The Gaza Operation’s Unstated Goal: Anarchy

The Gaza Operation’s Unstated Goal: Anarchy

Judging by its policies, Hamas is also not afraid of causing the death or suffering of fellow Palestinians. And Hamas is definitely not afraid of killing Jews.

What Hamas is afraid of, however, is losing power; losing control of the Gaza Strip, losing its base of Islamic fundamentalism in this little corner of the Middle East.

And that fear – and the appreciation in Israel of the importance of power to Hamas – explains some of Israel’s actions over the last few days in the Gaza Strip.

Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) head Yuval Diskin told the security cabinet Wednesday that Hamas’s ability to govern Gaza has been significantly impaired. And that, it appears, is one of the key tactical goals of the military actions of the last few days.

Operation Cast Lead began Saturday with an attack on training bases and command and control centers, the symbols of the Islamist organization’s iron grip on the Strip’s 1.4 million people.

Aftermath of IAF strike in...

Aftermath of IAF strike in Rafah on Saturday.
Photo: AP

It also included an attack on a graduation ceremony for a class of Hamas police cadets.

While the assessment in Jerusalem is that Hamas’s military wing has to a large extent survived the initial onslaught, albeit a bit bruised, the police have taken a mighty blow. And that is not insignificant, because it is through the police that Hamas has been able to enforce order in the Gaza Strip.

And order is important if you want to rule.

On the second day, the IDF targeted the smuggling tunnels from Sinai into Gaza, tunnels that not only are used to bring in missiles and explosives, but also goods and cash that the residents of the Gaza Strip have come to rely on.

The third day was marked by attacks on the Islamic University, and on the homes of Hamas leaders and the symbols of power.

The fourth day was marked by a destruction of Hamas government offices.

Israel is going after the trappings of governance, of power, of control, of rule. And the reason is the belief that the force that may eventually sweep Hamas from power is not Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, but pure anarchy.

If Hamas cannot rule, if it cannot provide the people with what they need, if the leaders are in hiding, if anarchy reigns, then Hamas’s legitimacy is delivered a major blow.

And this, to a large degree, explains Israel’s targets. Jerusalem wants to hit Hamas’s ability to rule, it wants to encourage anarchy that would threaten the organization.

Israel’s opening of the Gaza crossings to allow in humanitarian aid contributes somewhat to this sense of anarchy, because it makes Hamas look unable to govern. If the Palestinians must rely on Israel’s green light to let food aid in from third countries, then that undercuts Hamas’s argument that it is able to serve its public.

But it’s not only Hamas that is afraid of losing its valuable toehold – so is Iran.

Hamas has achieved something in Gaza that Hizbullah has yet to attain in Lebanon: complete control, the unimpeded rule of the Islamic fundamentalists. And it’s a great base, a great jumping-off point, for further designs both on Israel and on Egypt.

Special attention should be paid to statements coming out of Teheran these days, because it may be possible to see signals in them of when Hamas might be on the verge of “crying uncle.”

When Iran gets increasingly hysterical about the need for international intervention to stop the bloodshed, it is a sign that it is worried that its client is about to lose its grip on Gaza – something against Teheran’s interests.

In the year and a half that Hamas has controlled Gaza, the organization has tried to create the impression that it is not a gang, not a terrorist organization, but rather a responsible party that is the head of a regime able to govern, able to maintain law and order and able to provide essential services.

When it loses its ability to do this, when it loses its control of the situation, when its loses its grip on Gaza, then its legitimacy may be diminished in the eyes of its own people.

Palestinian apologists have argued since the elections that brought Hamas to power in the PA in 2006 that the Palestinian people did not really buy into Hamas’s extremist ideology, that they didn’t really want a Hamas government, but rather, they were just fed up with Fatah’s corruption and ineffectiveness, and voted for Hamas because they wanted a government that could rule.

But Israel seems now to be betting that if Hamas can no longer govern effectively, then its public legitimacy may wane. And that, Jerusalem believes, is something that genuinely does scare Hamas.
Israel is trying to push that process along, one reason why one of the few morsels thrown to the press from the security cabinet meeting Wednesday was Diskin’s assessment that Hamas’s control, its ability to govern, was hit – and hit hard.

Israel demands monitors as part of a Gaza truce

[IF THE CLAIMS OF THIS ARTICLE ARE TRUE, THEN IT HELPS TO PROVE THAT ISRAEL INVADED GAZA IN ORDER TO FORCE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO INTERVENE AND CONTROL HAMAS FOR THEM.  ANOTHER CLEAR EXAMPLE OF ISRAELI/JEWISH MANIPULATION OF GOVERNMENTS, STARTING WARS TO ADVANCE THE  ZIONIST AGENDA]

Israel demands monitors as part of a Gaza truce

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israel demanded international monitors as a term of any truce with Gaza militants, as its warplanes bombed the parliament building in Gaza City Thursday and its ships attacked coastline positions of the territory’s Islamic Hamas rulers.

An international agreement to set up such a force would give Israel a way to end its devastating, six-day offensive against Hamas, even as thousands of Israeli ground troops massed along the border in anticipation of a possible land invasion. So far, the campaign to crush rocket fire on southern Israel has been conducted largely from the air, and a poll on Thursday showed most Israelis aren’t eager to see a ground push.

Military spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich said preparations for a ground operation were complete.

“The infantry, the artillery and other forces are ready. They’re around the Gaza Strip, waiting for any calls to go inside,” Leibovich said.

Gaza officials said more than 400 people have died and 1,600 have been wounded since Israel began its aerial campaign on Saturday. The U.N. says at least 60 Palestinian civilians have died.

