July 15-31, USA and Georgian Armed Forces conducted “Immediate Response 2008”

International Large-Scale Military Exercise ‘Immediate Response 2008’

August 1, 2008
Tea Kerdzevadze, Georgia Today

The International Training “Immediate Response 2008” conducted with the joint efforts of the USA and Georgian Armed Forces was held at Vaziani Military Base on July 15-31. The mission of the training was to improve combined capabilities and strengthen regional cooperation.

The exercise involved the conduction of a combined brigade-level CPX exercise with Georgian Armed Forces to develop a common understanding of coalition staff planning procedures; combined live-fire FTX/STX to train on tactics, techniques and procedures for the conduct of coalition security and stability operations and to deploy the 21st TSC EECP and exercise limited theater opening capabilities.

In total, 1,630 servicemen participated, including representatives of the Joint Staff, Land Forces Staff, IV Brigade, the 41st and 42nd Battalions and Engineer Battalion Company from Georgia. From the USA, 1,000 military servicemen took part in the exercise including the United States Army Europe, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1st Battalion 121 Infantry Regiment Georgian National Guard (Atlanta, Georgia) and 5045th General Support Unit. As well as Georgian and American participants, 10 servicemen each from Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Ukraine took part.

The exercise consisted of two stages. First of all, the practical and theoretical parts of the CPX exercises, situational and field trainings were held. The second stage comprised staff and command training. IV Brigade Staff participated in the first stage which underwent the training with modern computer equipment. Within the JKT Program, the I Brigade by which it streamlined decision making process, took direct participation in the planning process and elaborated the action plan. After approving the plan, the operations were carried out via computers.

Preparation for the military training “Immediate Response” started in summer 2007. Since then, planning conferences were held from time to time to discuss and arrange all kinds of issues concerning the exercises, including logistical and medical support and equipment transportation. Georgia provided 90 percent of the logistical support for the exercise with local resources, including railway, customs clearance and security issues. In the framework of the logistical support, Georgia also modernized Vaziani Military Base as well. The rest of the equipment – basic field gear, tents, power generators, logistical vehicles and two HH-60 Blackhawk medical evacuation helicopters – were shipped from the United States, Germany and Italy.

The opening ceremony of Immediate Response 2008 was held at Vaziani Military Base on July 15. The ceremony was opened accompanied with the national anthems of five countries. The Deputy Chief of the Joint Staff of the Georgian Armed Forces LTC Alexander Osepaishvili and SETAF Brigadier General William B. Garrett delivered speeches. BG Garrett stated that he welcomed the exercise Immediate Response 2008 saying it was an honor and a privilege to be in Georgia. “Over the next several weeks, we will live together, work together and train together. This is an invaluable opportunity to get to know and understand one another, to learn about different cultures and to build enduring relationships between professional militaries,” said the Brigadier General. He also expressed particular gratitude towards the Georgian Armed Forces for the strong support not only for the exercise but also for continuing service with the American forces, allies and partners.

The training scenario envisaged a peacekeeping operation in Iraq. This training helped the IV Brigade with its preparations to be deployed in Iraq. The US Marine Corps and the American National Guard Company carried out the field operations with the IV Brigade Staff. The joint training took place on Vaziani firing ground and Vaziani airport. Settlement models were arranged on Vaziani airport where the soldiers were trained how to battle within inhabited areas. Their main purpose was to create and implement a full range of operational tasks; to set up check-points, seize settled areas, convey information, patrol, etc.

The scenario of the training was the following: the situation was held within a built-up, inhabited area. As the terrorists carried out sudden attack over the inhabitants, the Georgian and American militaries patrolled and evacuated and rescued the citizens. If any of the inhabitants were wounded the soldiers administered medical assistance and transported them to the appropriate facilities. After this the military servicemen implemented the clearance operation from the terrorists within the inhabited area.

On July 21, President Mikheil Saakashvili, Minister of Defense David Kezerashvili, the Chief of the Joint Staff of GAF Brigadier General Zaza Gogava and the Deputy Chief of JS LTC Alexander Osepaishvili attended this training and became acquainted with the joint Georgian-American training. At first, they visited the tactical operations center and command post of the US division. Then they went to Vaziani Airport to see the demonstrated training. After the end of the demonstrated exercise, the President of Georgia delivered a speech to the Georgian military servicemen who had participated in the training, saying: “The main task of Georgian officers and soldiers is training. This international exercise is a unique case as we have the possibility to hold trainings along with the representatives of the best army in the world for a month. I think that we have created a new military school in Georgia in recent years. Believe that what all of you have learned now will remain in our country and will be shared with the future generations. That is why we have to train theoretically and practically as this is a precondition of victory. The main thing is to get acquainted with independent decision-making and free thinking.”

On July 28, a demonstration day for media representatives was held in the framework of the international training “Immediate Response”. The event was attended by the Chief of Joint Staff of GAF Brigadier General Zaza Gogava, his deputies LTC Grigol Tatishvili and LTC Alexander Osepaishvili and Head of the US South European Forces Brigadier General William B. Garrett. The event was opened by the Officer of J-3 Operational Planning Department of Joint Forces Col. Erick Nantz who introduced the training presentation. The second stage of the exercise continued at Vaziani Airdrome where Georgian and American military servicemen carried out demonstrative training for the guests.

The scenario was set in one of the small urban areas of Iraq.

The main duty of the peacekeeping forces was to seize the terrorist who was hiding in one of the houses. The terrorist tried to escape when the coalition forces appeared but the troops did their best to detain him. After this, the platoon performed a humanitarian operation and transferred wounded people to hospital by military helicopters.

The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the USA H.E. John Tefft also attended the exercise. After the demonstrative training he outlined the importance of the training, saying: “It is in a spirit of Partnership for Peace, part of the NATO program. It was very rewarding for me to see the joint work of soldiers from different countries. The command post trainings also went successfully. Ukrainian, Azeri, Armenian and Georgian soldiers participated in the exercise jointly. I believe that the exercise fulfilled its main purpose.”

