Archives: Articles

It would take remedying the massive damage inflicted on Iraq in order to deal with the turmoil in the region.

By Amy Goodman / Democracy Now!

We air the second part of our two-day interview with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author. Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for more than 50 years. As Iraq launches an offensive to retake Tikrit and Congress prepares to debate an expansive war powers resolution for U.S. strikes, Chomsky discusses how he thinks the U.S. should respond to the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

Below is an interview with Chomsky, followed by a transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Today, part two of our discussion with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than half a century. On Monday on Democracy Now!, Aaron Maté and I interviewed him about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech on Iran to Congress. Today, in part two, we look at blowback from the U.S. drone program, the legacy of slavery in the United States, the leaks of Edward Snowden, U.S. meddling in Venezuela and the thawing of U.S.-Cuba relations. We began by asking Professor Chomsky how the U.S. should respond to the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s very hard to think of anything serious that can be done. I mean, it should be settled diplomatically and peacefully to the extent that that’s possible. It’s not inconceivable. I mean, there are—ISIS, it’s a horrible manifestation of hideous actions. It’s a real danger to anyone nearby. But so are other forces. And we should be getting together with Iran, which has a huge stake in the matter and is the main force involved, and with the Iraqi government, which is calling for and applauding Iranian support and trying to work out with them some arrangement which will satisfy the legitimate demands of the Sunni population, which is what ISIS is protecting and defending and gaining their support from.

They’re not coming out of nowhere. I mean, they are—one of the effects, the main effects, of the U.S. invasion of Iraq—there are many horrible effects, but one of them was to incite sectarian conflicts, that had not been there before. If you take a look at Baghdad before the invasion, Sunni and Shia lived intermingled—same neighborhoods, they intermarried. Sometimes they say that they didn’t even know if their neighbor was a Sunni or a Shia. It was like knowing what Protestant sect your neighbor belongs to. There was pretty close—it wasn’t—I’m not claiming it was—it wasn’t utopia. There were conflicts. But there was no serious conflict, so much so that Iraqis at the time predicted there would never be a conflict. Well, within a couple of years, it had turned into a violent, brutal conflict. You look at Baghdad today, it’s segregated. What’s left of the Sunni communities are isolated. The people can’t talk to their neighbors. There’s war going on all over. The ISIS is murderous and brutal. The same is true of the Shia militias which confront it. And this is now spread all over the region. There’s now a major Sunni-Shia conflict rending the region apart, tearing it to shreds.

Now, this cannot be dealt with by bombs. This is much more serious than that. It’s got to be dealt with by steps towards recovering, remedying the massive damage that was initiated by the sledgehammer smashing Iraq and has now spread. And that does require diplomatic, peaceful means dealing with people who are pretty ugly—and we’re not very pretty, either, for that matter. But this just has to be done. Exactly what steps should be taken, it’s hard to say. There are people whose lives are at stake, like the Assyrian Christians, the Yazidi and so on. Apparently, the fighting that protected the—we don’t know a lot, but it looks as though the ground fighting that protected the Yazidi, largely, was carried out by PKK, the Turkish guerrilla group that’s fighting for the Kurds in Turkey but based in northern Iraq. And they’re on the U.S. terrorist list. We can’t hope to have a strategy that deals with ISIS while opposing and attacking the group that’s fighting them, just as it doesn’t make sense to try to have a strategy that excludes Iran, the major state that’s supporting Iraq in its battle with ISIS.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the fact that so many of those who are joining ISIS now—and a lot has been made of the young people, young women and young men, who are going into Syria through Turkey. I mean, Turkey is a U.S. ally. There is a border there. They freely go back and forth.

NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s right. And it’s not just young people. One thing that’s pretty striking is that it includes people with—educated people, doctors, professionals and others. Whatever we—we may not like it, but ISIS is—the idea of the Islamic caliphate does have an appeal to large sectors of a brutalized global population, which is under severe attack everywhere, has been for a long time. And something has appeared which has an appeal to them. And that can’t be overlooked if we want to deal with the issue. We have to ask what’s the nature of the appeal, why is it there, how can we accommodate it and lead to some, if not at least amelioration of the murderous conflict, then maybe some kind of settlement. You can’t ignore these factors if you want to deal with the issue.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about more information that’s come out on the British man who is known as “Jihadi John,” who appears in the Islamic State beheading videos. Mohammed Emwazi has been identified as that man by British security. They say he’s a 26-year-old born in Kuwait who moved to the U.K. as a child and studied computer science at the University of Westminster. The British group CAGE said he faced at least four years of harassment, detention, deportations, threats and attempts to recruit him by British security agencies, which prevented him from leading a normal life. Emwazi approached CAGE in 2009 after he was detained and interrogated by the British intelligence agency MI5 on what he called a safari vacation in Tanzania. In 2010, after Emwazi was barred from returning to Kuwait, he wrote, quote, “I had a job waiting for me and marriage to get started. But know [sic] I feel like a prisoner, only not in a cage, in London.” In 2013, a week after he was barred from Kuwait for a third time, Emwazi left home and ended up in Syria. At a news conference, CAGE research director Asim Qureshi spoke about his recollections of Emwazi and compared his case to another British man, Michael Adebolajo, who hacked a soldier to death in London in 2013.

ASIM QURESHI: Sorry, it’s quite hard, because, you know, he’s such a—I’m really sorry, but he was such a beautiful young man, really. You know, it’s hard to imagine the trajectory, but it’s not a trajectory that’s unfamiliar with us, for us. We’ve seen Michael Adebolajo, once again, somebody that I met, you know, who came to me for help, looking to change his situation within the system. When are we going to finally learn that when we treat people as if they’re outsiders, they will inevitably feel like outsiders, and they will look for belonging elsewhere?

AMY GOODMAN: That’s CAGE research director Asim Qureshi. Your response to this, Noam Chomsky?

NOAM CHOMSKY: He’s right. If you—the same if you take a look at those who perpetrated the crimes on Charlie Hebdo. They also have a history of oppression, violence. They come from Algerian background. The horrible French participation in the murderous war in Algeria is their immediate background. They live under—in these harshly repressed areas. And there’s much more than that. So, you mentioned that information is coming out about so-called Jihadi John. You read the British press, other information is coming out, which we don’t pay much attention to.

For example, The Guardian had an article a couple of weeks ago about a Yemeni boy, I think who was about 14 or so, who was murdered in a drone strike. And shortly before, they had interviewed him about his history. His parents and family went through them, were murdered in drone strikes. He watched them burn to death. We get upset about beheadings. They get upset about seeing their father burn to death in a drone strike. He said they live in a situation of constant terror, not knowing when the person 10 feet away from you is suddenly going to be blown away. That’s their lives. People like those who live in the slums around Paris or, in this case, a relatively privileged man under harsh, pretty harsh repression in England, they also know about that. We may choose not to know about it, but they know. When we talk about beheadings, they know that in the U.S.-backed Israeli attack on Gaza, at the points where the attack was most fierce, like the Shejaiya neighborhood, people weren’t just beheaded. Their bodies were torn to shreds. People came later trying to put the pieces of the bodies together to find out who they were, you know. These things happen, too. And they have an impact—all of this has an impact, along with what was just described. And if we seriously want to deal with the question, we can’t ignore that. That’s part of the background of people who are reacting this way.

AARON MATÉ: You spoke before about how the U.S. invasion set off the Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq, and out of that came ISIS. I wonder if you see a parallel in Libya, where the U.S. and NATO had a mandate to stop a potential massacre in Benghazi, but then went much further than a no-fly zone and helped topple Gaddafi. And now, four years later, we have ISIS in Libya, and they’re beheading Coptic Christians, Egypt now bombing. And with the U.S. debating this expansive war measure, Libya could be next on the U.S. target list.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, that’s a very important analogy. What happened is, as you say, there was a claim that there might be a massacre in Benghazi, and in response to that, there was a U.N. resolution, which had several elements. One, a call for a ceasefire and negotiations, which apparently Gaddafi accepted. Another was a no-fly zone, OK, to stop attacks on Benghazi. The three traditional imperial powers—Britain, France and the United States—immediately violated the resolution. No diplomacy, no ceasefire. They immediately became the air force of the rebel forces. And, in fact, the war itself had plenty of brutality—violent militias, attacks on Africans living in Libya, all sorts of things. The end result is just to tear Libya to shreds. By now, it’s torn between two major warring militias, many other small ones. It’s gotten to the point where they can’t even export their main export, oil. It’s just a disaster, total disaster. That’s what happens when you strike vulnerable systems, as I said, with a sledgehammer. All kind of horrible things can happen.

In the case of Iraq, it’s worth recalling that there had been an almost decade of sanctions, which were brutally destructive. We know about—we can, if we like, know about the sanctions. People prefer not to, but we can find out. There was a sort of humanitarian component of the sanctions, so-called. It was the oil-for-peace program, instituted when the reports of the sanctions were so horrendous—you know, hundreds of thousand of children dying and so on—that it was necessary for the U.S. and Britain to institute some humanitarian part. That was directed by prominent, respected international diplomats, Denis Halliday, who resigned, and Hans von Sponeck. Both Halliday and von Sponeck resigned because they called the humanitarian aspect genocidal. That’s their description. And von Sponeck published a detailed, important book on it called, I think, A Different Kind of War, or something like that, which I’ve never seen a review of or even a mention of it in the United States, which detailed, in great detail, exactly how these sanctions were devastating the civilian society, supporting Saddam, because the people had to simply huddle under the umbrella of power for survival, probably—they didn’t say this, but I’ll add it—probably saving Saddam from the fate of other dictators who the U.S. had supported and were overthrown by popular uprisings. And there’s a long list of them—Somoza, Marcos, Mobutu, Duvalier—you know, even Ceaușescu, U.S. was supporting. They were overthrown from within. Saddam wasn’t, because the civil society that might have carried that out was devastated. He had a pretty efficient rationing system people were living on for survival, but it severely harmed the civilian society. Then comes the war, you know, massive war, plenty of destruction, destruction of antiquities. There’s now, you know, properly, denunciation of ISIS for destroying antiquities. The U.S. invasion did the same thing. Millions of refugees, a horrible blow against the society.