In Israel, three civilians and a soldier have been killed by rocket fire that has reached deeper than ever into Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who rebuffed a French proposal for a two-day cease fire, won’t agree to a truce unless international monitors take responsibility for enforcing it, government officials said. He’s made this point in talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other world leaders who are pressing for an end to the violence, they added.

The government officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were confidential.

International intervention helped Israel to accept a truce that ended its 2006 war with Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, when the U.N. agreed to station peacekeepers to enforce the terms. This time, Israel isn’t seeking a peacekeeping force, but a monitoring body that would judge compliance on both sides.

The idea was floated before the offensive but did not gain traction because of the complications created by the existence of rival Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza, defense officials said.

Gaza has been under Hamas rule since the militant group overran it in June 2007; the West Bank has remained under the control of moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been negotiating peace with Israel for more than a year but has no influence over Hamas. Bringing in monitors would require cooperation between the fierce rivals.

An Abbas confidant said the Palestinian president supported the notion of international involvement. “We are asking for a cease-fire and an international presence to monitor Israel’s commitment to it,” aide Nabil Abu Rdeneh said.

Israeli Cabinet ministers have been unswayed by a flurry of diplomatic activity meant to bring about a truce, instead authorizing the military on Wednesday to push ahead with its campaign. Militant rocket fire into Israel persisted, though at a low level Thursday, with four rockets fired by late morning.

France had proposed a 48-hour cease-fire to allow humanitarian supplies into Gaza, but Olmert said the time was not ripe to consider it. A separate proposal by Turkey and Egypt, two of Israel’s few allies in the Muslim world, also seemed to be attracting little serious study in Israel or Gaza.

The U.N. Security Council, meeting for emergency consultations Wednesday night, discussed but did not vote on an Arab request for a legally binding resolution that would condemn Israel and halt its attacks.

A draft resolution was labeled “unbalanced” by the United States because it made no mention of halting Hamas rocket fire at Israeli towns — the immediate cause behind Israel’s massive air offensive.

Echoing Israel’s cool response to truce proposals, a senior Hamas leader with ties to its military wing said now was not the right time to call off the fight. Hamas was unhappy with the six-month truce that collapsed just before the fighting began because it didn’t result in an easing of Israel’s crippling blockade on Gaza.

The Hamas leader, Osama Mazini, said in a statement distributed by the Hamas press office that his fighters were eager for a ground assault. “The people of Gaza are waiting to see the Zionist enemy in Gaza to tear them into pieces of flesh,” said Mazini.

Israel and Egypt blockaded Gaza after Hamas seized control of the territory, and have opened their borders only to let in limited amounts of humanitarian aid.

Explosions shook Gaza City on Thursday as Israeli planes targeted three government buildings, including the parliament. Hospital officials said 25 wounded were evacuated from nearby houses. The military said aircraft also bombed smuggling tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border, part of an ongoing attempt to cut off Hamas’ last lifeline to the world outside the embattled Palestinian territory.

Aircraft also went after Hamas police and their vehicles.

One pre-dawn strike targeting the house of a Hamas operative in northern Gaza killed a 35-year-old woman and wounded eight people, a Gaza Health Ministry official said.

Israeli ground forces, meanwhile, were putting the final touches on preparations for a possible ground invasion, which would have to be ordered by Israel’s Cabinet to go ahead. The thousands of troops who are to take part have been moved to the border, along with armored vehicles and artillery pieces.

Israelis are not eager to see the operation expand beyond the air-based campaign, a poll Thursday showed.

The survey of 472 people showed that 52 percent want the air assault to continue, while only 19 percent wanted to see a ground offensive. Twenty percent favored a cease-fire.

The Dialog company poll appeared Thursday in the daily Haaretz. It had a margin of error of 4.6 percentage points.

In five days of raids, Israeli warplanes have carried out some 500 sorties against Hamas targets, and helicopters have flown hundreds more combat missions, a senior Israeli military officer said on condition of anonymity in line with military regulations.

Teibel reported from Jerusalem.

The outrageous strategy to destroy Russia (2004 article)

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Obama’sAdviser

The outrageous strategy to destroy Russia

by Arthur Lepic*

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s former adviser, embodies the continuity of U.S. foreign policy whether it is democratic or republican. A great admirer of Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski has always defended, praised and shown an absolute respect for the master’s two diplomacy concepts: the balance of the powers theorized by Metternich and George Kennan’s containment doctrine. Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends how Russia should be militarily weakened and intimidated. He is convinced that the best way to achieve it is by destabilizing its border regions, a political strategy that arouse the interest of former presidential candidate John Kerry’s team who recruited his son Mark Brzezinski as its foreign policy adviser.

Based on George W. Bush’s speech during year 2000 presidential campaign, a rigid, even aggressive attitude towards Vladimir Putin’s Russia would have been expected -according to his adviser “hawk” Wolfowitz’s doctrine. But, instead, we have seen an unprecedented approach in the political relations of these two great nations. And this has happened after September 11, 2001.

For many observers and analysts there was an agreement between Putin and Bush not to criticize Russian military operations in Chechnya whereas Putin would ignore American interventions and interferences in the Middle East.

This explanation does not really value September 11 facts. It actually considers them as an abstraction and the same with Kremlin’s position on this. We can say that Republican administrations have always attached too much importance to the Middle East whereas Democrat’s political tradition on foreign policy has been more focused in Eurasia.

To design its strategy towards the former USRR and then on the Easter states, recently emancipated from the Soviet influence, Democrats have trusted -since Jimmy Carter took power- a brilliant, unscrupulous and anti-Russian man: Zbigniew Brzezinski.

