| To truly understand the
specific you must understand the general and to master knowledge of the general
you must understand the specific.
What is taking place in the Palestinian Territories is related to what
is taking place across the Middle East and Central Asia, from Lebanon to Iraq and
NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, as part of a broader geo-strategic objective. All the events
in the Middle East are part of a mammoth geo-political jigsaw puzzle; each piece only
shows you one picture or a portion of the picture, but when you put all
these pieces together you see the grand picture of things.
For these reasons at times more than one event must be discussed to
gain greater understanding of another event, but this at times comes at a risk of
diverging or extending one's focus in different directions.
The following text is based on several key sections of an
earlier and broader text; this text is brief in form but comprehensive in its
scope and more focused on the events in the Palestinian Territories and their role in
the broader chain of regional events in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East.
Operation Cast Lead: The “Birth Pangs of a New Palestine”
The Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip against the
Palestinians are part of a larger geo-strategic project. They are part of the “birth
pangs of a new Palestine and Middle East” in the eyes of the U.S. and
Israel. but this project will not proceed as envisaged by the U.S. and Israel. There
is a wind of change and revolt throughout the Middle East and the Arab World.
This process is unleashing a new wave of popular resistance directed against the U.S.
and Israel, both within and beyond the Arab World.
“Operation Cast Lead” has been planned for almost a year. The “Shoah”
(Hebrew word for holocaust) that Matan Vilnai, an Israeli official, promised the
Palestinians has been exposed even though many media sources have attempted to whitewash
it.
Israeli officials had warned that they would enter the Gaza Strip since the election of
Hamas. The underlying rationale for a campaign against Gaza was that Fatah
fighters (supported by the U.S. and Israel) had failed to oust the Hamas-led
Palestinian government through a coup d'etat. The idea of a coup directed against
Hamas was endorsed by the U.S., Britain, Israel, and several Arab dictatorships
including Saudi Arabia, Jordon, and Egypt.
The publication NATO and Israel: Instruments of America's Wars in the Middle East clearly
documents Tel Aviv's strategic objective to invade Gaza and overthrow the
democratic political system of the Palestinians in favour of Palestinian clients.
The Israeli objective is also to "internationalize" the Gaza Strip on the model
of South Lebanon, requiring the involvement of NATO and other
foreign military forces as so-called peacekeepers.[1] This modus operandi
is very similar to that of Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO-garrisoned
Afghanistan. The former Yugoslavia is also a relevant example, where a political and
economic restructuring process (including a privatization program) was
implemented under the surveillance of U.S. and NATO troops. The difference with
Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories is that political figures, such as Mahmoud
Abbas, willing to implement these agendas are already in place.
From the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative to the Annapolis Conference
The events at issue start with the 2002 Arab Initiative that was
proposed by Saudi Arabia in Beirut during an Arab League conference in Lebanon. Saudi
Arabia's initiative was in effect handed over to Riyad by London and Washington
in 2002 as part of an Anglo-American military-political roadmap for the Middle
East and as part of the Project for the “New Middle East.”
The Hamas-Fatah split, the calculated deceit behind Saudi
Arabia's role in the Mecca Accord, and the long-term objectives of America and its
allies in the Middle East and the Mediterranean littoral have been in the backdrop of
the fighting in the Palestinian Territories.
The struggle in Palestine, like in Iraq and Lebanon, does not solely pertain to
sovereignty and "self-determination." What is at stake is the imposition
of a global neo-liberal economic agenda through force. The latter constututes a
modern form of debt-ridden slavery and privatization, imposed by military force in
the Middle East and worldwide.
What is not always understood, is that the Palestinian struggle is being waged on behalf
of people everywhere. The Palestinians are in the forefront in the battle against,
speaking in a political and economic sense, the “New World Order.”
To understand where the path advertised at Annapolis is intended to lead the Palestinians
and the entire Levant one must also understand what has been happening in Palestine since
the onslaught of the “Global War on Terror” in 2001.
Act I: Dividing the Palestinians through a Hamas-Fatah Split
America and the E.U. have come to realize that Fatah does not represent
the popular will of the Palestinian Nation and that representative power will
eventually be taken away from Fatah.