These things have terrible consequences. Actually, there’s an interesting interview with Graham Fuller. He’s one of the leading Middle East analysts, long background in CIA, U.S. intelligence. In the interview, he says something like, “The U.S. created ISIS.” He hastens to add that he’s not joining with the conspiracy theories that are floating around the Middle East about how the U.S. is supporting ISIS. Of course, it’s not. But what he says is, the U.S. created ISIS in the sense that we established the background from which ISIS developed as a terrible offshoot. And we can’t overlook that.

Amy Goodman is the host of Democracy Now! and the co-author of The Silenced Majority.

3 March 2015

http://www.alternet.org/

BY The Children Of Andela, Kathrada, Sisulu, Dadoo, Naude, Chikane And Other South African Struggle Stalwarts

Gathering here today

As children, grandchildren and relatives of Anti-Apartheid stalwarts, veterans of our country’s freedom struggle, we have a responsibility to carry forward the spirit of those who came before us. As children who live in a free South Africa we carry a responsibility to those in the international community who contributed towards our liberation. As children of a larger human family we have a responsibility to ensure that children can live in a world where it is safe and okay to simply be a child. Regardless if they are black or white, regardless of their religion, race or nationality and regardless if they are an Israeli or Palestinian child.

There is a dangerous tendency in South Africa to romanticise the past. Yes, we have a lot to be proud of but romanticism must not lead to paralysis. We gather here today to remember our forefathers and mothers – not just in name, but in action. Standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people is one form of actively remembering our forebears and liberation heroes.

Described as once being the “nerve centre” of the liberation movement, Liliesleaf Farm was chosen for the launch of Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to remind people that our freedom was fought for, not handed over to us. Today, we salute the Palestinian people and their Israeli allies for their resistance to and struggle against Israeli Apartheid.

Israeli Apartheid
When we use the word Apartheid to describe Israel we say it with a hard heart, sadness, anger and impatience. But we don’t say it maliciously, irresponsibly or carelessly. We use the word “Apartheid” because several of our mothers, fathers and elders amongst us have been to Palestine-Israel and have reported that the situation is one of Apartheid. But also because very many reports, opinions and legal analyses indicate the sad situation that another people, the Palestinians, are currently going through what we South Africans experienced – indeed, as our former President has said, even worse. Most recently in March 2014 the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Professor Richard Falk, found in his UN Human Rights Council Report that Israel’s policies bore “unacceptable characteristics of apartheid”. We also recall that in 2009 a Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) commissioned by the South African Government found Israel guilty of the crime of Apartheid.

Finding Mandela, Kathrada, Dadoo, Sisulu, Chikane, Luthuli, Naude, Tambo

The Palestinians, their progressive Israeli allies and we, their supporters are finding Nelson Mandela when we protest against Israeli Apartheid. The Palestinians, their progressive Israeli allies and we, their supporters are finding Walter Sisulu when we defy Israel’s checkpoints, house demolitions and racist laws . The Palestinians, their progressive Israeli allies and we their supporters are finding Ahmed Kathrada in Israeli jails as Palestinians stand trial for simply being, Palestinian. The Palestinians, their progressive Israeli allies and, we their supporters, are finding Oliver Tambo as we advance the international, non-violent boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel campaign.

The BDS call, it is important to note, like the boycott against Apartheid was, is not being imposed on the Palestinians but is being called for by the oppressed, by the Palestinians, just as how, even though we knew it may in the short-term harm us, we ourselves as South Africans called for a boycott during the 1980s.

As we gather on Liliesleaf Farm we take a moment to salute those brave White compatriots who stood up and stood out from their communities to oppose South African Apartheid. Likewise today, we salute those brave Jews and Israelis who are standing up and standing out to oppose Israeli policies of Apartheid. Those brave Jews and Israelis who refuse to tow the line of the pro-Israeli lobby organisations who support the Apartheid Israeli government are indeed finding Joe Slovo, Denis Goldberg, Ruth First and others as they choose to challenge the orthodoxies in their communities.

Moving forward from Lilies Farm
The 1963 raid on Liliesleaf farm, the subsequent Rivonia Trial and eventual imprisonment of our leaders was a blow for our struggle. However, they also led to world-wide condemnation, mobilization, solidarity and outpouring of love and support. Last year we watch in horror as Israel bombed the Palestinian Gaza Strip that Archbishop Desmond Tutu calls the world’s largest open air prison. We watched in horror as Israel killed over 2000 Palestinians in the space of 6 weeks including more than 500 children. Yes. Children.

But we cannot be immobilized by Israel’s brutality. In the aftermath of the Rivonia Trial, the International Olympic Committee, FIFA, and other international sports bodies began terminating South Africa’s membership to these organisations. By the end of the 1970s, South Africa was largely isolated from participating in world sport. Cultural bodies around the world also terminated South Africa’s membership. And a similar trend is currently taking place with regard to Israel.

There is a growing momentum and tide within the world of culture for example, amongst well known sports people, celebrities, musicians, actors and comedians. From Selena Gomez to Mark Rufallo, Penelope Cruz, John Cusack, John Legend and other high profile celebrities all come out during Israel’s attacks on Gaza, using social media and other platforms, on the issue of Palestine. Some have tweeted #FreePalestine while others have gone further in slamming the Israeli attacks on Gaza as a “genocide”. And the number that have joined the boycott of Israel is growing on a daily basis.

The groundswell of support for the Palestinian struggle and BDS campaign, coming from all quarters of the academic and cultural community and even major corporations, in many ways is a result of the practical, strategic and goal-orientated boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) of Israel movement that is capturing the world by storm. BDS offers a non-violent route and path for us to channel our energies. The boycott of Apartheid proved successful in mobilizing artists, sports people, musicians and ordinary people in the million across the world in successfully isolating South Africa and leading to the democracy that we now have. BDS is proving to do the same. Let’s support the non-violent BDS campaign in an attempt to create the necessary conditions for a just peace to be negotiated for Palestinians and Israelis. A better future for all, indigenous Palestinians and Israelis, is not only an option but inevitable. Tomorrow marks the start of the 11th international Israeli Apartheid Week here in South Africa, and the call in the over 150 events and actions that will take place across South Africa will be the same: isolate Israel until Palestine is free.

READ AT ISRAELI APARTHEID WEEK 2015 (IAW) LAUNCH PRESS CONFERENCE (SUNDAY, 01 MARCH 2015):

MANDLA MANDELA
(Grandson of Nelson Mandela – personal message provided)
NKULULEKO LUTHULI
(Grandson of Chief Albert Luthuli)
SHAKA SISULU
(Grandson of Walter and Albertina Sisulu)
ROSHAN DADOO
(Daughter of Dr Yusuf Dadoo)
AALIYAH KATHRADA
(Niece of Ahmed Kathrada)
OBAKENG CHIKANE
(Son of Reverend Frank Chikane)
JOHAN NAUDE
(Son of Reverend Beyers Naude)

SOUTH AFRICAN ORGANIZATIONS ENDORSING IAW (85):

Action Forum Palestine (AFP)
African National Congress (ANC)
African National Congress Women’s League (ANC WL)
African National Congress Youth League (ANC YL)
Ahlul Bayt Youth Movement of South Africa (ABYMOSA)
Ahmed Kathrada Foundation
Amandla
Botswana National Front (BNF)
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel in South Africa (BDS South Africa)
Caring Women’s Forum (CWF)
Centre for Civil Society (CCS)
Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union (CEPPWAWU)
Communication Workers Union (CWU)
Congress of South African Students (COSAS)
Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)
Conveyors of Hope
Creative Workers Union of South Africa
Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa (DENOSA)
Durban University of Technology (DUT SRC)
Embassy of Palestine in South Africa
Faithworks
Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU)
Freedom For Palestine PE (FFP-PE)
Friends of Cuba (FOCUS)
Jamiatul Ulama of South Africa
Kairos Southern Africa
Kenya Palestine Solidarity Commitee
Kenya Palestine Solidarity Committee
Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organization
Mangosuthu University of Technology Student Representative Council (MUT SRC)
Media Review Network (MRN)
Mkhonto WeSizwe Military Veterans Association (MKMVA)
Muslim Judicial Council (MJC)
Muslim Lawyers Association (MLA)
Muslim Professional Network (MPN)
Muslim Youth Movement (MYM)
National Black Contractors and Allied Trades – Western Cape (NBCAT)
National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU)
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA)
National Union of Mineworkers (NUM)
Palestine Solidarity Alliance (Benoni)
Palestine Solidarity Alliance (PSA Gauteng)
Palestine Solidarity Alliance (PSA PE)
Palestine Solidarity Alliance (PSA Port Shepstone)
Palestine Solidarity Campaign Cape Town (PSC CT)
People Against Suffering Oppression and Poverty (PASSOP)
Pietermaritzburg For Palestine (PMB4PALESTINE)
Police and Prison Civil Right Union (POPCRU)
Rhodes University Palestine Solidarity Forum (Rhodes PSF)
Runners For The Freedom of Palestine
Rustenburg Palestine Solidarity Forum (Rustenburg PSF)
South African Artists Against Apartheid (SAAAA)
South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union (SACCAWU)
South African Communist Party (SACP)
South African Council of Churches (SACC)
South African Council of Churches Youth Forum (SACCYF)
South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU)
South African Informal Traders Alliance.
South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU)
South African National Defence Union (SANDU)
South African National Women’s Muslim Forum (SANWMF)
South African Students Congress (SASCO)
South African Union of Students (SAUS)
Stellenbosch University Palestine Solidarity Society (SU PSS)
Steve Biko Foundation
Stop The JNF
Swaziland Solidarity Network (SSN)
UKZN Theology & Development Programme [UKZN-T&D]
Union of Muslim Students Association (MSA)
University of Cape Town Palestine Solidarity (UCT PSF)
University of Johannesburg Palestine Solidarity Forum (UJ PSF)
University of Pretoria PSC
University of South Africa SRC (UNISA SRC)
University of Western Cape Palestine Solidarity Association (UWC PSA)
University of Western Cape SRC (UWC SRC)
Vaal Muslim Womens Forum (MWF)
Wits University Palestine Solidarity Committee (Wits PSC)
Workers World Media Productions (WWMP)
World Federation of Trade Union (WFTU)
Young Communist League of South Africa (YCL)
Zaytoun South Africa

By RIchard Spencer

New Christian militia goes into battle against Isil – but pays a high price

Like many of Syria’s warriors, Kino Gabriel was a student four years ago, training to be a dentist.