This well-known professor’s doctrine has many followers outside of the Democratic Party because it has defined the actual imperative of the empire’s survival and prosperity: the conquest of Eurasia.

This professor was born in Warsaw in 1928, the son of a Polish diplomat. At the age of ten, Brzezinski immigrated to Canada when his father was distinguished. He did his degree and his master at the University of Mc Gill, Montreal, and then his PhD at Harvard in 1953. After that, he became an American citizen and married the daughter of Czechoslovakia’s former president Eduardo Benes.

Between 1966 and 1968 he was a member of the Council of Policy Planning of the State Department where he developed the “peaceful involvement” strategy towards the Soviet Union in the framework of the Cold War. In October 1966, he convinced President Johnson to modify the strategic priorities in order to have the “thawing-out” before the German reunification.

During 1968 presidential campaign, Brzezinski was the head of the working party in charge of democratic candidate Hubert H. Humphrey’s foreign policy, who would lose to Richard Nixon.

The Inspiring Leader of the Trilateral Commission

At the beginning of the 1960s, Brzezinski distinguished himself as an analyst when prophetically announced the appearance of bigger actors in the world power. He was talking about Europe and Japan whose economies have had a rapid growth after WWII.

In an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine in 1970, he talked about his vision of this “new world order”. «A new and more daring vision is needed – the creation of a community of developed countries capable of efficiently handling the problems of mankind. Apart from the U.S. and Western Europe, Japan should be included (…) A good start would be a council formed by representatives of the U.S, Western Europe and Japan, which will hold regular meetings among the heads of governments and less relevant personalities.»

In 1970, Brzezinski also proposed new ideas in his new book Between two Ages [1] where he explained that the moment to balance world power had arrived and it had to be in the hands of a new global political order based on a trilateral economic tie between Japan, Europe and the U.S. The revolution in production techniques and the transformation of the heavy industry into electronics had to cause a disruption of political systems and a new generation of power elites. David Rockefeller, excited about these concepts, hired him to create the Trilateral Commission and appointed him director. The commission was officially established in 1973 and gathered important personalities related to world trade, the international banking system, governors and the big European, Japanese and American media.

When the first oil crisis took place, the main concern of these world finance masters was to get rid of the foreign debt of developing countries by strengthening the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It was also about strengthening and extending U.S.’s hegemony – by that time vulnerable due to its military defeat in Viet Nam- in every geographical boundary of the Eurasian continent where they were very influential after WWII

This mission, if analyzed from an outsider’s point of view, depicts Brzezinski as a peace advocate, a man in favor of multilateral relations and diminishing world tension (Cold War) and -to the eyes of the extreme right- as a man inspired by Marxism.
The best to be done in order to implement the plans of the Trilateral Commission was to make one of its members the President of the United States.

President Carter and the Double-Dealing

Since the creation of the Trilateral Commission, shepherd Jimmy Carter was among the members of Rockefeller-Brzezinski’s team. He has opened the first trade offices of the state of Georgia in Brussels and Tokyo and this turned him into the ideal model or the founding concept of the Commission. [2] For his nomination as an election candidate and to the presidential election in 1976, Rockefeller used his relations in Wall Street and put Brzezinski to work, whose academic influence assisting democratic candidate Jimmy Carter was very helpful for wining the election. And, of course, when Carter won the elections, Brzezinski was appointed national security adviser. [3]

As president, Carter stated the reduction of the military nuclear arsenal of the two blocks (U.S. -USRR) as a priority. However, the Soviet SS-20 missile crisis aimed at Europe forced Carter to deploy the Pershing missiles, an action that ruined his efforts, whether they were sincere or not, and caused the reciprocal distrust of the two countries.

It can be affirmed that by that time, the Soviet block had good reasons to believe that its adversary was involved in double-dealing: the U.S. military defeat in Viet Nam forced it to keep certain reserve in the strategic and military fields whereas Brzezinski was working on his war plan to set a trap for the Soviet Union and force it to come into a peripheral conflict.

The destabilization of the Afghan communist regime and the financing and delivering of the first weapons to anticommunist Jihad followers in 1979 caused, as expected, the intervention of the Red Army in Afghanistan. Brzezinski had the support of Pakistan intelligence and espionage services, the fearful ISI.

When the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur interviewed Brzezinski in 1998, he admitted that the equipping of Bin Laden’s anti-Soviet troops was before the Russian invasion and was aimed at provoking its reaction:

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director, Robert Gates, says in his memoirs: the American secret services assisted Afghan mujahedeen six months before the Soviet invasion. By that time, you were President Carter’s adviser and you played a key role on this. Do you confirm it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of the story, the CIA began to assist mujahedeen in the year 1980, that is, after the invasion of the Soviet army against Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the truth that remained secret until today is quite different: it was on July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed his first order on the secret assistance to Kabul’s pro-Soviet regime opponents. That day I wrote a memorandum to the President in which I told him that that assistance would cause the Soviet intervention (…) we did not force the Russian intervention, we just, conscientiously, increase the intervention possibilities.

NO: When the Soviets justified their intervention by affirming they were fighting against a secret American interference nobody believed them, though they were telling the truth. Don’t you regret it?

Z. Brz.: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. Its objective was to lead the Russian to the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it? The very same day the Soviets crossed the Afghan border I wrote the following to President Carter: «This is our chance to give Russia its Viet Nam» (…).

N.O.: Aren’t you sorry either for favoring Islamic fundamentalism and providing weapons and consultancies to future terrorists?

ZBrz.: What is the most important thing when you look at world history, the Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? Some excited Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? [4]

When Brzezinski talked about «some excited Islamists» in this interview, he did not underestimate Al Qaeda’s power. He just described the reality of what the neo-conservatives has turned into a myth while justifying their world crusade. It is obvious that none of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations would be so categorical.