Immediate Response is an annual, bilateral security cooperation exercise conducted between US and coalition partners. Approximately 1,600 military personnel consisting of US soldiers, airmen, marines and army civilian employees; and Georgian military personnel make up Task Force Immediate Response 2008. The training is designed to exercise combined interoperability, conduct combined arms live fire, conduct training on responsive medical aid in a combat environment and bilateral training with Georgian and other multinational defense forces. This is the first time that Immediate Response is conducted in Georgia. Poland and Bulgaria has commonly hosted this exercise in years past.

---

The SETAF Brigadier General William B. Garrett commanded the exercise from American side. We asked him for his thoughts and comments on Immediate Response.

What is the primary aim of the exercise “Immediate Response 2008”? What are the objectives of the exercise?

We are conducting this exercise to enhance interoperability with a key coalition partner. Georgia has provided consistent support to ongoing operations in Iraq. Georgia is the third largest force contributor to Operation Iraqi Freedom and that means a lot to the United States.

What do you expect from “Immediate Response 2008”?

The combined approach – active participation from all the countries involved – provided an invaluable opportunity to learn about different cultures, and to promote understanding and cooperation between our forces and strengthen our partnerships for the future.

What benefits will this exercise bring for the Georgian Armed Forces?

The Georgian Armed Forces will gain greater tactical proficiency as well as improving their ability to work with coalition partners. But the benefits gained from this exercise are not limited to Georgian Soldiers. American, Armenian, Azeri and Ukrainian service members all benefited from this exercise. I might also point out that the Georgian 4th Infantry Brigade is scheduled to deploy to Iraq next year. The tough, realistic training provided during Immediate Response 2008 will certainly help them prepare for that deployment.

How do you estimate the preparation level of Georgian military servicemen?

The Georgian Soldiers we trained with the last few weeks from the 4th Brigade are fit, motivated, and disciplined. They are eager to learn. They interact well with their coalition partners. American soldiers are very proud to serve alongside Georgian soldiers.

As you are informed the IV Brigade is preparing to carry out peacekeeping mission in Iraq? What recommendations would you give our soldiers in this regard?

Continue to train hard for the mission in Iraq, incorporate the experiences of those who are currently serving in Iraq, and build on those things you learned during Exercise Immediate Response 08.

What obstacles do you see in the process of implementation of “Immediate Response 2008”? What is the most challenging of this exercise?

We don’t see obstacles, only challenges. There were several aspects to this exercise that were critical to success; I can not name one in particular. Our Georgian counterparts really went the extra mile to accommodate this exercise and provided excellent support. They were fantastic hosts and we look forward to working with them in the future.

WHY WON’T WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT’S BEING DONE TO US?

WHY WON’T WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING

THAT’S BEING DONE TO US?

Big Dog, Little Tail / It’s Too Late

Chris Floyd

Arthur Silber often screams at the progressive blogosphere: “Why won’t you do anything about this?” The big “liberal”, “progressive” sites seem determined to avoid the issues on which they could do the most good. It’s hard for me to imagine that this is unintentional. And I know this from heartbreaking experience.

What’s needed, according to Arthur Silber, is “massive civil disobedience, including a sit-in of a minimum of several hundred thousand people shutting down Washington, D.C. completely”, presenting a spectacle the media cannot avoid covering, threatening to shut the federal government down entirely, and holding the fort until more arrive. It’s a lovely vision, but I’m not fortunate enough to share it.

Last summer there were a half a million people on the ground in Washington and the media barely gave them a peep. The “Active Denial” heat-ray crowd-control weapon is ready now and it provides a formidable long-distance supplement to the water cannons and pepper spray of old. Throw in the synthetic insects, and it’s hard to see how even a couple million people could be a serious threat.

As if you could get them there. As if you could get them interested. (Read more)

Kyrgyzstan Is the Key-Oil, Gas, Uranium, Next-door to China

The mythology of people power

by John Laughland

01 April 2005

---

Before his denunciation yesterday of the “prevailing influence” of the US in the “anti-constitutional coup” which overthrew him last week, President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan had used an interesting phrase to attack those who were stirring up trouble in the drug-ridden Ferghana Valley. A criminal “third force”, linked to the drug mafia, was struggling to gain power.

Originally used as a label for covert operatives shoring up apartheid in South Africa, before being adopted by the US-backed “pro-democracy” movement in Iran in November 2001, the third force is also the title of a book published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which details how western-backed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can promote regime and policy change all over the world. The formulaic repetition of a third “people power” revolution in the former Soviet Union in just over one year – after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003 and in Ukraine last Christmas – means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country’s control over the western hemisphere.

Many of the same US government operatives in Latin America have plied their trade in eastern Europe under George Bush, most notably Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, who boasted in these pages in 2001 that he was doing in Belarus exactly what he had been doing in Nicaragua: “supporting democracy”.

But for some reason, many on the left seem not to have noticed this continuity. Perhaps this is because these events are being energetically presented as radical and leftwing even by commentators and political activists on the right, for whom revolutionary violence is now cool.

As protesters ransacked the presidential palace in Bishkek last week (unimpeded by the police who were under strict instructions not to use violence), a Times correspondent enthused about how the scenes reminded him of Bolshevik propaganda films about the 1917 revolution. The Daily Telegraph extolled “power to the people”, while the Financial Times welcomed Kyrgyzstan’s “long march” to freedom.

This myth of the masses spontaneously rising up against an authoritarian regime now exerts such a grip over the collective imagination that it persists despite being obviously false: try to imagine the American police allowing demonstrators to ransack the White House, and you will immediately understand that these “dictatorships” in the former USSR are in reality among the most fragile, indulgent and weak regimes in the world.

The US ambassador in Bishkek, Stephen Young, has spent recent months strenuously denying government claims that the US was interfering in Kyrgyzstan’s internal affairs. But with anti-Akayev demonstrators telling western journalists that they want Kyrgyzstan to become “the 51st state”, this official line is wearing a little thin.

Even Young admits that Kyrgyzstan is the largest recipient of US aid in central Asia: the US has spent $746m there since 1992, in a country with fewer than 5 million inhabitants, and $31m was pumped in in 2004 alone under the terms of the Freedom Support Act. As a result, the place is crawling with what the ambassador rightly calls “American-sponsored NGOs”.