Like many other Syrians, he resisted the call to war, until he saw the threat to the towns and villages where he grew up and worshipped.

Like countless thousands, he soon found himself, gun in hand, snow falling in the bitter Syrian winter, fighting for his life, claiming his first kills.

Mr Gabriel, though, is a rarity in this remorseless conflict. He is a Christian, a member of a minority that in both Syrian and Iraqi wars has tried desperately to stay on the sidelines.

No longer. Christian militias have existed for a number of years, sometimes patrolling neighbourhoods, sometimes venturing further afield. But now they are engaged in their first major battle.

For the last week, they have been fighting the jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant across a major front in north-west Syria, in alliance with the YPG, the Kurdish defence forces. They have had mixed fortunes, but the battle has energised Middle East Christians worldwide – many of them exiles who fled the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq.

“We saw what happened in Iraq in 2003,” Mr Gabriel said, speaking by Skype from Qamishli, near the front line. “Our people were left alone, with no autonomy, no army that could defend them.

“Most of our people have emigrated, thanks to attacks from al-Qaeda and other groups. They couldn’t defend themselves. We learned that lesson and have prepared ourselves.”

In 2003, the Christian population of Iraq was well over one million. Now it is less than half that. In June last year, more than 600,000 were driven out of their homes when Isil swept across the Nineveh plain, traditional homeland of Assyrian Christians, in northern Iraq last summer.

In Syria, when the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in 2011, the church was split, with many bishops supporting the regime but individuals joining forces with liberal activists in protest against him.

Few actually felt compelled to fight, though, until the onslaught against Christian villages and churches, first by Jabhat al-Nusra, and later by Isil.

Christians have seen churches blown up, crosses torn down, and those living under jihadist rule have been forced to pay the “jizya”, a special tax.

In a particular irony, Armenian Christians who came to Syria in flight from pogroms in their native Turkey 100 years ago have now been forced to flee in the opposite direction.

Syria, even more than Iraq, is a patchwork of sects and languages: many of these Christians speak and conduct services in Aramaic, the language of Christ.

Mr Gabriel’s chance at the front came at Christmas 2013, when he joined a militia known as the Syriac Military Council, which was fighting alongside Kurds in a battle for the town of Tel Hamis, south of Qamishli, his home city. Tel Hamis was in the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian Al-Qaeda branch from which Isil then split off.

“I think I was prepared,” Mr Gabriel, a former lay servant in the church, said. “I was a little bit afraid – it was my first battle.”

He and his fellow fighters managed to drive the Jabhat al-Nusra fighters back, but the attack stalled in the December snow. The area has been fought over ever since, with the YPG and their Syriac Military Council allies claiming on Friday to have finally retaken Tel Hamis, this time from Isil, which took over Jabhat al-Nusra positions last year.

The local Arab population is split, with some supporting the Kurds, others the Islamists.

The effect on the wider community of the expanded fighting front, though, has been disastrous. Many of the Christians have fled – more than 1,000 families in the last week alone, according to George Merza, head of the local Assyrian council.

On Monday, more than 300 of those Christians that remained were taken hostage in a lightning Isil counter-offensive in villages around Tel Tamer, in north-west Syria’s semi-desert.

“They are innocent people, children, women and elders,” Mr Merza said. “We demand an immediate intervention to save our people, who have lived on this land for thousands of years in peace. Today they are driven to death and destruction. This is inhuman.”

The Syriac Military Council is hoping to offer Isil a prisoner swap, returning eight jihadis captured in the battle for Tel Hamis for the civilian captives, but no negotiations have yet begun.

The resistance put up by the Christian fighters from these ancient communities, heirs to Senacherib and Ashurnasirpal, the great Assyrian emperors of the Biblical era, has heartened an international diaspora which has up to now watched events unfold with glum, helpless horror.

Assyrians and Syriacs as far afield as London, New York and Sweden have posted patriotic appeals online. For many, it is their cousins who have been captured, and who are dying in battle.

Some have also taken it upon themselves to return home to join up, and have been joined by a number of other Western volunteers. Ashley Johnston, a former Australian soldier, became the first Westerner to die fighting alongside the Kurds and Christians in the battle for Tel Hamis on Monday.

“Ashley was a good man who never complained and was always positive,” Jordan Matson, the unofficial leader of the Kurds’ foreign legion, said in a Facebook tribute. “I consider it an honour to have known and served with him.”

Mr Matson pointed out that Mr Johnston was considered a criminal in Australia, which has made it an offence to fight in the war on either side.

The question of whether to fight or not remains, though, a major big question for the Christian exiles. They ask themselves whether it is right or even worthwhile to risk their lives for a diminished, violent homeland.

The Christians of the region have long held that they should “turn the other cheek” in the face of assault and discrimination.

Father Tony Malham, an Assyrian priest who has left Iraq and now serves the community in London, says that this is the only pragmatic response, given that Christians are overwhelmingly outnumbered.

“On the one hand, this is our homeland; on the other, it’s not true to say it’s our homeland any more,” he said. “If we want to have a home for ourselves we have to fight for it, but as Christians we can’t fight, we can’t kill.

“We have to talk, we have to talk in a civilised way. But these people who are against us can’t talk, they can only fight and kill.

Mr Gabriel acknowledges that at just 1,000 strong, his militia is a small force compared to those ranged against it. But he says he can no longer stand by and watch his people driven from their homes like sheep.

“Over the past century, our people six times have suffered displacement, massacres, other forms of aggression,” he said.

“This has targeted the Syriacs and the Christian presence in the Middle East. We are acting based on the facts before us – to protect ourselves on our historical land. This is our right and duty.”

Richard Spencer lives in Cairo. He was China correspondent for six years before reporting from Dubai.

28 February 2015

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

 

By Hassanal Noor Rashid

The Conflict Transformation and Peace Studies course hosted by the International Institute of Peace Studies (IIPDS) in Bangkok, saw passionate individuals from various countries come together to share their ideas on how to realize a peaceful and sustainable future in a political-social environment that is plagued by constant conflict.

The three week course from the 19th January 2015 until the 10th February 2015 featured lectures by diverse and prominent lecturers who deliberated with the participants on topics such as Human Rights, Hegemony, Sustainable economies and a plethora of other topics essential for those interested in addressing the many issues in politics and society today.

Many of the participants hailed from different countries and very unique backgrounds. Among the countries represented were Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Argentina, Russia, United States of America, Rwanda, India and Pakistan. What is perhaps more interesting is that some of the participants have backgrounds which further add to the diverse nature of the participants.

For example, the participant from Rwanda is currently studying in Israel and is fairly familiar with the socio-culture landscape of the country. The American is studying in Japan and the Argentinean is furthering his studies in China.

From an academic standpoint, many disciplines within the arts and humanities such as International Relations, Sociology, Anthropology and so forth, have sought throughout modern history to document, study and understand the human condition and the ever-changing world order. What marks this particular course as distinguishable was the fact that it is not simply about understanding the state of the world today, but also developing a foundation to help envision a better future.

Peace, Development and Sustainability. These are the main themes that were to be drawn out of the three week course and laid out the foundation of what a truly sustainable and peaceful society means.

It is a natural assumption that peace and justice are synonymous, but as exemplified in the many debates and discussions throughout the course, these two concepts can contradict one another. The search for justice may not necessarily be peaceful and without violence, and inversely, the attainment for peace may not be without its own injustices and conflict. In the practical sense this is why in reality, human rights workers have tendencies to come into clashes with peace activists, both of whom have well-meaning intentions, but their goals and agendas contradict one another.

This is just one example of the many conundrums faced by peace activists and advocates for social justice. It highlights the delicate and complex nature of conflicts which plague many societies across the world and brings an understanding of why these conflicts require more grace in both their analysis and resolution.

The many unique incidents of injustices were highlighted from the respective individuals who represented their own countries and societies. Each had shared their own dilemmas, many of which were pronounced overt conflicts, and some were more subtle, with tensions being defined in the nuances of their societies.

This concept of sharing and engagement is arguably the most powerful methodology of courses such as this, as it offers an important tool for any activist academic, and student.

Perspective.

Ultimately a deeper understanding and appreciation of context and perspective is what drives the peace and sustainability movement forward. Through the cultivation of meaningful dialogue and discussion, an effective counter-narrative to the hateful bigotry and misinformation that pollutes the discourse can be developed.

This is what is special about the Peace Studies course offered by the IIPDS. It offers a crucial foundational understanding of the world today and an open forum to cultivate meaningful dialogue and discussion free from discrimination and bigotry.

Most importantly however, it is planting the seeds which may hopefully lead to sustainable peace, addressing the many ills brought about by a banal form of modernity, and bringing back new life to the understanding of the human condition.
Hassanal Noor Rashid is the Program Coordinator of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

3 March 2015

 

By Robert Parry

As the Obama administration is rushing to complete a nuclear agreement with Iran and reduce regional tensions, the Israeli media is reporting on a deal with Saudi Arabia to let Israeli warplanes transit Saudi airspace en route to bombing Iran, reports Robert Parry.
ccording to an Israeli media report, Saudi Arabia has agreed to let Israeli warplanes fly over Saudi territory to save fuel while attacking Iranian nuclear sites, the latest indication of how the two former enemies have developed a behind-the-scenes alliance that is reshaping geopolitics in the Middle East.