Objective Alliance with China and Unconditional Support to the Shah of Iran

Even when Nixon and Kissinger were cautious about besieging the Soviet Union and restored relations with China, a number of Carter’s closest advisers did not support this rapprochement Brzezinski had in mind.

When Carter became President, he stated he would establish a dialogue with the USRR and keep the People’s Republic of China at a distance. But, his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, opposed Brzezinski anti-Russian obsession and Carter had no choice but to conciliate its administration’s antagonism.

Usually, the mediator between these two poles was Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. future ambassador to the UN and John Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during his campaign, along with Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew’s son. According to Cyrus Vance and some others in favor of establishing the dialogue, like democrat renegade Averell Arriman, the triangular logic of besieging would only lead, at its best, to a misunderstanding with the USRR, not to mention war.

They recommended dialogues on disarmament and cooperation with the Soviet Union to neutralize the Third World conflicts. The re-establishment of relations with China kept on; Brzezinski even completed a joint program of strategic cooperation and managed to have good personal relations with Deng Xiaoping, something that has really helped him nowadays.

Brzezinski’s distrust towards the USRR can be perceived again in his attitude towards Iran, which under the Shah’s regimen was considered as a bastion against the Soviet influence in the Middle East. Brzezinski promised Shah his support until the last moment and requested U.S. military intervention to keep him in power even when part of Carter’s administration, led by his Secretary of State, opposed it.

However, Washington’s concrete actions were implemented according to the state Department’s point of view and despite all negotiations with the generals that defeated Shah to guarantee a moderate regime in the country; it was Khomeini who took power after a popular seafloor spreading. Khomeini joined Carter at Camp David negotiations in 1977 and played a key role in the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt without even being present in the most important debates. However, when the USRR was the main topic, he was always there.

The Russian Threat and the American Supremacy

In 1989, Brzezinski quit his job at Columbia University where he taught since 1960 to work on Ukraine’s independent status plan. This marks the beginning of his compromise to prevent the resurgence of Russia as a superpower. He defended Russia’s integration to the Western system and the “geopolitical multiparty system” in the territory of the former Soviet Union.

He also developed a “plan for Europe” that included NATO’s expansion to the Baltic republics, a dream that came true when three of them joined NATO in 2002. During the 90s he was the special envoy of the American President to promote the most important oil infrastructure project of the world: the Baku-Tbilissi-Ceyhan pipeline which was his best opportunity to prevent the resurgence of Russia. He has also been, since 1999, the president of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose headquarters are located at the Freedom House facility. This position allows him to intervene in peace negotiations between the Russian government and independence fighters led by Mashkadov. However, the truth behind these good will “democratic” activities is to assist independence followers to maintain a war in the area, like the Afghan one, to weaken Russian and to keep it away from the gains of the Caspian Sea.

Brzezinski’s doctrine («The power ruling Eurasia will control two of the most economically advanced and productive areas of the world») is related to NATO’s expansion to the East, something the Clinton’s Administration actively worked on. But, how could they sell NATO to Europeans? «The European region located in the Western border of Eurasia and next to Africa is much more exposed to the risks of the increasing global disorder than a more politically united, military powerful and geographically isolated America (…).

The Europeans will be more exposed to risk if an imperialist chauvinism encourages Russia’s foreign policy», said Brzezinski to National Interest magazine in year 2000. [5] The whole thing is quite clear: the deployment of NATO’s forces around Russia was a preventive measure. If Russia’s reaction is to be defensive, it means that it is planning to restore its empire and totalitarianism.

Brzezinski has been working also as a consultant for BP-Amoco and Freedom House in Azerbaijan. His objective is to worship Heidar Alyiev’s image and in a New York Times interview he characterized the dictator as a «nice guy». [6] Brzezinski justifies Aliyev’s Anglo-Saxon support by explaining that after seven decades of communist government nobody can expect Azerbaijan and the former Soviet republics to become democratic nations in such a short period of time.

Even when Aliyev’s political repression increased during the last few years and the gains from the Caspian Sea diminished, Azerbaijan was still considered by Freedom House as a “partially free” country. In 1999, Secretary of State and Brzezinski’s disciple, Madeleine Albright, invited Heidar Aliyev to NATO’s anniversary ceremony. On their part, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine organized some joint military maneuvers, sponsored by NATO’s “Association for Peace” program, on April 16, 1996. [7]

Despite his activities as BP-Amoco and Freedom House’s consultant, Brzezinski assisted a system of funds and NGOs (non governmental organizations) in support of the former Soviet top-classes, intellectuals and elites.

As an initiative of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose chairman was Brzezinski, a meeting between the main leaders of the Chechnya movement was held from August 16 to August 18, 2002 in Lichtenstein, two months after the one held in Bassaiev and Maskhadov, where an agreement was signed on the mutual direction of the “Armed Forces of the Ichkeria Republic of Chechnya”. The participants concluded that Chechnya should not longer be a part of Russia, that a real autonomy was necessary and the time to negotiate with Maskhadov had arrived. But, was Beslán’s hostages event, as claimed by Bassaiev, part of Chechnya independence demand process or part of Russia’s destabilizing process? [8]

Several questions could be raised if we take into account that the main consequence of this action was a tightening of tensions between North Odessa and neighboring Inguchia, that is, a much more relevant balkanization of the region.

