  4. Video- Terrorist got a shot right on target
  5. Video- Syrian Army Destroyed a 100m terrorist’s tunnel in Joubar!
  6. Video- Terrorists in Syria have no limits of brutality
  7. Video- Obama: “We attack Syria because its being ONLY Arab ally of Iran…”
  8. Shocking Syria crucifixion video emerges
  9. Video- Tunisian Jihadist Admits We Destroyed Mosques in Syria
  10. Video- Terrorists in Syria use children as shield

After the Quake, Luxury Hotelz Rise Above Haiti’z Homeless

Originally posted on Moorbey'z Blog:

(All photography by Andre Lambertson)After the Quake, Luxury Hotels Rise Above Haiti’s Homeless

Despite an outpouring of aid after the devastation of Port-au-Prince, it’s the same old story for many of the city’s poor.

By

Lisa Armstrong has written for Washington Post, The Daily Beast, and TheAtlantic.com. She teaches at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.

Richard François felt relief and a sliver of hope the day he moved his family into the house a few minutes from the homeless camp in the Champs de Mars, one of Port-au-Prince’s main public squares, where they’d been living. It was just a single room, but safer and more solid than the tarp-and-wood structure they’d called home for two years, after their house collapsed in the Jan. 12, 2010 earthquake that devastated the city. François’ wife, Johanne, had given birth to their daughter on the street two days after the…

View original 2,986 more words

Raghead: A Gift For Jihadhead

Originally posted on Raghead The Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist:

 

 

 

 

Copyright B Purkayastha 2014

 

View original

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,381 other followers