“The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” a European official in Brussels told Israel’s Channel 2 in a report broadcast on Tuesday and described in other Israeli media outlets.

Riyadh’s only condition was that Israel make some progress in peace talks with the Palestinians, a stipulation that may be mostly cosmetic so the Saudis can save face with other Arab states without really interfering with an Israeli flyover to strike Iran.

Disclosure of this Israeli-Saudi military cooperation comes as the United States and five other world powers rush to finish an agreement with Iran to curtail but not eliminate its nuclear program, which Iran says is only for civilian purposes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to appear before the U.S. Congress on March 3 to undercut President Barack Obama’s negotiations.

The reported Saudi permission for Israeli warplanes to take a shorter route to bomb Iran also suggests that Netanyahu may be laying the groundwork for his own plans to attack the Iranian nuclear sites if the international negotiations are successful. Netanyahu has denounced a possible deal as an “existential threat” to Israel.

In recent years, Israel and Saudi Arabia have quietly begun cooperating on a range of mutual interests with the goal of blunting Iran’s regional influence. For instance, they have sided with rebels fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an Iranian ally, even if the victors might be Islamist radicals affiliated with al-Qaeda or the Islamic State.

Elements of the Saudi royal family have long been known to support Islamist militants, including forces associated with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that convicted al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui identified leading members of the Saudi government as financiers of the terrorist network.

According to the story, Moussaoui said in a prison deposition that he was directed in 1998 or 1999 by Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan to create a digital database of the group’s donors and that the list included Prince Turki al-Faisal, then Saudi intelligence chief; Prince Bandar bin Sultan, longtime Saudi ambassador to the United States; Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, a prominent billionaire investor; and many leading clerics.

“Sheikh Osama wanted to keep a record who give money,” Moussaoui said in imperfect English — “who is to be listened to or who contributed to the jihad.” Moussaoui also said he discussed a plan to shoot down President George W. Bush’s Air Force One with a Stinger missile with a staff member at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, at a time when Bandar was the ambassador to the United States and considered so close to the Bush family that his nickname was “Bandar Bush.”

Moussaoui claimed, too, that he passed letters between Osama bin Laden and then Crown Prince Salman, who recently became king upon the death of his brother King Abdullah.

While the Saudi government denied Moussaoui’s accusations, Saudi and other Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms have been identified in recent years as financial backers of Sunni militants fighting in Syria to overthrow Assad’s largely secular regime, with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front the major rebel force benefiting from this support.

Shared Israeli Interests

The Israelis also have found themselves on the side of these Sunni militants in Syria because the Israelis share the Saudi view that Iran and the so-called “Shiite crescent” – reaching from Tehran to Beirut – is the greatest threat to their interests.

In September 2013, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close Netanyahu adviser, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. “The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post in an interview.

“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.

In June 2014, speaking as a former ambassador at an Aspen Institute conference, Oren expanded on his position, saying Israel would even prefer a victory by the brutal Islamic State over continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said.

That hostility toward Assad’s regime has taken a tactical form with Israeli forces launching attacks inside Syria that benefit Nusra Front. For instance, on Jan. 18, 2015, Israel attacked Lebanese-Iranian advisers assisting Assad’s government in Syria, killing several members of Hezbollah and an Iranian general. These military advisers were engaged in operations against Nusra Front.

Meanwhile, Israel has refrained from attacking Nusra militants who have seized Syrian territory near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. One source familiar with U.S. intelligence information on Syria told me that Israel has a “non-aggression pact” with Nusra forces, who have even received medical treatment at Israeli hospitals.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have found themselves on the same side in other regional struggles, including support for the military’s ouster of the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, but most importantly they have joined forces in their hostility toward Shiite-ruled Iran.

I first reported on the growing relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia in August 2013 in an article entitled “The Saudi-Israeli Superpower,” noting that the complementary strengths of the two countries made their alliance a potentially powerful influence in the world. Israel could wield political and media clout while the Saudis could use their oil, money and investments.

At the time, the story was met with much skepticism, but, increasingly, the secret alliance has gone public. On Oct. 1, 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu hinted at it in his United Nations General Assembly speech, which was largely devoted to excoriating Iran over its nuclear program and threatening a unilateral Israeli military strike.

Amid the bellicosity, Netanyahu dropped in a largely missed clue about the evolving power relationships in the Middle East, saying: “The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our Arab neighbors to recognize, finally recognize, that Israel is not their enemy. And this affords us the opportunity to overcome the historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes.”

The next day, Israel’s Channel 2 TV news reported that senior Israeli security officials had met with a high-level Gulf state counterpart in Jerusalem, believed to be Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States who was then head of Saudi intelligence.

Even the MSM

The reality of this unlikely alliance has now even reached the mainstream U.S. media. For instance, Time magazine correspondent Joe Klein described the new coziness in an article in the Jan. 19, 2015 issue.

He wrote: “On May 26, 2014, an unprecedented public conversation took place in Brussels. Two former high-ranking spymasters of Israel and Saudi Arabia – Amos Yadlin and Prince Turki al-Faisal – sat together for more than an hour, talking regional politics in a conversation moderated by the Washington Post’s David Ignatius.

“They disagreed on some things, like the exact nature of an Israel-Palestine peace settlement, and agreed on others: the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat, the need to support the new military government in Egypt, the demand for concerted international action in Syria. The most striking statement came from Prince Turki. He said the Arabs had ‘crossed the Rubicon’ and ‘don’t want to fight Israel anymore.’”

Israel and Saudi Arabia also have collaborated in efforts to put the squeeze on Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who is deemed a key supporter of both Iran and Syria. The Saudis have used their power over oil production to drive down prices and hurt Russia’s economy, while U.S. neoconservatives – who share Israel’s geopolitical world view – were at the forefront of the coup that ousted Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych a year ago.

Saudi hostility toward Russia also surfaced in 2013 when Bandar met Putin and delivered what Putin viewed as a crude threat to unleash Chechen terrorists against the Sochi Winter Olympics if Putin did not reduce his support for the Syrian government.

According to a leaked diplomatic account of a July 31, 2013 meeting in Moscow, Bandar informed Putin that Saudi Arabia had strong influence over Chechen extremists who had carried out numerous terrorist attacks against Russian targets and who had since deployed to join the fight against the Assad regime in Syria.

As Bandar called for a Russian shift toward the Saudi position on Syria, he reportedly offered guarantees of protection from Chechen terror attacks on the Olympics. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year,” Bandar reportedly said. “The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

Putin responded, “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism.”

Bandar’s Mafia-like threat toward the Sochi games – a version of “nice Olympics you got here, it’d be a shame if something terrible happened to it” – failed to intimidate Putin, who continued to support Assad. But Putin became obsessed with security at Sochi, distracting him from the worsening crisis in Ukraine where Yanukovych was ousted in a neocon-orchestrated coup on Feb. 22, 2014, a day before the Olympic torch was extinguished.

Now, with Obama nearing a possible agreement to rein in but not end Iran’s nuclear program – against the wishes of the Israeli-Saudi tag team – the leak in the Israeli media suggests that Netanyahu with the support of Saudi Arabia’s royal family may be contemplating his own bombing campaign against Iran.

Robert Parry is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984. He has been the editor of Consortium News since 1995.
26 February 15

 

 

By Michael Schwartz

How Gazan Natural Gas Became the Epicenter of An International Power Struggle

Guess what? Almost all the current wars, uprisings, and other conflicts in the Middle East are connected by a single thread, which is also a threat: these conflicts are part of an increasingly frenzied competition to find, extract, and market fossil fuels whose future consumption is guaranteed to lead to a set of cataclysmic environmental crises.

Amid the many fossil-fueled conflicts in the region, one of them, packed with threats, large and small, has been largely overlooked, and Israel is at its epicenter. Its origins can be traced back to the early 1990s when Israeli and Palestinian leaders began sparring over rumored natural gas deposits in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Gaza. In the ensuing decades, it has grown into a many-fronted conflict involving several armies and three navies. In the process, it has already inflicted mindboggling misery on tens of thousands of Palestinians, and it threatens to add future layers of misery to the lives of people in Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus. Eventually, it might even immiserate Israelis.

Resource wars are, of course, nothing new. Virtually the entire history of Western colonialism and post-World War II globalization has been animated by the effort to find and market the raw materials needed to build or maintain industrial capitalism. This includes Israel’s expansion into, and appropriation of, Palestinian lands. But fossil fuels only moved to center stage in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship in the 1990s, and that initially circumscribed conflict only spread to include Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey, and Russia after 2010.

The Poisonous History of Gazan Natural Gas

Back in 1993, when Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) signed the Oslo Accords that were supposed to end the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and create a sovereign state, nobody was thinking much about Gaza’s coastline. As a result, Israel agreed that the newly created PA would fully control its territorial waters, even though the Israeli navy was still patrolling the area. Rumored natural gas deposits there mattered little to anyone, because prices were then so low and supplies so plentiful. No wonder that the Palestinians took their time recruiting British Gas (BG) — a major player in the global natural gas sweepstakes — to find out what was actually there. Only in 2000 did the two parties even sign a modest contract to develop those by-then confirmed fields.

BG promised to finance and manage their development, bear all the costs, and operate the resulting facilities in exchange for 90% of the revenues, an exploitative but typical “profit-sharing” agreement. With an already functioning natural gas industry, Egypt agreed to be the on-shore hub and transit point for the gas. The Palestinians were to receive 10% of the revenues (estimated at about a billion dollars in total) and were guaranteed access to enough gas to meet their needs.