Nowadays, Brzezinski is very active in CSIS but he still the brain of the Democrats foreign policy program, something that is quite evident in candidate Kerry and his partner John Edwards’s obsession with Russia. Following Mark Brzezinski’s advises they chose as their main priority Russia’s nuclear disarmament in a moment in which it has recovered the same oil production it had before its demise and is benefiting widely of the current oil prices which has allowed it to double its defense budget. Therefore, Russia’s nuclear arsenal is not, as John Kerry says, a present-day threat.

Kerry’s real objective is related to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s strategy of Russia’s subordination but, from now on, it will be much more difficult to convince the world public opinion of Russia’s evil and totalitarianism. [9] Therefore, it is necessary to provoke its reaction as was done with the Afghan case in 1979, because Russia will have no problems with its energy supply in the next decades, a real concern the U.S. has. This is why in some recent Wall Street Journal and Novaya Gazetta interviews, Brzezinski characterized Vladimir Putin as «Russian Benito Mussolini».

 Arthur Lepic
French Journalist, member of the French section of Voltaire Network and specialized in energy and military affairs.


This author’s articles
To send a message


[1] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era, Harper publishing house, 1971. French Edition, Révolution technetronique, Calman-Lévy publishing house, 1971.

[2] The Trilateral Commission will also lead French President Giscard d’Estaing to choose one of its members, Raymond Barre, professor of economics and political unexperienced, as Primer Minister.

[3] Brzezinski included in his team Madeleine K. Albright (whose father served in Czechoslovakia during Eduard Benes’s government, Brzezinksi’s father in law) and the two theorists of The Clash of Civilization, Bernard Lewis and Samuel P.Huntington.

[4] Le Nouvel Observateur, No. 1732, from January 15 to January 21, 1998, p.76.

[5] Quoted in George Szamuely : «Bribing Montenegro – It didn’t work», antiwar, June 15, 2000.

[6] «Freedom spells B-A-K-U», Counterpunch Magazine, 1999.

[7] See: «Freedom House, quand la liberté n’est qu’un slogan», Voltaire, September 7, 2004. Article written in French that will soon be published by Red Voltaire.

[8] Marivilia Carrasco : «Beslan: responsibility of slaughter points towards the Anglosaxons», Voltaire, September 19, 2004.

[9] Thierry Meyssan: «115 atlantists against Rusia», Voltaire, November 26, 2004.

The International Terror Network

The International Terror Network

By: Peter Chamberlin

The world needs to understand the forces of international terror that are laying siege at freedom’s door.  They are an insidious force, accustomed to the ways and thoughts of modern man, always in possession of insight that no man or organization of men ought to have.  With the clarity of foresight that can only be gained by armies of scientists and statisticians working non-stop for generations, the terror masters stage the events that will cause other events, ad infinitum, until mankind is herded into the cages of his own mind, terrorized from the trauma of witnessing the wholesale culling of the herd.

The point, struggling to be made, is that certain individuals have dedicated their personal fortunes and their very lives to the task of changing the human race and thinning its numbers.  For the human race to become a true slave race the desire to rebel must be bred out of the herd, resisters must be eliminated and the size of the herds must be reduced to manageable levels.

The “terror” that besieges society is our description of the acts of violence that herd mankind in this one direction, producing anticipated reactions to sufficiently shocking events.  By studying history and human nature itself, particularly human reactions to war, a university and foundation behavioralists, sociologists and statisticians have produced a scientific analysis which predicts human behavior when submersed in an environment of violent tension.  This “strategy of tension” is the blueprint for using terrorism to manipulate society into accepting the unacceptable.

Who are the true “terrorists,” the ones who develop the plan to terrorize the world into submission, or the hitmen who carry-out the grand design?  Morally, they are the same.  In reality, you can know the goals of the planners through a study of the patterns of their hitmen.  I have ceased to find either humor or irony in the fact that the “Islamic militants” we fight in our war of terror have the same strategic and tactical goals of the Western alliance.  I have gone way beyond shock in the realization that American soldiers are busily killing and dying against insurgents and terrorists who are carrying-out contract killings upon civilians and soldiers on orders that issue from New York, Washington and Tel Aviv.

American leaders and “al Qaida” share common enemies, wherever the conflict rages.  In Pakistan, the next battlefield now being prepared, both seek to destabilize the government, to undercut Chinese gains, to attack Iran and to provoke a conflict with India.  Every country in the Caucasus region and the greater Middle East has an “Islamic” insurgency that is putting pressure on the government to submit to US “counter-insurgency” assistance, while the US is offering sweetheart deals on resource development packages.  If the insurgencies suddenly ended, there would be no social pressure pushing the governments to invite the American “Dracula” into their living rooms.  The criminal gangs that are terrorizing local citizens are fueling the tension which is the driving force in the American strategy to acquire the national energy resources.

But who are these terrorists really?  The army of international terrorists has thousands of master killers, with an equal number of puppets who are oblivious of the puppeteers.  Bin Laden came from them, but he is not their commander, merely another cog in the wheel of terror.

Over the years, the terror masters have accumulated lists of thousands of terrorists, who have become master killers under their tutelage.  One of these lists, is known as “al Qaida;” other lists have been known as “Gladio,” “Operation Condor,” the “Phoenix Project,” “El Salvador Option,” “Tehreek e-Taliban,” and a dozen other names.  The one thing that all of these groups has in common is that they were all mercenary armies recruited and trained for the CIA by intermediaries who were willing to plot against their own countrymen in this manner.  Who can say how many of these trainees were aware of the true power behind the curtain?