The case of Freedom House is particularly arresting. Chaired by the former CIA director James Woolsey, Freedom House was a major sponsor of the orange revolution in Ukraine. It set up a printing press in Bishkek in November 2003, which prints 60 opposition journals. Although it is described as an “independent” press, the body that officially owns it is chaired by the bellicose Republican senator John McCain, while the former national security adviser Anthony Lake sits on the board. The US also supports opposition radio and TV.

Many of the recipients of this aid are open about their political aims: the head of the US-funded Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society, Edil Baisalov, told the New York Times that the overthrow of Akayev would have been “absolutely impossible” without American help. In Kyrgyzstan as in Ukraine, a key element in regime change was played by the elements in the local secret services, whose loyalty is easily bought.

Perhaps the most intriguing question is why? Bill Clinton’s assistant secretary of state called Akayev “a Jeffersonian democrat” in 1994, and the Kyrgyz ex-president won kudos for welcoming US-backed NGOs and the American military. But the ditching of old friends has become something of a habit: both Edward Shevardnadze of Georgia and Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine were portrayed as great reformers for most of their time in office.

To be sure, the US has well-known strategic interests in central Asia, especially in Kyrgyzstan. Freedom House’s friendliness to the Islamist fundamentalist movement Hizb ut-Tahrir will certainly unsettle a Beijing concerned about Muslim unrest in its western provinces. But perhaps the clearest message sent by Akayev’s overthrow is this: in the new world order the sudden replacement of party cadres hangs as a permanent threat – or incentive – over even the most compliant apparatchik.

KAZAKHSTAN: ASTANA AIMS TO BECOME WORLD’S TOP URANIUM PRODUCER

KAZAKHSTAN: ASTANA AIMS TO BECOME

WORLD’S TOP URANIUM PRODUCER

Joanna Lillis

Kazakhstan may have relinquished its arsenal of nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it is seeking to expand its role in a variety of atomic energy-related fields. The country hopes to outstrip rivals Canada and Australia next year to become the world’s biggest uranium producer.

Uranium production is set to exceed 9,000 tons this year and then rise by another third in 2009, putting Kazakhstan in the top spot for uranium output, Mukhtar Dzhakishev, head of Kazakhstan’s wholly state-owned nuclear giant, Kazatomprom, said at a July 22 news conference. The precise amount of uranium Kazatomprom hopes to produce next year is 12,826 tons, leaving Canada and Australia trailing unless there is a similarly rapid rise in output in those countries. Last year Canada produced 9,476 tons of uranium and Australia 8,611 tons against Kazakhstan’s 6,637 tons, according to figures from the World Nuclear Association (WNA). Kazatomprom cites its own estimates for its rivals’ uranium production for 2009, which it says are based on published data: 11,100 tons for Canada and 9,430 tons for Australia. By 2010 Kazakhstan hopes to be the clear world market leader, producing some 15,000 tons annually.

The figures would have looked unbelievable in 1997, when uranium production started recovering in Kazakhstan following a precipitous decline during the years immediately following the 1991 Soviet collapse. Just over a decade ago, Kazakhstan’s annual output stood at just 795 tons of uranium, according to WNA figures. From there it began a gradual increase, before soaring over the past few years.

The recovery was timely. After hitting a record low of $7 per pound in 2000, uranium prices climbed steadily, hitting an all-time high of $138 per pound last year. Demand has been partly driven by environmental and energy security concerns, with global moves away from polluting coal-fired power plants. That has brought nuclear power back into fashion. Prices have fallen since 2007, and the spot price currently stands at $64.50 per pound. Analysts say the price is driven by expectations of supply and demand moving into line.

Kazakhstan possesses at least 15 percent of world uranium resources, according to the WNA; Kazatomprom puts the figures at 19 percent. There are around 50 known deposits of uranium, mainly in southern Kazakhstan. Kazatomprom plans to start mining new deposits this year with an annual capacity of over 7,000 tons, building on the launch of extraction in June at West Mynkuduk, which has a capacity of 1,000 tons per year. There are further plans to start mining deposits with a capacity of some 2,500 tons in 2009.

The uranium industry in Kazakhstan was restricted in Soviet times to extraction and the production of fuel pellets, but, since it was set up in 1997, Kazatomprom – now the world’s fourth largest uranium company, according to the WNA, though the company claims to be the third biggest – has been expanding its scope, seeking to take part in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.

In a sign of the significance the state attaches to the atomic industry, nuclear cooperation featured on the agendas of visits by President Nursultan Nazarbayev earlier this year to Japan and France, and on that of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to Astana in May. During Nazarbayev’s visit to Paris in June, Kazatomprom reached a deal with Areva, a French conglomerate, that will see the KATCO joint venture more than double uranium output to 4,000 tons per year, and set up a new joint venture to manufacture nuclear fuel assemblies at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in the city of Oskemen (Ust-Kamenogorsk). Kazatomprom and Canada’s Cameco in June launched the Ulba Conversion joint venture at that plant. It is set to produce 12,000 tons per year of uranium hexafluoride, which is used in the uranium enrichment process.

Nazarbayev’s visit to Tokyo, also in June, led to Kazatomprom signing a memorandum on cooperation with Toshiba which includes plans to set up new ventures, including enterprises that will jointly extract precious metals. The Kazakh nuclear giant had already purchased 10 percent of Westinghouse Electric Corp. from Toshiba last year, and is working with it on a project, to be completed in 2011-2012, to produce fuel assemblies at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant for supply to emerging markets. Westinghouse is a major world supplier of nuclear reactors, leading Dzhakishev to suggest last year that every third reactor in the world would be working on fuel from Kazakhstan by 2030. Westinghouse has a $5 billion contract to supply reactors to China, which is seeking to almost double the share of nuclear energy in its power balance to 4 percent. Beijing hopes that the expansion of nuclear energy in the country will reduce pollution.

Kazatomprom also has growing nuclear cooperation with China, last year signing an agreement with the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC) which will make Kazakhstan the company’s largest supplier of uranium and nuclear fuel. It also signed a trilateral deal in 2007 with CGNPC and the China National Nuclear Corp. to jointly mine uranium deposits in Kazakhstan.