This is a central issue for Israel, the E.U., and America, which require a corrupt proxy
Fatah leadership to carry out their long-term objectives in the Palestinian Territories
and the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as in the broader Middle East region.
In 2005, Washington and Tel Aviv started preparing for a Hamas victory in the Palestinian
general elections. Thus, a strategy was created before the political victory of Hamas to
neutralize not only Hamas but all legitimate forms of resistance to the foreign agendas
that the Palestinians have been held hostages to since the “Nakba.”
Israel, America, and their allies, which includes the E.U., were well
aware that Hamas would never be a party to what Washington foresaw for the Palestinians
and the Middle East. Simply stated, Hamas would oppose the Project for the “New
Middle East.” This geo-political restructuring of the Middle East required in the
Levant, the concurrent implementation of the Mediterranean Union. All along, the 2002 Arab
Peace Initiative was a gateway for the materialization of both the “New Middle East”
and its implementation through the Mediterranean Union.
While the Saudis played their part in America's “New Middle East”
venture, Fatah was manipulated into confronting and fighting Hamas. This was also
done with the knowledge that Hamas' first reaction as the governing party in the
Palestinian Territories would be to try to maintain the integrity of Palestinian unity.
This is where Saudi Arabia comes into the picture again through its role in arranging the
Mecca Accord. It is also worth noting that Saudi Arabia did not give Hamas any diplomatic
recognition before the Mecca Accord.
Act II: Entrapping
the Palestinians in Mecca and via a Gaza-West Bank Divide
The Mecca Accord was a setup and a means to entrap Hamas. The Hamas-Fatah
truce and the subsequent Palestinian unity government that was established, was not meant
to prevail. It was doomed from the outset, when Hamas was deceived into signing the
agreement in Mecca. The Mecca Accord had set the next stage; it was meant to
"legitimize" what would happen next: a Palestinian mini-civil war in Gaza.
It is after the signing of the Mecca Accord that elements within Fatah led by Mohammed
Dahlan (supervised by U.S. Lieutenant-General Keith Dayton) were ordered to overthrow the
Hamas-led Palestinian government by the U.S. and Israel. There probably existed two
contingency plans, one for Fatah's possible success and the other contingency plan (and
more probable of the two) made in the case of Fatah's failure. The latter plan was a
preparation for two parallel Palestinian governments, one in Gaza led by Prime
Minister Haniyah and Hamas and the other in the West Bank controlled by Mahmoud Abbas and
Fatah.
The objective of Israel and the U.S. was to divide the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into
two political entities under two very different administrations. With the ending of the
Hamas-Fatah fighting in the Gaza Strip, the Israelis started talking about a “three
nation solution.”
As a result of the Gaza-West Bank split, Mahmoud Abbas and his associates also called for
the creation of a parallel Palestinian parliament in the West Bank, a rubber stamp all but
in name. [2] Other plans for this so-called “three nation solution”
included handing over the Gaza Strip to Egypt and dividing up the Israeli-occupied West
Bank between Israel and Jordon.
Furthermore, the Mecca Accord effectively allowed Fatah to rule the
West Bank in two strokes. Since a unity government was formed as a result of the Mecca
Accord, a Fatah withdrawal from the government was used to depict the Hamas-led government
as illegitimate by Fatah. This was while the renewed fighting in Gaza made new Palestinian
elections unworkable.
Mahmoud Abbas was also put in a position where he could claim "legitimacy" in
the process of forming his own administration in the West Bank, that would otherwise have
been seen, by international public opinion, for what it really was: an illegitimate
regime, without a parliamentary base. It is also no coincidence that the man picked to
leed Mahmoud Abbas' government, Dr. Salam Fayyad, is a former World Bank official.
With Hamas effectively neutralized and cut off from power in the West Bank, the stage was
set for two things; proposals for an international military force in the Palestinian
Territories and the Annapolis Conference. [3]
Act III: The
Israeli-Palestinian Agreement of Principles and the Annapolis Peace Conference
Prior to the Annapolis Conference, "agreements of
principles" were drafted by Mahmoud Abbas and Israel which guaranteed that the
Palestinians would not have a military force, if the West Bank were to be given some
form of political self-determination.