(The issue that must be clarified at this point is that a lot of these agency hitmen have been engaged in direct combat and roadside attacks against American and allied troops, or caused other attacks which targeted Americans.  This means that the CIA is creating mini-armies who fight in Iraq and Afghanistan against American soldiers.  How many soldiers out of the four thousand in Iraq died because of actions by these secret soldiers fomenting sectarian conflict? How many coalition troops in Afghanistan died by CIA-supplied bullets and bombs?  Thousands of these terrorists have killed several thousand Pakistani soldiers, while carrying-out the CIA’s own separate foreign policy.  This is an outrage that will not die soon, or be covered-up!)

All of these groups have committed acts of terror against their own governments with American supplies and training, for the purpose of giving America a veto over political decisions within their homelands.  Their terror was American state terrorism.  “Al Qaida” is us.

They have taken control of the fate of nations through their murderous attacks and ceaseless acts of social agitation.  They now stand ready to take the game to the next level, with an escalation of all conflicts and the sparking of new conflagrations.  Citizens of conscience must also stand ready to stop the new catastrophic conflagration as the new fires are laid (like the one in Gaza).

To oppose America is to resist the forces of terrorism.  The state sponsors of terror have to be exposed, their crimes brought into the light.  As the wheels of terror accelerate, the networks begin to ravel at the edges.  We see proof of the terror network and its true sources, emanating from within the intelligence agencies of the “civilized” Western powers.  Stories in the foreign press, which are barely mentioned by the controlled Western media, such as the German intelligence (BND) bombing of their own offices in Kosovo and the Israeli intelligence (Mossad) bombing the American embassy in Yemen, provide the hard proof about the true authors of the terror which compels us to wage the real war.

The targets of suspicious insurgencies reveal the geopolitical ambitions that drive the attackers.  The best examples of this agency double-dealing can be found in Pakistan, such as the multiple killings of Chinese engineers working on development projects in the tribal lands:

October 13, 2004

Feb. 16, 2006

July 19, 2007

August 29, 2008

December 25, 2008

These killings are all attributed to a shadowy group that became known as Tehreek e-Taliban (TTP) (as are the bombings of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto).

The militants associated with TTP gained first notoriety before the group’s actual founding, when role model Abdullah Mehsud kidnapped and killed two Chinese engineers, who were working on a hydroelectric project in Waziristan.  Mehsud (after being mysteriously released from a two year incarceration/indoctrination at Guantanamo Bay) trained and molded the terror group through a series of attacks in Pakistan.  The group then (and now) concentrated on killing Pashtun tribal leaders who refused to wage war against the Pakistani government and on killing Shiites, in order to inflame sectarian tensions.  One among them, cousin Baitullah Mehsud, excelled, rising to commander of the organization of several thousand fighters, which officially became known as TTP in December 2007.

CIA-influenced Pakistani journalists, like Syed Saleem Shahzad of Asia Times, helped to create the mythology of the “Pakistani Taliban” by publishing article after article on the new group and the alleged “war within the Taliban” being fomented by them.  In the end, it turned out that there was no war within the group, but there was a campaign of mass-murder of local Pashtun leaders, intended to cause an insurgency within an insurgency.

Through press reports like these, the Western media was given the opportunity to misreport every terrorist attack by this new group as “Taliban terrorism.”  Just like their Sunni counterparts in Iraq, this campaign of decapitation of local leadership was coupled with a larger campaign of terror attacks, said to be forcing locals to accept radicalized “Sharia law” as interpreted by rabid Wahabbis.  The TTP, like all these “Islamist” groups is classified under the heading of “al Qaida” by the national disinformation service (the press), thus establishing the link between “Taliban” and “al Qaida.”

The “Lashkar e-Taiba” Kashmiri group, which is being blamed for the Mumbai attacks is another militant group with a dubious “al Qaida” connection.  According to the press, all such “Islamic” militant organizations, even all terrorist attacks, can be traced back to Pakistan.  Many of these groups were trained for the CIA by Pakistan’s secret service (ISI).  If available evidence in a terrorist attack traces back to the ISI, then the press and world public opinion never looks beyond the ISI to the CIA handlers, the true authors of the terror.  By implicating the ISI, or any other intelligence agency in this way, the United States maintains its infamous “plausible deniability.”

Over and over again, this pattern of agency set-up and knockdown is repeated all over the world, pushing the American agenda forward, never faltering, never swaying, from the path…unless.  Unless someone on the inside screws-up, letting facts slip, or other less-controlled agencies get involved, the plan never changes – empower the warlords, strangle and starve the competition.  The competition today remains the same as it was the day the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) wrote it down for all to see —  the elimination or neutralization of all potential competition before they threaten American dominance.

Excerpt from 1992 Draft “Defense Planning Guidance”–

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

“There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

Nobody is busier securing these strategic goals of destabilizing America and the most strategically vital region of the earth while advancing US hegemony worldwide, than the international terror network.  The only “Caliphate” that these guys are thinking about is the one that emanates from New York and its temples on Wall Street.

Wake-up America!  We are the source of state terrorism—look no farther.

peter.chamberlin@yahoo.com

PFLP communique from the battle field demands UN act to stop Israeli attacks

From the battlefield under siege: A statement by the PFLP

For four consecutive days now, an Israeli massacre is continuing against our people in Gaza under the eyes and with the silence and complicity of international officialdom. Our people have been under attack by the Zionist occupier’s bombs, missiles and warplanes, attacking our cities, towns, villages and refugee camps. Gaza is living under total siege from sea, land and air.

<!–

–>The Israeli enemy has bombed our universities, ministries, municipal buildings, civil institutions and even our security buildings. Now, the tunnels that have provided our only means of trade and sustenance with the outside world, sealing off the last escape route from the open-air prison that the occupier has made of Gaza.