Kazatomprom has a long tradition of nuclear cooperation with Russia, and recent deals include an agreement to set up a joint uranium enrichment center at existing facilities in the Siberian city of Angarsk. The first output from the venture, set up in 2006, is expected in 2011. Kazakhstan’s nuclear giant has also been a key partner as Russia seeks to start up a multilateral enrichment project in Angarsk, known as the International Uranium Enrichment Center. Kazatomprom holds a 10 percent stake in that venture, which Russia has invited other countries to join. Russia has also expressed an interest in involvement in Kazakhstan’s plans to build a new atomic power plant at Aktau on the Caspian Sea, which is also the location of a decommissioned Soviet-era nuclear power plant.

In case you weren’t paying attention…

In case you weren’t paying attention…
Monday, May 19, 2003

Members of the Moroccan terror group Salafi Jihadi fought for the CIA in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Bosnia and Kosovo

Vinnell bombing leader Khaled Jehani, fought for the CIA in Afghanistan, Bosnia & Chechnya

USS Cole Bomber Jamal al-Badawi fought for the CIA in Bosnia

Zacarias Moussaoui fought for the CIA in Chechnya

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed fought for the CIA in Afghanistan

Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman fought for the CIA in Afghanistan

Head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad Ayman al Zawahiri, fought for the CIA in Bosnia

His brother Ayman al-Zawahiri fought for the CIA in Kosovo

Saif al-Adel fought for the CIA in Afghanistan

Abdullah Azzam, “one of the ideological founders of Hamas” fought for the CIA in Afghanistan

And then of course, there’s Tim Osman (AKA. Osama bin Laden)

CIA VERSION OF NEW WORLD ORDER- VISION 2015

VISION 2015

For Georgia’s president, Ben-Gurion in the mirror

By Edan Ring

TBILISI – The president of Georgia stood for a long time shaking the hands of the dozens of people waiting in line to congratulate him. Well-groomed women with coiffed hair and skullcap-wearing men with white hair and gold watches passed by in a row, and some even stopped for a quick photo. For more than two hours earlier this month, President Mikheil Saakashvili attended the festive dinner in honor of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. His aides said that he had never devoted so much time to a delegation. At some point he even asked one of his bodyguards to stop the stream of well-wishers; with all due respect to the important guests from America, his stomach was grumbling. The unusual amount of time Saakashvili devoted to the delegation is only one example of the welcome received by the Jewish leaders in the Georgian capital. One after another came all the government ministers, most of them young people who speak fluent English, and all came with a similar message: We love America, we love Israel, the war in Iraq is the front line against terror, we will not allow Iran to carry out its intrigues. Advertisement The heads of the organizations were seen by the Georgian administration as official representatives for all intents and purposes, not only of the U.S. administration but of Israel as well. They gave each minister a gift of a tree-shaped mezuzah, and went out to the lobby to eat salmon and drink Georgian wine. Georgia, a small country located at a strategic junction between East and West, is eager for Western support. Its relations with its former ruler, Russia, have long since gone sour, mainly because of Moscow’s support for the separatist districts South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The uncovering of a Russian intelligence squad that operated in Georgia led to a deterioration in the relations between the countries two years ago. Russia responded by placing an embargo on Georgian products, ceasing flights between the countries and closing the border crossings. For Georgia, this was a harsh blow. Up until a few years ago, it was almost entirely dependent on Russian trade, mainly Russian gas. In the face of Moscow’s hostility, the Georgians turned to Washington. The members of the Jewish delegation repeatedly heard about the “common values” that Georgia, the U.S. and Israel share, and about the war against terror, in which Georgia plays an active role. Saakashvili told his guests, “When Israel is harmed, Georgia is harmed as well,” and swore, “The only place in the world where I feel at home is Israel.” In spite of that, the real influence that those Jews with connections and money wield on the administrations in Washington and Jerusalem is open to question. Some apparently have open doors to various Congress members, but in the final analysis, “The very fact that people think that we have influence turns us into people with influence,” as one of the senior leaders said last week, in a moment of post-modern illumination. The Iranian connection Several weeks before the members of the Conference of Presidents landed in Tbilisi, the Georgian special security forces arrested an Iranian citizen on the outskirts of the capital. According to reports by U.S. intelligence and Interpol, he is one of the Iran’s leading arms dealers, perhaps even a supplier of nuclear components. That week turned out to be a dramatic one for Tbilisi-Tehran relations. When the Iranians found out about the arrest, they were furious and demanded that the man be released. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was even sent to the ceremony where Saakashvili was sworn in for another term as president, on January 20, in order to conduct negotiations for his release. But the Georgians refused. They made a simple calculation: In order to gain the total support of the U.S. against Russia, they had to sacrifice their relations with Iran and to serve as a front in the battle against global terror. When diplomatic negotiations didn’t help, Tehran began to use threats. The Georgians claim that the Iranians hinted they would try to harm the 2,000 Georgian soldiers deployed on the Iraq-Iran border and would join the anticipated Russian support for the separatist districts’ independence. Tbilisi was not impressed. The Georgian ambassador to Iran was brought back to his country, and relations between the countries froze. The arms dealer was transferred to American hands and is now in an unknown place. The timing of the visit of the Congress of Presidents, which also included a delegation of Israeli journalists sponsored by the Georgian administration, was ideal. Leading administration members leaked news of the arrest to the journalists, and at the beginning of the week, after the delegation had left, the news was published in Israel. During the course of the week, there were also many hints of the military and intelligence cooperation between Georgia, the U.S. and Israel on the Iranian issue. Saakashvili even met with a small group of congress leaders and told them about it. Ruining their relations with Iran is a very high price for the Georgians. The two countries used to be active trading partners, and they have a common historical and cultural background. In the face of Russian hostility and Georgia’s dependence on Russian gas, Iran almost became a lifesaver for Tbilisi. In the cold winter of 2006, when Russia insisted on raising the price of its gas exports, and even cut the supply, Georgia turned to Iran, which offered to sell it for less than the Russians, on one condition only: an official visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Tbilisi. The Georgians refused, and cooperation between the countries was called off. Georgian loyalty to the U.S., occasionally at the expense of other interests, is liable to turn out to be a big gamble. The severance of relations with Iran and the tension with Russia are liable to leave it in splendid isolation in Central Asia. Thus, its leaders may come to understand that with all due respect to the sponsorship of the great power across the ocean, it might be a good idea to develop treaties with nearby countries as well. That is apparently why Tbilisi is discussing a “Black Sea community,” similar to the cooperation among the Baltic nations. A frozen opposition Several hours before Saakashvili’s speech to the congress leaders and several hundred meters from the luxury hotel where the event took place, about 20,000 opposition supporters gathered in order to protest the event. They claimed that the most recent presidential elections were fraudulent and that the government is not concerned about the ordinary people. The demonstrators stood opposite the Parliament building, with the violent suppression of their previous protest, in November, still fresh in their minds. If that is not enough, two days earlier one of the opposition leaders, Badri Patarkatsishvili, died in England. Although British police determined he died of a heart attack, many of the demonstrators speculated that Saakashvili’s regime had assassinated him because it considered him a threat. In the past year the Georgian economy has reaped praise from the World Bank and other international financial bodies. It is considered a “developing market” that is worth investing in, and Israelis happen to be responsible for a significant percentage of the real estate development in Tbilisi. But the ordinary people do not benefit from that. Experts explain that growth there “has not yet filtered down,” or in other words, while six new luxury hotels are being built in Tbilisi, 60 percent of the population has no regular work and the streets are lined mainly with crumbling, abandoned buildings. In spite of that, the atmosphere at the demonstration was not particular heated, unrelated to the freezing Georgian winter. It was evident that the participants have despaired of the political system, and the unqualified American support also places an insurmountable obstacle in their path. Saakashvili has a winning card in the media, and in international public opinion he is perceived as a lover of democracy. All the protesters can do is come to the Parliament square and stand there silently. “We have become strangers in our own country,” said Lemira, a 58-year-old teacher who refused to reveal her surname or to be photographed. “Nobody listens to us. Saakashvili only builds magnificent fountains and organizes concerts. He thinks that the history of this country began when he came to power.” And in fact, the comparisons Saakashvili made in his speech to the delegation members, between his country and Israel, and between himself and David Ben-Gurion, demonstrated the man’s highly developed sense of history. “Our country is at a historic crossroads. We will not allow anyone to interfere,” he said. In an attempt to flee from Russian imperialism and to build a new Georgian nation, Saakashvili may be forgetting his own people and opening the door to another type of imperialism, less aggressive but much more effective. The guests from the U.S. and Israel love him, and opinions are mixed among his own people, while some of them – as well as the neighboring countries – hold him in much lower regard.