Had this process moved a little faster, the contract might have been implemented as written. In 2000, however, with a rapidly expanding economy, meager fossil fuels, and terrible relations with its oil-rich neighbors, Israel found itself facing a chronic energy shortage. Instead of attempting to answer its problem with an aggressive but feasible effort to develop renewable sources of energy, Prime Minister Ehud Barak initiated the era of Eastern Mediterranean fossil fuel conflicts. He brought Israel’s naval control of Gazan coastal waters to bear and nixed the deal with BG. Instead, he demanded that Israel, not Egypt, receive the Gaza gas and that it also control all the revenues destined for the Palestinians — to prevent the money from being used to “fund terror.”

With this, the Oslo Accords were officially doomed. By declaring Palestinian control over gas revenues unacceptable, the Israeli government committed itself to not accepting even the most limited kind of Palestinian budgetary autonomy, let alone full sovereignty. Since no Palestinian government or organization would agree to this, a future filled with armed conflict was assured.

The Israeli veto led to the intervention of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who sought to broker an agreement that would satisfy both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. The result: a 2007 proposal that would have delivered the gas to Israel, not Egypt, at below-market prices, with the same 10% cut of the revenues eventually reaching the PA. However, those funds were first to be delivered to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York for future distribution, which was meant to guarantee that they would not be used for attacks on Israel.

This arrangement still did not satisfy the Israelis, who pointed to the recent victory of the militant Hamas party in Gaza elections as a deal-breaker. Though Hamas had agreed to let the Federal Reserve supervise all spending, the Israeli government, now led by Ehud Olmert, insisted that no “royalties be paid to the Palestinians.” Instead, the Israelis would deliver the equivalent of those funds “in goods and services.”

This offer the Palestinian government refused. Soon after, Olmert imposed a draconian blockade on Gaza, which Israel’s defense minister termed a form of “‘economic warfare’ that would generate a political crisis, leading to a popular uprising against Hamas.” With Egyptian cooperation, Israel then seized control of all commerce in and out of Gaza, severely limiting even food imports and eliminating its fishing industry. As Olmert advisor Dov Weisglass summed up this agenda, the Israeli government was putting the Palestinians “on a diet” (which, according to the Red Cross, soon produced “chronic malnutrition,” especially among Gazan children).

When the Palestinians still refused to accept Israel’s terms, the Olmert government decided to unilaterally extract the gas, something that, they believed, could only occur once Hamas had been displaced or disarmed. As former Israel Defense Forces commander and current Foreign Minister Moshe Ya’alon explained, “Hamas… has confirmed its capability to bomb Israel’s strategic gas and electricity installations… It is clear that, without an overall military operation to uproot Hamas control of Gaza, no drilling work can take place without the consent of the radical Islamic movement.”

Following this logic, Operation Cast Lead was launched in the winter of 2008. According to Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, it was intended to subject Gaza to a “shoah” (the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster). Yoav Galant, the commanding general of the Operation, said that it was designed to “send Gaza decades into the past.” As Israeli parliamentarian Tzachi Hanegbiexplained, the specific military goal was “to topple the Hamas terror regime and take over all the areas from which rockets are fired on Israel.”

Operation Cast Lead did indeed “send Gaza decades into the past.” Amnesty International reported that the 22-day offensive killed 1,400 Palestinians, “including some 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians, and large areas of Gaza had been razed to the ground, leaving many thousands homeless and the already dire economy in ruins.” The only problem: Operation Cast Lead did not achieve its goal of “transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel.”

More Sources of Gas Equal More Resource Wars

In 2009, the newly elected government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inherited the stalemate around Gaza’s gas deposits and an Israeli energy crisis that only grew more severe when the Arab Spring in Egyptinterrupted and then obliterated 40% of the country’s gas supplies. Rising energy prices soon contributed to the largest protests involving Jewish Israelis in decades.

As it happened, however, the Netanyahu regime also inherited a potentially permanent solution to the problem. An immense field of recoverable natural gas was discovered in the Levantine Basin, a mainly offshore formation under the eastern Mediterranean. Israeli officials immediately asserted that “most” of the newly confirmed gas reserves lay “within Israeli territory.” In doing so, they ignored contrary claims by Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, and the Palestinians.

In some other world, this immense gas field might have been effectively exploited by the five claimants jointly, and a production plan might even have been put in place to ameliorate the environmental impact of releasing a future 130 trillion cubic feet of gas into the planet’s atmosphere. However, as Pierre Terzian, editor of the oil industry journal Petrostrategies, observed, “All the elements of danger are there… This is a region where resorting to violent action is not something unusual.”

In the three years that followed the discovery, Terzian’s warning seemed ever more prescient. Lebanon became the first hot spot. In early 2011, the Israeli government announced the unilateral development of two fields, about 10%of that Levantine Basin gas, which lay in disputed offshore waters near the Israeli-Lebanese border. Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil immediately threatened a military confrontation, asserting that his country would “not allow Israel or any company working for Israeli interests to take any amount of our gas that is falling in our zone.” Hezbollah, the most aggressive political faction in Lebanon, promised rocket attacks if “a single meter” of natural gas was extracted from the disputed fields.

Israel’s Resource Minister accepted the challenge, asserting that “[t]hese areas are within the economic waters of Israel… We will not hesitate to use our force and strength to protect not only the rule of law but the international maritime law.”

Oil industry journalist Terzian offered this analysis of the realities of the confrontation:

“In practical terms… nobody is going to invest with Lebanon in disputed waters. There are no Lebanese companies there capable of carrying out the drilling, and there is no military force that could protect them. But on the other side, things are different. You have Israeli companies that have the ability to operate in offshore areas, and they could take the risk under the protection of the Israeli military.”

Sure enough, Israel continued its exploration and drilling in the two disputed fields, deploying drones to guard the facilities. Meanwhile, the Netanyahu government invested major resources in preparing for possible future military confrontations in the area. For one thing, with lavish U.S. funding, itdeveloped the “Iron Dome” anti-missile defense system designed in part to intercept Hezbollah and Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli energy facilities. It also expanded the Israeli navy, focusing on its ability to deter or repel threats to offshore energy facilities. Finally, starting in 2011 it launched airstrikes in Syria designed, according to U.S. officials, “to prevent any transfer of advanced… antiaircraft, surface-to-surface and shore-to-ship missiles” to Hezbollah.

Nonetheless, Hezbollah continued to stockpile rockets capable of demolishing Israeli facilities. And in 2013, Lebanon made a move of its own. It began negotiating with Russia. The goal was to get that country’s gas firms to develop Lebanese offshore claims, while the formidable Russian navy would lend a hand with the “long-running territorial dispute with Israel.”

By the beginning of 2015, a state of mutual deterrence appeared to be setting in. Although Israel had succeeded in bringing online the smaller of the two fields it set out to develop, drilling in the larger one was indefinitely stalled”in light of the security situation.” U.S. contractor Noble Energy, hired by the Israelis, was unwilling to invest the necessary $6 billion dollars in facilities that would be vulnerable to Hezbollah attack, and potentially in the gun sights of the Russian navy. On the Lebanese side, despite an increased Russian naval presence in the region, no work had begun.

Meanwhile, in Syria, where violence was rife and the country in a state of armed collapse, another kind of stalemate went into effect. The regime of Bashar al-Assad, facing a ferocious threat from various groups of jihadists, survived in part by negotiating massive military support from Russia in exchange for a 25-year contract to develop Syria’s claims to that Levantine gas field. Included in the deal was a major expansion of the Russian naval base at the port city of Tartus, ensuring a far larger Russian naval presence in the Levantine Basin.

While the presence of the Russians apparently deterred the Israelis from attempting to develop any Syrian-claimed gas deposits, there was no Russian presence in Syria proper. So Israel contracted with the U.S.-based Genie Energy Corporation to locate and develop oil fields in the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by the Israelis since 1967. Facing a potential violation of international law, the Netanyahu government invoked, as the basis for its acts, an Israeli court ruling that the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territories was legal. At the same time, to prepare for the inevitable battle with whichever faction or factions emerged triumphant from the Syrian civil war, it began shoring up the Israeli military presence in the Golan Heights.

And then there was Cyprus, the only Levantine claimant not at war with Israel. Greek Cypriots had long been in chronic conflict with Turkish Cypriots, so it was hardly surprising that the Levantine natural gas discovery triggered three years of deadlocked negotiations on the island over what to do. In 2014, the Greek Cypriots signed an exploration contract with Noble Energy, Israel’s chief contractor. The Turkish Cypriots trumped this move by signing a contract with Turkey to explore all Cypriot claims “as far as Egyptian waters.” Emulating Israel and Russia, the Turkish government promptly moved three navy vessels into the area to physically block any intervention by other claimants.

As a result, four years of maneuvering around the newly discovered Levantine Basin deposits have produced little energy, but brought new and powerful claimants into the mix, launched a significant military build-up in the region, and heightened tensions immeasurably.

Gaza Again — and Again

Remember the Iron Dome system, developed in part to stop Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel’s northern gas fields? Over time, it was put in place near the border with Gaza to stop Hamas rockets, and was tested during Operation Returning Echo, the fourth Israeli military attempt to bring Hamas to heel and eliminate any Palestinian “capability to bomb Israel’s strategic gas and electricity installations.”

Launched in March 2012, it replicated on a reduced scale the devastation of Operation Cast Lead, while the Iron Dome achieved a 90% “kill rate” against Hamas rockets. Even this, however, while a useful adjunct to the vast shelter system built to protect Israeli civilians, was not enough to ensure the protection of the country’s exposed oil facilities. Even one direct hit there could damage or demolish such fragile and flammable structures.