What must be clear is that these crimes are being committed by the Israeli occupier with the complicity of the Egyptian regime and the active participation of the United States, and that, in fact, these crimes would not be possible without that complicity and support. This assault on our people in Gaza is a continuation of the war that Israel waged against the Lebanese people and their resistance in 2006 and the ongoing war against the Iraqi resistance, and involves the participation and complicity of the same forces in their attempts to destroy the Arab people’s resistance to colonialism, occupation, Zionism and imperialism. These crimes are taking place through collective targeting and punishment of the masses of the people who embrace the resistance and continue to provide the steadfast backbone of our revolution.

In light of this urgent and critical situation, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is calling the Palestinian people, the Arab masses and all progressive and revolutionary forces in the world to confront this aggression, expose its objectives, and provide support by all forms and means to the Palestinian cause, to participate in achieving victory out of this horrific massacre.

We call upon people to:

Demand the immediate end to the Israeli massacres and aggression against our people in Gaza.

Demand that the Egyptian government immediately, permanently and unconditionally open the Rafah crossing with Gaza. Pressure the Arab regimes and the Arab League to end their silence and complicity with the occupier’s crimes against our people.

Demand that the U.S. immediately end its cover and support for this aggression and its participation in this aggression. It must be noted that the war machines by which Israel is carrying out its massacres, including F-16 warplanes and Apache helicopters, were made by and paid for by the U.S. and are being used to target civilians in violation of international law, and even U.S. law itself.

Call upon the international community to end its silence and complicity with the Israeli massacre. Demand that the United Nations and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon end their acceptance and complicity with occupation crimes against our people and instead implement their own resolutions guaranteeing Palestinian rights and sovereignty. UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann has called upon the UN to live up to its responsibilities and we salute this call and call upon all people to turn this call into action.

Act to internationally isolate the illegitimate racist state of Israel. Israel’s horrendous crimes have exceeded even those of apartheid South Africa and this regime should not be welcomed anywhere in the world, in international forums or institutions and it should be totally boycotted. All countries should expel Israeli ambassadors and the participation of Israeli representatives in any international gathering or forum should be completely rejected. There is no place for racist Zionism.

Towards victory!

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

December 30, 2008

Sana’a Forum calls for instant stop of Israeli aggression against Gaza

Sana’a Forum calls for instant stop of Israeli

aggression against Gaza


By: Mahmoud Assamie
SANA’A, Dec. 31-The Sixth Sana’a Forum for economic, security, political, and cultural cooperation concluded in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum on Tuesday.

The final statement of the Forum underlined the leaders’ keenness on establishing security and stability in the African Horn and calming down conflicts in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti through diplomatic channels. It also enjoined the international community to undertake the responsibility of halting the International Criminal Court move against the Sudanese president.

The Forum leaders, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir, Prime Minister of Ethiopia Meles Zinawi, and acting Somali Prime Minister Dr. Nour Hassan Hussein, further called on the United Nations Security Council to adopt the required measures for putting an end to violence against civilians in Gaza and to resolve the Arab-Israeli struggle. They also called on the UN Security Council to oblige Israel to carry out related international legislations.

“Only the United Sates can stop the barbaric and brutal aggression,” said Saleh in the opening speech of the Summit. He added that the United States can force Israel and convince the Security Council to take instant decision making steps to stop Israeli aggression against Gaza.

Al-Bashir expressed his extreme anxiety towards war crimes and the barbaric destruction that Israeli troops have been committing against Gaza citizens. “Sorrowfully, these crimes are committed before the international community because of the shameful collusion of the world’s super power, the United States of America, and Israel. America was not even ashamed to justify this aggression and worked on frustrating any effort made by the UN Security Council for denouncing and stopping these Israeli actions against Gaza.” The Sudanese president added that this gives the Zionist entity the green light to continue its genocide. He affirmed that the United Nation has become a supporter of this oppressive force which moves it according its desires and interests.

The leaders confirmed their complete commitment toward realizing peace and sustainable development in the Horn of Africa, the South of the Red Sea, and solving differences by peaceful means. Acting Somali Prime Minister Dr. Nour Hassan Hussein pleaded to Sana’a Forum to provide money and logistical support for Somali forces to create stability, especially since Ethiopia decided to withdraw its forces.

The leaders also affirmed enhancing and improving cooperation between the Forum members in all fields. They also called for improving and enhancing trade activities between their countries and speeding up establishing free trade zones.

They also decided on forming a joint task force comprised from various countries in the region in order to face piracy on Somali coasts and the Gulf of Aden. The task force will be under the supervision of the Arab League and the African Union and was made not just to combat piracy but also to avoid any exterior interference concerning the issue.

They welcomed the efforts of the International Marine Organization that recently established the regional center in Yemen for exchanging information on piracy and armed robbery against ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden area in Yemen.

The communiqué stressed the importance of coordinating efforts of the United Nation, the Arab League, and international partners and donors to reconstruct Somalia as soon as possible. It also approved an inclusive program for rebuilding Somali institutions and organizing returning refugees to their homeland.

Concerning Sudan, the leaders expressed their appreciation for efforts towards implementing a peace agreement in the east of Sudan and the Darfur area, and praised positive developments of relations between Sudan and Chad. This praise came in addition to expressing anxiety concerning the prosecution of the International Criminal Court against Sudan and the negative effects of these activities on Arab and African efforts for realizing peace in Darfur.

Sana’a Forum summits are held every year in one member country. The previous summit was held last December 2007 in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa.

The Forum was established in Sana’a on May 2002 for forming a triple coalition that included Yemen, Sudan, and Ethiopia. The three leaders of the Forum signed the treaty of establishing the Forum on December 30, 2003 in Addis Ababa. Somalia has been added recently to the coalition and there are plans for including Djibouti.