Analysis: Georgia’s decision to shell Tskhinvali could prove ‘reckless’

Analysis: Georgia’s decision to shell

Tskhinvali could prove ‘reckless’

President timed action to coincide with Olympics, says academic

• David Hearst and James Orr

It has always been hard to work out who fired the first shot in any of the many conflicts that had broken out in the Caucasus.

Ever since June 1992, when the tiny mountain enclave of South Ossetia won the first round of its bid to detach itself from Georgia, the two sides have been intermittently at war.

But the flare-ups in the last decade have been skirmishes, and for a while it looked as though peace had broken out.

The weapons used today — tanks, multiple rocket launchers and fighter aircraft — made the fighting qualitatively different.

Observers had little doubt that the operation to take South Ossetia back under Georgian control bore the hallmarks of a planned military offensive.

It was not the result of a ceasefire that had broken down the night before – it was more a fulfilment of the promise the Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili, had made to recapture lost national territory, and with it a measure of nationalist pride.

The assault appears to be have carefully timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympics when the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, was in Beijing.

Tom de Waal, of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and an expert on the region, said: “Clearly there have been incidents on both sides, but this is obviously a planned Georgian operation, a contingency plan they have had for some time, to retake [the South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali.

“Possibly the Georgians calculated that, with Putin in Beijing, they could recapture the capital in two days and then defend it over the next two months, because the Russians won’t take this lying down.”

If Georgia calculated that Russia would be inhibited by Putin’s presence at the Olympics, that soon backfired.

Within hours, the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, chaired a session of the security council in the Kremlin, ordering units of the 58th Russian army to retake Tskhinvali. The Russian president’s military credentials are so weak – he had no other choice.

Many of the 75,000 inhabitants of Tskhinvali and its outlying villages are now Russian citizens, with passports and rights to settle in Russia.

Northern Ossetia, with whom the southern separatists want to join, is formally part of the Russian Federation. While Georgians view South Ossetia as a part of its sovereign territory, there is a rival Ossetian claim.

It predates the current authoritarian regime in the Kremlin, but still links the enclave to the mothership of the Russian Federation.

Jonathan Eyal, the director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), warned that all-out war between Russian and Georgia would amount to “the worst crisis in Europe since the end of communism”.

He described Georgia’s decision to shell Tskhinvali as a brazen effort to humiliate the Russians.

“It is clearly a calculated gamble by the Georgians,” he said.

“If they manage to overrun South Ossetia, where there are probably only around 1,000 Russian troops at the moment, they will have humiliated Russia and would have created a triumph for themselves.

“They will also have propelled the west into a diplomatic involvement on the ground.”

Eyal claimed there was considerable sympathy among western powers over Georgia’s difficult relationship with Russia.

He said the country was suffering from a deliberate “strategic fermentation” of the separatist movement by the superpower.

However, he warned that taking on Russia at a time when Medvedev was keen to establish his influence carried significant risk.

Russia could not afford to stand quietly by while Georgia made such a public assault on its troops stationed in the region, he said.

“There is an element of trying to call the Russians’ bluff by assuming that the Russians will not be able to afford all-out war in Georgia,” he added.

“I personally don’t buy that … Putin cannot afford to be seen to be humiliated in such a brazen, public way. It’s inconceivable that the Russians will sit quietly by.

“The only possible outcome is that either a ceasefire is negotiated and a mediation effort begins, or it goes out into an all-out war.”

Eyal said he believed Georgia’s move to strike South Ossetia would generate a mixed reaction from world powers.

He described a feeling that the country was “more sinned against than sinning” but that there was also significant frustration over the actions of its president.

“If it goes into an all out war, the predicament for the west is acute and the crisis would be the worst crisis in Europe since the end of communism.

“It would be much worse than the Yugoslav wars, mainly because it has the old traditional element of an east-west confrontation.

“There is considerable sympathy for Georgia among western governments such as the US and London. It is clear that the Russians have fermented the separatist movement for a particular strategic purpose.