The failure of Operation Returning Echo to settle anything triggered another round of negotiations, which once again stalled over the Palestinian rejection of Israel’s demand to control all fuel and revenues destined for Gaza and the West Bank. The new Palestinian Unity government then followed the lead of the Lebanese, Syrians, and Turkish Cypriots, and in late 2013 signed an “exploration concession” with Gazprom, the huge Russian natural gas company. As with Lebanon and Syria, the Russian Navy loomed as a potential deterrent to Israeli interference.

Meanwhile, in 2013, a new round of energy blackouts caused “chaos” across Israel, triggering a draconian 47% increase in electricity prices. In response, the Netanyahu government considered a proposal to begin extracting domestic shale oil, but the potential contamination of water resources caused a backlash movement that frustrated this effort. In a country filled with start-up high-tech firms, the exploitation of renewable energy sources was still not being given serious attention. Instead, the government once again turned to Gaza.

With Gazprom’s move to develop the Palestinian-claimed gas deposits on the horizon, the Israelis launched their fifth military effort to force Palestinian acquiescence, Operation Protective Edge. It had two major hydrocarbon-related goals: to deter Palestinian-Russian plans and to finally eliminate the Gazan rocket systems. The first goal was apparently met when Gazprom postponed (perhaps permanently) its development deal. The second, however, failed when the two-pronged land and air attack — despite unprecedented devastation in Gaza — failed to destroy Hamas’s rocket stockpiles or its tunnel-based assembly system; nor did the Iron Dome achieve the sort of near-perfect interception rate needed to protect proposed energy installations.

There Is No Denouement

After 25 years and five failed Israeli military efforts, Gaza’s natural gas is still underwater and, after four years, the same can be said for almost all of the Levantine gas. But things are not the same. In energy terms, Israel is ever more desperate, even as it has been building up its military, including its navy, in significant ways. The other claimants have, in turn, found larger and more powerful partners to help reinforce their economic and military claims. All of this undoubtedly means that the first quarter-century of crisis over eastern Mediterranean natural gas has been nothing but prelude. Ahead lies the possibility of bigger gas wars with the devastation they are likely to bring.

Michael Schwartz, an emeritus distinguished teaching professor of sociology at Stony Brook University, is a TomDispatch regular and the author of the award-winning books Radical Protest and Social Structure and The Power Structure of American Business (with Beth Mintz). His TomDispatch book,War Without End, focused on how the militarized geopolitics of oil led the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq. His email address is Michael.Schwartz@stonybrook.edu.

26 February, 2015
TomDispatch.com

Copyright 2015 Michael Schwartz

 

By Serge Jordan

Libyan people bearing the brunt of NATO’s fiasco

On February 15, a Libyan group acting allegedly on behalf of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS), released a gruesome video. It was of the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christian workers held hostage by them since last December. While some technical experts have since argued that parts of the video, such as the backdrop of the beach of the port city of Sirte where these beheadings appear to have been staged, have been faked, the fate of these workers is likely sealed. Recent events have in any case brought to light how the Libyan territory has become a new ground for the IS project of geographical expansion.

This video of the beheadings immediately provoked retaliations from Cairo’s military regime. Egyptian fighter-jets launched a series of airstrikes in Darna, a city under effective IS control since last year. Despite official claims of targeting “training camps and weapons caches”, seven innocent civilians were killed in heavily populated areas of the city during the course of the operation. Last Friday, a group of militants claiming loyalty to IS killed another 42 people in three suicide car bombings in Qubbah, a small mountain town in eastern Libya, in apparent response to the Egyptian air strikes. More Egyptians have also been taken hostage since. About 15,000 workers have reportedly fled Libya back to Egypt in the last couple of days, fearing further retribution.

This recent show of forces marks a new escalation in the violence which has gripped Libya in recent years.

Egypt’s role

The Egyptian rulers’ pretext of avenging the blood of the Coptic workers killed by IS is farcical. For decades, the Coptic minority in Egypt has been enduring numerous abuses, repression and scapegoating by the ruling class. For all its posturing, the Egyptian state is also the custodian of the very economic system which pushes hundreds of thousands of Egyptians to try and escape poverty and unemployment by seeking jobs abroad. Despite many leaving, it is estimated that over 700,000 Egyptian workers still currently live in Libya.

Many of them, coming from the poorest areas of Egypt, work in low-paid and precarious jobs to sustain their families back home, despite the appalling security conditions. As reported by Reuters: “In the Egyptian village of Al-Our, about 200 km (125 miles) south of Cairo, it is easy to see why young men take the risk. There are no paved roads, clean drinking water or adequate health care.”

The military intervention of the Egyptian army on the Libyan battlefield is not new; the regime, in collaboration with the Emirati government, has carried out several airstrikes before. Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi seeks to export his battle between brutal dictatorship and religious extremism on to Libyan soil, to divert attention away from the growing crisis of his regime, and to whip up the fractured prestige of his army – responsible for mass murders, torture and other brutal methods of repression against political opponents. Sisi also hopes to use the airstrikes as a launch pad for installing a like-minded authoritarian regime on Egypt’s western borders.

Egyptian generals, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have thrown their weight behind Libyan General Khalifa Haftar, an ex-officer of Gaddafi’s army. He broke with Gaddafi’s regime at the end of the 1980s to defect to the United States, and has worked closely with the CIA ever since. Haftar is an aspiring dictator who thinks that an iron rule is the only way to sort out the country’s problems. “Eliminating the Islamist threat”, with whom he fought side-by-side during the war against Gaddafi, has become his new mantra.

Haftar’s army, composed of many residues from the old regime’s military, until now has been in a precarious alliance with the so-called ‘official’ government of Libya. This government, which has the blessing of Western imperialism, is now based in the Eastern city of Tobruk, close to the Egyptian border. It was thrown out of the capital Tripoli in August 2014 by Libya Dawn. This is a loose network of Islamist-leaning militias allied with brigades from the north-western city of Misrata and with officials of the former Parliament, the General National Congress.

Libya Dawn has since established a competing government and parliament with the backing of the Qatari and Turkish regimes, and is controlling Tripoli and a few chunks of the western side of the country.

In reality, both these ‘governments’ are barely able to impose much order beyond the cities where they are based. The country is breaking apart into an intricate patchwork of fiefs controlled by local militias, often based on tribal or regional affiliations, fighting for territories and influence.

The idea often propagated in the media of a battle between an ‘Islamist’ and a ‘secular’ government is over-simplistic. The Saudi and Emirati monarchies, who are backing the Tobruk-based government and General Haftar’s campaign, are not models of secularism themselves. Libya has become the scene of a bloody battle between rival power centres backing competing militias, supported by various outside players using the country as a stage for a new version of the proxy wars engulfing the region. Oil wealth and weapons have become much more important bargaining chips for these militias and their political backers than principled considerations of any sort.

For these reasons, shifts in existing loyalties are probable in what appears to be an extremely volatile situation. Among other things, tensions are developing between the weak, exiled rulers of Tobruk (so weak they had to retreat for a time to a Greek car ferry on the city’s harbour!) and the would-be military strongman Haftar. Haftar is building support for military rule, boosted by Egypt’s cash and weapons. He might aim to sideline his previous allies to impose a dictatorial statelet in the eastern part of the country, installing himself in power.

Another failed State

In 2011, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi warned that if toppled, he would be replaced by “tribalism, Islamic extremism and anarchy”. This warning was thrown out as a threat against all those daring to challenge his regime, but succeeding developments have proved him right. Yet this was not inevitable. The lack of a viable left-wing alternative to Gaddafi’s rule allowed what was initially a popular uprising to be derailed. While signs of regionalisation and city-based differences in the protest movement existed from the start, in part inherited from Gaddafi’s divide-and-rule system of favours and retributions, the subsequent military intervention by the NATO powers paved the way for the colossal disaster that we are witnessing today.

Three years ago, the Obama administration and its French and British counterparts heralded the toppling of Gaddafi as a humanitarian triumph and a new model for Western intervention. NATO officials even declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.”

But as the CWI highlighted at the time, the NATO forces never intervened in Libya with the aim of coming to the rescue of the Libyan people. The aim was to turn the tide of the mass revolutionary uprisings which had started in Tunisia and Egypt and had caught them off guard, to sideline the most popular grassroots elements of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, and to impose a regime more subservient to the interests of Western oil giants and multinational corporations. This was even though Gaddafi’s clique had cozied up to Western governments and to neo-liberal reforms in the last decade of his reign.

For this purpose, Western powers did not hesitate to provide training, weapons and money to notorious Al Qaeda-linked jihadists. Some of the most prominent trainers of rebel forces in 2011 included militants who had been imprisoned at Guantanamo. This included, as revealed by the New York Times back in April 2011, the notorious Abu Sufian Bin Qumu, a founding member of the Salafist militia Ansar al Sharia. This group is held responsible for the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in September 2012. Its Tunisian branch also organised the assassination of two prominent left-wing political leaders in 2013.

While the demise of Gaddafi was welcomed by significant layers of the Libyan population, this was done through a mass bombing campaign that caused large-scale civilian killings and destruction on the country’s infrastructure. It was also through the promotion of a myriad of unaccountable militias, of pro-imperialist “free market upstarts” keen to do business with the West, and of religious fundamentalists ready to use their newly acquired influence to bite the hand that had fed them before.

On the toppling of Gaddafi, the CWI commented in October 2011: “If this had been purely the result of struggle by the Libyan working masses it would have been widely acclaimed, but the direct involvement of imperialism casts a dark shadow over the revolution’s future”.

The CWI argued against those on the left such as the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL) or the so-called Marxist professor and USFI supporter Gilbert Achcar, who had stood in favour of imperialist intervention in Libya under the guise of preventing Gaddafi from committing atrocities against his own people. Figures from Claudia Gazzini, a journalist for the Middle East Research and Information Project, have exposed the fallacy of such arguments: “the death toll subsequent to the seven-month NATO intervention was at least ten times greater than the tally of those killed in the first few weeks of the conflict”.