The aims of the Forum are improving cooperation between the member countries for realizing peace, protecting the Horn African region, improving the economy, and settling differences between these countries.

Russia shuts off gas to Ukraine

A Ukrainian gas holding station in Mryn, 130km from Kiev, 16 December

Much of the EU’s gas from Russia arrives via Ukraine

Russia has stopped all gas supplies to Ukraine after the collapse of talks to end a row over unpaid bills and prices.

Russia’s gas giant Gazprom said it turned off the taps at 0700 GMT, when its contract to supply Ukraine ended.

Ukraine insists it has paid off its debts to Gazprom, but Russia contests this. The two countries have also failed to agree on a price for 2009.

Both Russia and Ukraine insist that gas supplies transported via Ukraine to the European Union will continue as normal.

There have been fears that the row could lead to energy shortages in Europe, as pipes across Ukraine carry about a fifth of the EU’s gas needs.

The European Commission said Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko had given her assurances that there would be “no disruption of gas supplies to clients in the European Union”.

Europe’s gas pipeline network

Reports quoting Ukraine state energy firm Naftogaz said on Thursday it had already seen a reduction of pressure in its gas pipelines after Russia cut supplies, and will now pump gas from its reserves.

Earlier, in a broadcast from a pumping station near Russia’s border with Ukraine, Russia’s Vesti-24 TV station said Gazprom HQ in Moscow had ordered a cut-off, and the volume of gas flowing to Ukraine was a quarter of the normal level.

“The debt to Gazprom for gas supplied earlier was not paid. Despite verbal statements from Kiev, Gazprom did not see any money in its account,” said Gazprom’s chief executive Alexei Miller said.

He criticised Ukraine’s stance during the negotiations as “unconstructive”, and said Gazprom had no legal reason to continue supplying gas to Ukraine.

Mr Miller said the contract to supply gas depended on the full settlement of £2bn in gas bills and late-payment fines levied by Gazprom.

He also suggested that Kiev was seeking to provoke a wider dispute, saying he was “forming the impression that there are political forces in Ukraine which are very eager to see a gas conflict between our two countries”.

A similar row between Gazprom and Ukraine at the beginning of 2006 led to gas shortages in several EU countries.

‘Unconstructive’

Naftogaz said it has paid $1.5bn (£1bn) in outstanding bills to RosUkrEnergo – a Switzerland-registered gas trading company which is acting as an intermediary – but not the fines imposed by Gazprom.

Alexei Miller (file image)

Gazprom’s Alexei Miller said he blamed Ukraine entirely for the situation

“Europe will receive all the gas Russia supplies it with,” the agency quoted Bogdan Sokolovsky, the Ukrainian president’s representative on energy issues, as saying.

Gazprom is the world’s largest gas producer and supplies a quarter of the European Union’s gas needs – and 42% of its imports. Most of that is transported via Ukraine.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin had earlier warned Ukraine not to disrupt the transit of gas to Europe.

He warned of “very severe consequences” for Ukraine in terms of its relations with both Russia and European countries.

The two countries have failed to agree on a price for gas supplies in 2009.

Mr Putin said Gazprom had been generous in offering Ukraine a price of $250 per 1,000 cubic metres of gas in 2009, given that the price in Europe was currently more than $500.

He said he understood that Ukraine was in “a difficult economic situation” which was worse than Russia’s, but put the dispute down to a “war of the clans” between the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, and President Viktor Yushchenko.

Deaths in Pakistan drone attack

Deaths in Pakistan drone attack

At least five people have been killed when a suspected US drone fired missiles into a tribal area in northwest Pakistan, local officials said.

A security official told the AFP news agency that an unmanned aircraft fired three missiles in the Karikot area of South Waziristan on Thursday.

It was the same spot where eight suspected fighters were killed in a US drone strike 10 days ago.

According to a local government official, one of the missiles hit a vehicle, killing all five people inside who were believed to be pro-Taliban fighters.

He said two other missiles hit a hilltop house that was a known hideout for fighters in the area but was empty at the time of the strike, the official said.

“We rushed out of our homes,” Zar Wali, a local resident, told the AFP news agency, saying the powerful explosions caused panic.

US forces based in Afghanistan have carried out about 30 missile strikes in Pakistan in 2008, according to a Reuters tally, more than half since the beginning of September.

Continued battles

A tally of of reports from Pakistani intelligence agents, district government officials and residents claim the raids have killed more than 220 people, including foreign fighters.

In recent months, Pakistani forces and pro-Taliban fighters have been fighting in the Bajaur region on the Afghan border, northeast of South Waziristan, as well as in the Swat Valley.

The government in Islamabad says the US raids violate its sovereignty and undermine its military efforts by inflaming public anger.

Ajmal Kasab has no link to Pakistan: FBI

Ajmal Kasab has no link to Pakistan: FBI

* 5-member FBI team visits Fareedkot
ISLAMABAD, Dec 31: The alleged key suspect of Mumbai Attacks, Ajmal Kasab has no link to Pakistan, said the team of FBI after undertaking visit of Fareedkot in Pakistan. According to the FBI team which visited Fareedkot, which India claims is the area of residence of Ajmal Kasab, no evidence could be collected from the area which could confirm the claim of Ajmal Kasab�s being Pakistan national. A five-member team of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headed by its South Asian Director, William Robert has visited Pakistani area of Fareedkot. It may be mentioned here that Indian authorities had alleged that Ajmal Kasab belonged to Fareedkot, a Pakistani area. However, there has been no evidence proving the Indian claim that Ajmal Kasab is Pakistan national.