“There is also, however, an enormous amount of frustration with the reckless behaviour of the Georgian president at this moment.”

War Crimes

Outrageous violation of International Law, the US

becomes the USSR

more about “War Crimes“, posted with vodpod

Israel backs Georgia in Caspian Oil Pipeline Battle with Russia

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

August 8, 2008

Georgian tanks and infantry, aided by Israeli military advisers, captured the capital of breakaway South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, early Friday, Aug. 8, bringing the Georgian-Russian conflict over the province to a military climax.

Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin threatened a “military response.”

Former Soviet Georgia called up its military reserves after Russian warplanes bombed its new positions in the renegade province.

In Moscow’s first response to the fall of Tskhinvali, president Dimitry Medvedev ordered the Russian army to prepare for a national emergency after calling the UN Security Council into emergency session early Friday.

Reinforcements were rushed to the Russian “peacekeeping force” present in the region to support the separatists.

Georgian tanks entered the capital after heavy overnight heavy aerial strikes, in which dozens of people were killed.

Lado Gurgenidze, Georgia’s prime minister, said on Friday that Georgia will continue its military operation in South Ossetia until a “durable peace” is reached. “As soon as a durable peace takes hold we need to move forward with dialogue and peaceful negotiations.”

DEBKAfile’s geopolitical experts note that on the surface level, the Russians are backing the separatists of S. Ossetia and neighboring Abkhazia as payback for the strengthening of American influence in tiny Georgia and its 4.5 million inhabitants. However, more immediately, the conflict has been sparked by the race for control over the pipelines carrying oil and gas out of the Caspian region.

The Russians may just bear with the pro-US Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili’s ambition to bring his country into NATO. But they draw a heavy line against his plans and those of Western oil companies, including Israeli firms, to route the oil routes from Azerbaijan and the gas lines from Turkmenistan, which transit Georgia, through Turkey instead of hooking them up to Russian pipelines.

Saakashvili need only back away from this plan for Moscow to ditch the two provinces’ revolt against Tbilisi. As long as he sticks to his guns, South Ossetia and Abkhazia will wage separatist wars.

DEBKAfile discloses Israel’s interest in the conflict from its exclusive military sources:

Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel’s oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean.

Aware of Moscow’s sensitivity on the oil question, Israel offered Russia a stake in the project but was rejected.

Last year, the Georgian president commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.

These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday.

In recent weeks, Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was “defensive.”

This has not gone down well in the Kremlin. Therefore, as the military crisis intensifies in South Ossetia, Moscow may be expected to punish Israel for its intervention.

U.S. Attacks Russia Through Client State Georgia

U.S. Attacks Russia Through Client State Georgia

Paul Joseph Watson

Georgian forces, trained and equipped by the Pentagon and the U.S. government, killed 10 Russian peacekeepers early this morning in a provocation attack that has escalated into military conflict, but the subsequent corporate media coverage would have us believe that the U.S. and NATO-backed client state Georgia is a helpless victim, when in actual fact a far more nuanced geopolitical strategy is being played out.

Original reports early this morning detailed how Georgian forces had killed 10 Russian peacekeepers and wounded 30 others, which was the provocation for Russian forces to begin military operations, but the fact that Georgian forces were responsible for starting the conflagration has been completely buried in subsequent media coverage.

“Georgia and the Pentagon cooperate closely,” reports MSNBC, “Georgia has a 2,000-strong contingent supporting the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, and Washington provides training and equipment to the Georgian military.”

The latest exercise, Immediate Response 2008, which took place last month, involved no less than one thousand U.S. troops working with Georgian troops in a war game scenario.

Moreover, the very “Rose Revolution” that brought the Harvard trained pro-US Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvilli to power in 2003 was wholly aided and abetted by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Russian fury at U.S. support for Georgia and Georgia’s aspirations of becoming a NATO member have flared regularly in recent months, with tensions also rising following U.S. attempts to place missile defense shield technology in Poland and the Czech Republic, which most observers agree has nothing to do with Iran and is in fact aimed at countering Russian military superiority in the region.

In addition, the pro-Israeli news source DebkaFile reports that Georgian infantry units were “aided by Israeli military advisors” in capturing the capital of breakaway South Ossetia, Tskhinvali earlier today.

DebkaFile elaborates on the true geopolitical significance behind today’s events.

DEBKAfile’s geopolitical experts note that on the surface level, the Russians are backing the separatists of S. Ossetia and neighboring Abkhazia as payback for the strengthening of American influence in tiny Georgia and its 4.5 million inhabitants. However, more immediately, the conflict has been sparked by the race for control over the pipelines carrying oil and gas out of the Caspian region.

The Russians may just bear with the pro-US Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili’s ambition to bring his country into NATO. But they draw a heavy line against his plans and those of Western oil companies, including Israeli firms, to route the oil routes from Azerbaijan and the gas lines from Turkmenistan, which transit Georgia, through Turkey instead of hooking them up to Russian pipelines.

Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel’s oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean.

Former Treasury Secretary under Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, told The Alex Jones Show today that the entire scenario smacked of a maneuver on behalf of the Neo-Con faction controlling the White House, led by Dick Cheney. Roberts said the date was precisely picked due to the distraction of the Olympics and Bush being out of the country.

Both Condoleezza Rice and John McCain have today demanded Russia withdraw its forces from Russia immediately.

Meanwhile, the U.S. media networks are seemingly more interested in the complete non-story of John Edwards having an affair, while a conflict that could have devastating and thunderous geopolitical consequences fizzes on the verge of explosion.

As of early Friday evening, Edwards’ extramarital shenanigans were dominating CNN and Fox News, while Drudge also afforded the story more prominence that the situation in Georgia, which was also deemed less important than the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

One of our readers contributed the following, which explains in detail exactly what is unfolding.

Most folks on here can not or will not look up the history or facts for themselves …morons..
Those who dont learn from history are destined to repeat it..

In 1992, Georgia was forced to accept a ceasefire to avoid a large scale confrontation with Russia. The government of Georgia and South Ossetian separatists reached an agreement to avoid the use of force against one another, and Georgia pledged not to impose sanctions against South Ossetia.