Revealingly, the same “left interventionists” have since been totally oblivious to the horrors and sufferings generated by the policy they supported at the time, which has made life for ordinary Libyans far worse than what it was even under the tyranny of Gaddafi.

Libya has now become a source of instability for the whole region, a regional magnet for the training and harbouring of jihadist fighters, as well as a flourishing market for weapons, drugs and human trafficking. According to the UN, at least 400,000 people have been internally displaced by fighting across the country, with as many as 83,000 people living in camps, schools and abandoned buildings. Over a million Libyan refugees have fled to Tunisia. Several reports indicate that the vast majority of the Libyan exiles who had returned after Gaddafi’s fall have left as well.

The country is facing an unprecedented level of violence. Targeted assassinations and torture have become commonplace; migrant workers are subject to horrific abuse; and a lot of basic services are dysfunctional if they have not collapsed all together. “Your friends in Britain and France will stand with you as you build your democracy” were the words of British Prime Minister David Cameron as he visited Benghazi with ex-French President Nicolas Sarkozy in September 2011. Yet, all Western embassies in Libya have now packed up and gone, incapable of even guaranteeing the security of their own staff.

Islamic State

Several armed radical Islamist factions in Libya have declared their recent allegiance to IS, as the latter has gained supporters in some key parts of the country. Religious fundamentalist groups admittedly existed in Libya prior to 2011, but their influence was relatively limited. Sectarian killings, such as perpetrated against the Egyptian Christian workers, is a recent phenomenon.

The calamitous state of the country, the free fall in living standards, the huge resentment against the actions of Western imperialism, and the massive amount of weaponry available in the country have all provided a breeding ground for IS-type jihadists. It is no accident that the coastal town of Sirte has arguably become a stronghold of IS militancy. The birthplace of Gaddafi and once a relatively prosperous city, Sirte has been reduced to ruins by intense NATO bombings.

Socialist programme needed

Only formed by the Italian colonial power in 1934, Libya is facing the possibility of violent break-up. The toppling of Gadaffi has given birth to a multitude of little tyrants, mercenaries and warlords carving up the country. The added intervention of various foreign actors is exacerbating existing tensions and heightening the possibility for more bloodshed.

The Libyan people, the poor, the oppressed and the workers, need to build wherever possible independently-run organisations that can help them bring back on the agenda a collective struggle for their most vital and pressing needs. They will need to confront all those forces basing themselves upon any form of economic plundering, corruption and violent suppression of the people.

Such a struggle would need to be equipped with a programme standing for full and equal democratic and social rights for all, repudiating any form of discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, religion, tribe, regional or city affiliation.

The potential for ordinary people to challenge the rule of reactionary militias has been expressed on a number of occasions in the last period. The setting up of democratically organised, accountable and non-sectarian workers and poor people’s defence committees in the neighbourhoods could assist in giving a more organised expression to this struggle, and in protecting communities from the rampaging violence from multiple sides which is ripping the country’s apart.

The Libyan people need to be able to determine their own future. Any further meddling and military intervention by regional and western powers needs to be vigorously opposed. The drums for a new international military intervention have been beating from some European quarters -even though it is rather likely that Western governments will try to avoid a new military campaign in the country at this stage.

These powers have clearly demonstrated that they are no friends of ordinary Libyans. As revealed by the first wave of revolts and revolutions that swept through the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011, only in the masses of the working class, the youth and the oppressed of other countries will the Libyans find a genuine ally in their struggle for social and political change.

A “neat” military coup on a national scale is unlikely, seeing the state of erosion of the Libyan state machine. But a section of the military wing led by General Haftar and his clique could exploit the despair and the fear of jihadists among large sections of the Libyan population to try and impose some form of military rule in the eastern side of the country.

However, as shown by the growing violence in the Sinai Peninsula and other parts of Egypt, the butcher-like methods of repression of Sisi, that his henchman Haftar wants to emulate in Libya, will only lead to further terrorist blowbacks. This will not address any of the problems faced by the Libyan people.

Mass action from the grassroots is necessary to oppose jihadists’ atrocities, corrupt militias, military adventurers, and the broader, nightmarish scenario of a violent disintegration of the country.

Importantly, a struggle for decent jobs and better living standards, for adequate and functioning infrastructure and services needs to take centre stage, in order to cut across the social basis of support for religious extremism. Independent trade unions need to be built in the workplaces to defend migrant workers and all workers’ rights, to fight for better wages and working conditions. Such unions can play a pivotal role in resisting the spread of racism and religious sectarianism.

Eventually, the Libyan people should strive for a government based on representatives of workers and poor and all oppressed layers of society, elected via democratic structures in the workplaces and communities.

By refusing any deal with big business and any privatisation of Libyan assets, by bringing back under public ownership and democratic people’s control the massive gas and oil reserves and other resources, a plan could be outlined for rebuilding the country to offer a better future for all Libyans.

Serge Jordan works for the Committee for a Workers’ International
26 February, 2015
Socialistworld.net

 

By Sarah Lazare

‘It is my obligation,’ says Israeli prime minister, ‘to do everything that I can to prevent this agreement.’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged on Tuesday that the purpose of his upcoming visit to Washington, D.C. is to do “everything I can” to prevent a nuclear deal between global powers and Iran—an admission that critics say reveals he is pushing for military escalation and potentially war.

“This agreement, if indeed it is signed, will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state,” Netanyahu declared in a statement released Tuesday, according to media reports. “It is my obligation as prime minister to do everything that I can to prevent this agreement.”

“Therefore,” he continued, “I will go to Washington… because the American Congress is likely to be the final brake before the agreement.”

Critics say that the prime minister’s push to undermine the diplomatic process is ultimately a call for dangerous military escalation.

According to Jamal Abdi of the National Iranian American Council, who spoke with Common Dreams, “A shorter version of what Netanyahu is saying is he is coming to Washington to ensure we can’t get a diplomatic solution and are on the path to war.”

Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams that amid the controversy over his visit, the prime minister is facing a growing crisis of international legitimacy.

“Luckily Netanyahu has so thoroughly discredited himself that ‘everything I can do’ is likely to be limited to speaking to adoring crowds at AIPAC, receiving concocted standing ovations in Congress, and watching pretty much everyone else in Washington run away from him so no embarrassing picture might emerge,” said Bennis.

Numerous doubts have been cast on Netanyahu’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program, including by Israel’s own spy agency Mossad, as leaked documents revealed earlier this week.

While there is no proof that Iran has a program to develop an atom bomb, Israel is the only Middle East nation that is known to possess nuclear weapons and has refused to sign the international non-proliferation treaty.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu has aggressively opposed any deal—or even talks—between Iran and the five members of the United Nations Security Council (U.S., Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France) plus Germany. His address to Washington is slated to take place shortly before Israeli elections. Over the course of the campaign, Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized unverified claims over threats posed by Iran to bolster his own candidacy.

Meanwhile, a political divide in Washington over the visit—which was arranged by GOP House Speaker John Boehner and the Israeli ambassador without the blessing of the White House—continues to deepen.

Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice slammed Netanyahu in an interview with the PBS show Charlie Rose on Tuesday, charging that his slated visit has “injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship.”

According to the New York Times, Rice’s statement is “the frankest acknowledgment yet by a top American official of the degree to which the controversy has damaged United States-Israeli relations.”

Also on Tuesday, Netanyahu turned down an invitation from Senate Democrats Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) for a closed-door meeting during his visit. “I regret that the invitation to address the special joint session of Congress has been perceived by some to be political or partisan,” Netanyahu told them. “I can assure you that my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel’s grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country.”

Notably, top Obama administration officials will not be attending the talk, and a congressional boycott, which has been backed by human rights and Palestine solidarity groups, has been steadily gaining support.

“The willingness by leading political figures—including the president, vice president, and secretary of state—to simply refuse to meet with the Israeli leader is a huge breakthrough that was made possible by the years of organizing by human rights activists working to expose and end U.S. complicity with Israeli war crimes and violations of human rights,” said Bennis.

Bennis added that Netanyahu’s actions may, in fact, prove to bolster these grassroots efforts. Even for Netanyahu, said Bennis, it appears that the prime minister’s “chutzpah may have gotten out in front of him this time.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

26 February, 2015
Commondreams.org

 

By Peter Symonds

Talks this week in Geneva between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif appear to have taken a step toward a long-term agreement over Iran’s nuclear programs. The prospect of a deal to end the protracted US confrontation with the Iranian regime has already fuelled considerable tension between Washington and its allies in the Middle East, particularly the Israeli government.

Details of the closed-door negotiations leaked to the American media point to a pact that would limit or reduce Iran’s existing uranium enrichment capability for a lengthy period, then allow it to increase the number of gas centrifuges that are used to enrich uranium. The US and its allies have accused Tehran of seeking to build a nuclear weapon, a charge that Iranian leaders have repeatedly denied.

The presence of US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Ali Akbar Salehi, director of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, in Geneva points to high-level discussions of various technical aspects of an agreement. Many questions remain unanswered, including the time frames involved and the ending of crippling US-led sanctions—the critical issue for Iranian leaders. Press reports this week suggesting that the freeze on Iran’s uranium enrichment could be 10 years provoked sharp criticism from US Congressional Republican leaders and Israeli ministers.

Republican Senator Bob Corker, the foreign relations committee chairman, declared that 10 years was not long enough and was “very concerning.” Another Republican, Lindsey Graham, denounced the Obama administration for negotiating with Iranian officials who are “hell bent on expanding their influence in the Mideast in a destructive fashion.”

Israel’s Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said on Monday that Israel considered the negotiations “totally unsatisfactory,” as a deal would allow Iran to be “extremely close” to a “dangerous breakout program.” He condemned a 10-year time frame as “sacrificing the future of Israel and the US, and the future of the world.”

The Israeli government has bitterly opposed the negotiations from the outset and repeatedly threatened military action against Iran if all Tehran’s nuclear facilities were not dismantled. Israel, which has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, is determined to ensure its unchallenged military superiority in the Middle East.