A peacekeeping force of Ossetians, Russians and Georgians was established at the time. And late in 1992 the OSCE set up a mission in Georgia to monitor the peacekeeping operation.

From then, until mid-2004, South Ossetia was generally peaceful.

In June 2004, tensions began to rise as the Georgian authorities strengthened their efforts against smuggling in the region. Hostage takings, shootouts and occasional bombings left dozens dead and wounded.

A ceasefire deal was reached on August 13, but it has been repeatedly violated.

Tensions in the region soared in 2008 and outbreaks of violence became increasingly frequent in the border area.

Georgia said it was an internal affair as the breakaway republic had never been recognized internationally.

The Georgian side repeatedly insisted the conflict could be resolved without outside interference.

However, early on August 8 Georgia launched a massive military offensive to take control of the republic.

A quote from another Reuters

At an emergency session of the United Nations on Thursday night, Russia failed to push through a statement that would have called on both sides to stop fighting immediately.
Council diplomats said a phrase calling on all sides to “renounce the use of force” had been unacceptable to the Georgians, backed by the United States and the Europeans.

UK Times online:
Mr Saakashvili, a US-educated lawyer who succeeded Eduard Shevardnadze in 2004 and has since tried to align it more closely to the West, compared the Russian action with the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and appealed to the outside world to intervene.

“Russia is fighting a war with us in our own territory,” he told CNN as Russian armour rolled into South Ossetia.

“It’s not about Georgia anymore. It’s about America, its values: we are a freedom-loving nation that is right now under attack.

The Zionist Stratagem

By: M. Shahid Alam

“Anti-Semitism has grown and continues to grow, and so do I.” Theodore Herzl [1] As a self-defined movement for the national ‘liberation’ of European Jews, Zionism had an anomalous relationship with its perennial Other, the Gentile nations, from whom it wanted the Jews to secede and become a distinct nation under a Jewish state. The Zionists did not define Europe’s Gentile nations as the adversary they would have to oppose, and against whom they would struggle, to secure the rights of Jews to emerge as a distinct nation. On the contrary, the Zionists would harness the strength of their perennial Other – their adversary – to gain their nationalist objective. Unlike nationalists who secede from a state or empire by drawing new borders, the Zionists did not demand any European territory; they planned to establish their Jewish state outside the borders of Europe. In other words, the Zionists were offering to execute what any state facing secessionist demands would have embraced quite avidly: the Jewish ‘secessionists’ would sail away from Europe and establish their state in the Middle East, well-removed from Europe. This was a novel approach to national liberation. As a first step, the Zionists proposed to liberate Jews from European persecution by arranging for their exodus from Europe. This had always been the dream of European anti-Semites: to cleanse their landscape of Jewish presence. Over the past thousand years, different states in Europe had periodically attempted this voiding of Jews through forced conversions, pogroms, expulsions, and segregating Jews from Gentiles. The Zionists were now proposing to purge Europe of its Jews on a scale never attempted before, and without the inconvenience of disturbing the peace. It was a contract that Europe’s anti-Semites would have difficulty turning down. Indeed, the Zionists fully expected the anti-Semites to give them whatever help they needed to effect the Jewish exodus. The Zionists were counting on this help; it was indispensable for the completion of their project. The second step in the Zionist plan was to seize control of Palestine, open it up to Jewish colonization, and, when the Jewish colons had gained sufficient demographic mass in Palestine, they would convert it into a Jewish state, preferably without the natives. The Zionists could not undertake this step without the help of European powers. This was a clever stratagem: quite original to Zionism. The Zionists sought to convert an impossible nationalism – with little prospect of ever achieving its goal inside Europe – into a settler-colonial project. In addition, they would convert the Jews’ erstwhile adversaries into strategic partners. The Zionists expected to persuade at least one European power to play the part of ‘mother country’ to the Jewish colons in Palestine. It appeared that the Zionists were going to outperform Moses of Jewish tradition. Moses too had chosen to liberate the Hebrews of ancient Egypt by marching them out of Egypt into Canaan, where they would establish their own state. There were important differences, however, between the two plans. The Zionists did not seek divine help, but they would receive help from the anti-Semites. Moses had divine help but his plan was opposed by the Egyptians. The Egyptians could not have agreed to Moses’ long march because he was running away with their property – their Hebrew slaves. In Europe, on the other hand, the Jews owned considerable property – banks, bank accounts, factories, houses, lands – that they would leave behind. Clearly, the Zionists were offering the Europeans an attractive deal. Help us create a Jewish settler-state in Palestine: and we will solve your Jewish problem, free you from Jewish competition, free you of the Jewish presence, and you can have all their property we leave behind. This Jewish property was another gift the Zionists offered to Europe’s anti-Semites. To Europe’s anti-Semites, the deal was irresistible. In fact, some of them would think they could kill two birds with the Zionist stone. They would get rid of the Jews, and renew the Crusades against the Muslims. Of course, there were complications. States do not get into deals without considering all the costs. The great powers with an interest in the Middle East knew that backing the Zionist plan would mean war against the Ottomans. It would also mean perpetual war against the Muslims, since this was an egregious injustice against them and a deep violation of their historical space. That is why the great powers balked. It was World War I that changed the calculus. When the Ottomans joined the war on the side of Germany, the Allied Powers – Britain, France and Russia – decided to dismantle the Ottoman empire. Even then, there was little interest in the Zionist plan – despite intense Zionist lobbying. Two factors turned the tide in 1917. In Britain, a new cabinet had taken office in December 1916 with at least five strongly pro-Zionist ministers, including the prime minister, David Lloyd George. In addition, the war had been going badly for the Allied Powers on the eastern and western fronts. Now more than ever before, Zionist lobbying became a formidable force. The Zionists lobbied Britain, Germany, and the US for their support of Zionist goals. They made sure that their lobbying of one power was known to others: thus forcing them to compete for the support which the Zionists promised them in their war effort. The Zionists promised to bring the US more fully into the war, to keep Russia in the war, and to mobilize the resources of world Jewry on the side of the power that would support their cause. It did not matter if the Zionists could deliver these promises: the European leaders were convinced they could. At this point, all the pro-Zionist forces converged – anti-Semitism, Christian Zionism, Crusader zeal, racism, national interests, and, above all, Zionist lobbying – to place the power of the British empire behind the Zionists. By late October 1917, after many months of maneuvers, the Zionists and the British finally agreed upon a statement that would signal British commitment to Zionism. On November 2 1917, this statement was delivered by Lord Balfour – British foreign secretary – in a letter to Lord Rothschild, a distinguished leader of Britain’s Jewish community. This was the Balfour Declaration: this was the document that would formalize a new – and for the most part, irreversible – partnership between Western Jews and the West, joined, pitted, in expanding wars against the Islamic world. During the nineteenth century, when Britain and France competed to control the land bridge of the Levant, each sought to lure the Jews into their scheme to create a Jewish protectorate in Palestine. The Jews then quietly rejected these overtures: they could sense that a Jewish state in Palestine would be a trap. Starting in 1897, when the European powers had lost interest in this colonial scheme, it was the Zionists who revived it. Their hubris was so great, they were willing to ignore the hazards of their plan. No doubt, the Zionists did overcome these hazards: and their successes have been stunning. But Zionist successes have not helped to establish a political equilibrium in the Middle East. On the contrary, they have been deeply destabilizing. Zionist victories over existing foes produce new ones, harder to defeat than those they replace. Despite its military superiority, Israel feels paranoid. It seeks its security in the total obliteration of its foes. It works round-the-clock to strangulate the Palestinians, it has repeatedly unleashed destruction against the Lebanese, it was the leading advocate of the war against Iraq. And now it threatens to unleash a nuclear holocaust against Iran. Most Zionists now believe that Israel is just another war away from forging an absolute, irreversible ‘right to exist’ – a code for the right to exercise perpetual hegemony over the Middle East. Will the world grant Israel this ‘right’ if this last war turns Iran into a nuclear wasteland? Will history forget or forgive this crime? Footnotes: [1] David Hirst, The gun and the olive branch: The roots of violence in the Middle East (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2003): 286.

Zionism’s dying between Hebron and Yitzhar

Zionism’s dying between Hebron and Yitzhar

By Zeev Sternhell

“The Zionist Enterprise,” said Berl Katznelson in 1929, when he summed up the first 10 years of the Ahdut Ha’Avoda movement, is a “conquest enterprise.” And in the same breath he added: “It is not by chance that I am using military terms to describe the settlement of the country.” And in fact, Zionism was a movement of conquest, and all means were permitted to carry out the task.

However, what was essential and therefore justified in the pre-state days is now assuming an ugly and violent form of colonial occupation: the authoritarian regime in the territories, the creation of two legal systems, the placing of the army and police at the service of the settlement movement, the robbing of Palestinian lands. These all symbolize not the fulfillment of Zionism but rather its burial. It is there, between Hebron and Yitzhar, that the settlements are burying the democratic Jewish state.

Like other colonial regimes, the government in the territories is trying to operate under cover of darkness. A visit organized by Peace Now three weeks ago, with about 250 participants, was forbidden to enter Hebron. The area was declared a closed military area by the head of the Hebron Brigade, but the Hebron police did not prevent local toughs from trying to attack the tour’s participants. Nor did the police stop other cars that left and entered Hebron undisturbed. We can reasonably assume that had members of Likud and the National Religious Party come for a visit, the area would not have been closed, and the army would have been at the service of the visitors.

The head of the Hebron Brigade is the same person who on another occasion could be seen on television rudely arresting the B’Tselem photographer: The man was recording what was happening before his eyes, and in the territories that is a serious crime. When there is a camera on-site, there is no possibility of denying cases of abuse and humiliation, or incidents such as shooting at a bound Palestinian.

But worst of all is the fact that behind the brigade commander – who is only a minor cog who operates in the spirit of his commanders, behind the battalion commander whose soldier pulled the trigger in Na’alin – lies the entire chain of command in the territories. These are the people in whose responsibility young soldiers are placed.

However, as far as the public is concerned, Ehud Barak is the person who bears overall responsibility for the partnership between the settlers and the security forces. We must immediately put an end to this and once and for all end the culture of violence that dominates in the territories, a culture that nurtures Jewish criminality and the daily harassment of the civilian Palestinian population.

Tours of the land of the settlers are a vital necessity for anyone who wants to learn about what is happening around him. Anyone who goes out in the field understands immediately that the problem does not lie in the so-called “illegal” outposts. Although the unwillingness to confront groups of toughs who flout the law and government decisions is a disgrace in itself, it is not the major obstacle to ending the occupation. The problem lies in the settlement movement itself, in the Israeli hunger for land.

The real reason for the settlements, first in the Golan Heights and later in the Jordan Valley and the central hill country, was occupying the land: The spiritual heirs and disciples of Berl Katznelson, and even those of his generation who were still alive, saw no reason not to continue the work. Realistic people like Levi Eshkol and Pinhas Sapir did not have an intellectual and moral answer to the demand to continue in the path that until then had been considered the only one known to Zionism. On the other side of the map stood the Revisionist right and Gush Emunim.

In sum, right and left were partners to the act. The nationalist-messianist fervor and the desire to end the War of Independence merged into the momentum for occupation: The entire right and most of the left – We have returned to the land of the Judges and the kings of the Davidian dynasty, said defense minister Moshe Dayan emotionally in the summer of 1967 – bear joint responsibility for the gradual creation of the disaster in which Israeli society is wallowing.

Since it was impossible to take control of the lands legally, a mafia-like culture of theft, lies and deception developed in the territories, in which the various government authorities are still wallowing, from ministers in tailored suits to the last of the policemen sweating on the highways. Contrary to the rules of international and Israeli law, contrary to elementary rules of justice, contrary to all logic and every genuine Israeli interest, broad areas were confiscated for the sake of the settlers and huge sums were poured in.

But over the years, the golem has risen up against its creator: When the public finally realized that if the Jewish national movement does not absorb universal foundations of human rights, democracy and the rule of law it will doom itself to destruction, a force had already arisen over the Green Line that now threatens to drown all of Israel.

Thus a minority took control of the fate of the entire society and held it hostage, due both to the left’s ideological impotence and a lack of character, determination and leadership. If society does not find the emotional strength to remove the noose of the settlements, nothing but a sad memory will remain of the Jewish state as it still exists.