Relations between the Obama administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will address the US Congress next week at the invitation of Republican leaders, have become rancorous. Obama has declined to meet Netanyahu, who will undoubtedly use his speech to denounce the talks with Iran.

On Tuesday, Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice declared that Netanyahu’s decision to travel to Washington before next month’s election in Israel was “destructive of the fabric of the relationship” between the two countries.

Addressing US Senate hearings on Tuesday, Secretary of State Kerry defended the talks with Iran and dismissed suggestions that a time-frame was decided. “The answer is the proverbial ‘don’t believe what you read.’ I’ve told you it’s not true,” he said. Kerry said he expects to know soon if Tehran would agree to “an acceptable and verifiable plan” to curtail its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

The US has always placed the onus on Iran to demonstrate that it has no plans to build a nuclear weapon. In practice, this means severe restrictions on its uranium enrichment to ensure no possibility of “break-out”—that is, to produce enough weapons-grade uranium—within a year. The US has also demanded a highly intrusive inspection regime, on top of the International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring of all Iranian nuclear facilities.

The negotiations involving the so-called P5+1 group—the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany—began with an interim agreement in November 2013 that followed the election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in June. Iran was compelled to freeze or limit much of its nuclear activity in return for limited sanctions relief. After the initial deadlines ran out, the talks were extended last November to the end of next month to secure the framework of an agreement, and June to finalise it.

The Obama administration has deliberately dragged out the talks to force Iran to agree to its terms. Punitive US-led economic sanctions have halved Iran’s oil exports, sent inflation spiralling and slashed government revenue. The current slump in global oil prices has further hit the Iranian economy, with growth expected to more than halve to 2 or even 1 percent in the coming fiscal year.

Iranian President Rouhani insisted on Wednesday that a comprehensive nuclear agreement would have to include the lifting of international sanctions. “The side negotiating with us should know that conclusion of the talks and the result of a deal should be removal of the whole oppressive and illegal sanctions,” he said.

Rouhani had the backing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to proceed with the negotiations. Khamenei, who has the ultimate say over foreign and defence policies, has to date kept conservative critics of the talks inside Iran in check. He warned yesterday that if the US and its allies retained the sanctions, Iran could retaliate by holding “back gas that Europe and the world is so dependent on.”

While pressing for an agreement to end the sanctions, the Iranian regime is keeping its options open should the talks fail. Last week, Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan signed an agreement in Moscow to expand military ties between the two countries. Noting their shared viewpoints, Dehghan said: “Iran and Russia are able to confront the expansionist intervention and greed of the United States through cooperation, synergy and activating strategic potential capacities.”

Any nuclear agreement faces numerous obstacles. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, a pro-Western Iranian exile group, claimed on Tuesday to have evidence that Iran was conducting secret nuclear research and some uranium enrichment at a site dubbed Lavizan-3. These claims are clearly aimed at undermining the negotiations. This organisation has in the past been used by Israeli intelligence as a conduit for publishing allegations against the Iranian regime.

While Israel has publicly opposed the talks, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are no less hostile to a deal with Iran. Saudi Arabia, which regards Iran as a dangerous regional rival, has threatened to develop its own nuclear programs if Tehran is permitted to maintain its nuclear facilities. An unnamed Arab official told the Wall Street Journal last week: “At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal.”

With further US-Iranian negotiations due next week, tensions will undoubtedly continue to rise. Provocations or military action aimed at sabotaging the negotiations cannot be ruled out. In the five years up to 2012, Israeli intelligence engaged in a criminal campaign of assassinations and sabotage inside Iran aimed at undermining its nuclear programs. Israel’s Channel 2 aired a program on Tuesday suggesting that Saudi Arabia was on the point of granting Israel permission to overfly its territory “en route to attack Iran if an attack is necessary.”

26 February, 2015
WSWS.org

 

By Dr. Daud Batchelor

As Australia’s international standing has risen, the country’s sovereignty is being dangerously subsumed by the United States, itself controlled by powerful elites: the disproportionately influential military-industrial complex and Zionist lobbies. Australia’s sovereignty is being compromised by the political elite within the ruling Liberal Party and Labour Party caucus. Former PM Malcolm Fraser presciently warned that the relationship was becoming dangerous and we “have effectively ceded to America the ability to decide when Australia goes to war”.

External threats facing Australia include a commercial takeover of critical resources, primarily by China. The second is inordinate influence by the US, our “friendly” ally under the ANZUS Treaty. Evidence suggests some US covert involvement in removing former PMs Gough Whitlam and Kevin Rudd. Near neighbours, Indonesia and Malaysia, have no expansionist aims. Our defences should not be overly strained but Australia increased its ‘defence’ budget 32% since 2003 with the target to achieve 2% of GDP. Fighting distant wars of questionable merit and overinflating domestic terrorism sucks funds from needy domestic programmes and puts Australia into massive debt paralleling the United States itself.

John Howard dramatically changed Australia’s defence policy to project military power globally. The 9/11 attacks occurring while PM Howard visited President Bush Jr cemented a tight alliance. Howard offered virtually a blank cheque for Australia’s military to support future US engagements. Significantly, many since Mearsheimer and Walt’s exposure have chronicled the excessive influence Israeli lobbies e.g. AIPAC, have over US foreign policies. Israeli is set not only on protecting itself but creating a Greater Israel involving fragmentation of neighbouring Arab states – the Yinon Plan of the World Zionist Organization. Australia is locked into engagements of the US resulting from certain US-Zionist strategies. The US domineering worldview is inculcated whenever American forces and agencies meet counterparts in the Australian Defence Forces, ASIO and Australian Federal Police.

Impacts on Australia’s foreign polices result from the powerful Murdoch media oligopoly, which champions Israel, and the Zionist-led Lowy Institute for International Policy, which has a snug relationship with the ADF, ASIO and AFP, all Institute members. The Institute’s Board of Directors includes Martin Indyk, former Israeli government propagandist. Great concern is that Allan Gyngell, founding Executive-Director of the Lowy Institute, is now Director-General of Australia’s Office of National Assessments. Gyngell leads a supposedly independent organisation providing key analyses on which Cabinet relies to decide foreign policies. Zionists can well influence key decisions. Abuse is of grave concern given faulty ONA reports claiming WMDs in Iraq used to incite Australia’s participation in the infamous 2003 invasion. Former ONA officer, Andrew Wilke, resigned claiming pre-invasion pressures to exaggerate reports.

Former Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, explained that the pro-Israel lobby enjoys such a “very unhealthy level” of influence in dictating Australia’s foreign policy through party donations and MP trips to Israel. The Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council had a direct line into the PM’s office and aggressively lobbied politicians. Politicians have been drawn deeply into Israel’s global strategy: a visit to Israel is essential for any aspiring PM. Australia has developed arguably the harshest anti-terrorism legislation and supports illegal Israeli settlements. Australia with only the US recently voted against a proposal in the Security Council demanding Israel ends its Palestinian occupation. Israel defies UN resolutions and commits war crimes violating Geneva conventions and international law. Despite this, the government strongly supports Israel. In the 2008-09 and 2014 Gaza wars, Israel killed 3,500 Palestinians, 75% civilians, while the fewer Israeli fatalities were overwhelmingly soldiers. Israel attacked densely-habited areas causing slaughter and damage to hospitals, schools and UN shelters. Ban Ki-moon and European nations condemned Israel’s disproportionate response and targeting of civilians. Israel could well face charges in the International Criminal Court.

Legitimate concerns questioning Australia’s involvement in distant wars unrelated to Australia’s security raise the spectre of ‘blowback’ in supporting American global hegemony and destruction of Muslim lands. Emergence of ISIS is directly linked to failed Australian-American strategies in Iraq. The government’s embrace of Americas’ pro-Israel anti-Muslim agenda is against Australia’s best interests in ignoring our peaceful Muslim neighbours – Indonesia, and Malaysia, successful liberal democracies on whom Snowdon showed Australian and US governments aggressively spy. Such conduct could drive these friendly neighbours closer to China and Russia to our detriment.

Prior to expanding anti-terrorist laws deemed by many to be targeting the preponderantly peaceful Muslim community, massive AFP raids were conducted in NSW and Queensland. Their scale implied citizens were under imminent attack by numerous terrorists. Was this to forestall opposition to the government’s retrenchment of citizen rights? Numbers arrested were low and prosecutions will likely be few. Bernard Keane commented, “Australians are less safe now then a few weeks ago because of decisions taken, primarily for political ends, by the Abbott government, namely to intervene in a conflict in Iraq and Syria that has nothing to do with Australia’s national interests”. Apart from the Martin Place shootings, there have been no fatalities in Australia by Muslim hands since 1915 when Britain invaded Turkey. PM Abbott over-emphasises terrorism in Australia while neglecting family violence that causes 80 deaths annually. Samuel Makinda warned that with the expanded anti-terror legislation, politicians have legislated away citizens’ rights. Alerting Australians that it was now a “police state”, Gideon Polya, estimated there were “only 6 Australian deaths by terrorists (none Muslim) in the last 36 years. Yet the major Australian parties … have committed $125 billion in terms of long-term accrual cost to the Islamophobic War on Terror.”

Australia’s subservience to the US and Israeli lobbies should change and stop fighting their wars and blowing out Australia’s finances. With a forecasted A$40 billion budget shortfall, either the government will raise taxes, diminish services, or increase debt. In the absence of military threats at home, our main concern should be economic security. Australians should consider an alternative from heightened militarism in this Gallipoli centenary honouring our heroes, who spoke little wishing not to glorify war for imperialism’s sake. Let us resist the insidious takeover of our independence to chart our own course and further peace and stability of Australia and harmonious relations amongst our own citizens and neighbouring countries.

Dr Daud Batchelor, political analyst, whose grandfathers/father fought to protect Australia’s security.

26 February 2015