The agreements also called for the integration of the economies of the Arab World with
Israel and the positioning of an international force, similar to those stationed by
NATO in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, to supervise the enforcement of these
agreements in the Palestinian Territories. The objective was to neutralize Hamas and
legitimize Mahmoud Abbas.
The visit of the Secretary-General of NATO, Jakob (Jaap) de Hoop Scheffer to U.A.E.
, shortly after the visits of George W. Bush Jr. and Nicholas Sarkozy, were
conducive to the signing of military agreements between the U.A.E., and the U.S., as
well as with France.
While in the U.A.E., Secretary-General de Hoop Scheffer stated, in substance that it is
only a matter of time before NATO gets involved in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.[4] The
Secretary-General of NATO also mentioned that this would happen once a viable Palestinian
state was formed. What de Hoop Scheffer really meant was that NATO would become
involved in the Palestinian Territories once a Palestinian proxy state under Mahmoud Abbas
would be formed. He also mentioned that there would be no recognition of Hamas by NATO.
Hamas has outlived its usefulness to Israel and its partners. Fatah could also have
been used to attack the Gaza Strip again. Fatah is also an Israeli partner in
the campaign against the Gaza Strip. Israeli media had reported in September
2008 about the attacks on the Gaza Strip as being a joint Israeli-Fatah plan to
militarily oust the Hamas-led Palestinian government.[5]
When the Annapolis Conference was hosted by the U.S. government, pundits and
analysts worldwide termed the summit as without substance and as a move to undue
everything that it owed to the Palestinians, including the right for Palestinian refugees
to return to their homes and lands. The Annapolis Conference was only an
extravagant do over of the carefully crafted 2002 Saudi-proposed Arab Peace
Initiative tabled to the Arab League.
Act IV: Coming Full
Circle, back to the Saudi Arabian 2002 Arab Peace Initiative
The people of the Middle East must open their eyes to what
has been planned for their lands. The Agreement of Principles, the 2002 Arab Peace
Initiative, and the Annapolis Conference are all a means to the same end. All three, like
Israel, have their roots in establishing economic hegemony in the Middle East.
This is where France and Germany converge with Anglo-American foreign policy. For years,
even before the “Global War on Terror,” Paris had been calling for a troop
contingent from either the E.U. or NATO to be deployed to Lebanon and the
Palestinian Territories.
In February 2004, France's then Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated that
once the Israelis left the Gaza Strip foreign troops could be sent there and an
international conference could legitimize their presence as part of the second phase of
the Israeli-Palestinian Roadmap and as part of an initiative for the Greater Middle East
or the “New Middle East.” [6] This statment was made before Hamas came to the
scene and before Mahmoud Abbas' Agreement of Principles. However, it did follow the 2002
Saudi-proposed Arab Initiative.
It is clear that the events unfolding in the Middle East are part of a military
roadmap drawn before the “Global War on Terror.” Even the economic donor
conferences held for Lebanon after the Israeli attacks in 2006 and the ones being talked
about now for the Palestinians are linked to this restructuring agenda.
It is now time to study Nicolas Sarkozy's proposals for a Mediterranean Union. The
economic integration of the Israeli economy with the economies of the Arab World will
further the web of global relationships being tightened by the global agents of the
Washington Consensus. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, the Agreement of Principles,
and Annapolis are all phases for establishing the economic integration of the Arab World
with Israel through the Project for the “New Middle East” and the integration of
the entire Mediterranean with the European Union through the Mediterranean Union. The
presence of troops from both NATO and E.U. members in Lebanon is also a part of this goal.
Towards Establishing a Palestinian Dictatorship: More Plans to Oust Hamas
underway?
The Israeli attacks against the Gaza Strip and the
Palestinian people are an attack against democracy and freedom of choice. Israel, the
U.S., Saudi Arabia, and their allies have wasted no time in recognizing Mahmoud Abbas
as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians even though his term of office has finished.
Despite claims of supporting democracy and self-determination throughout the Middle East,
the foreign policies of the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, and the E.U. are opposed to
any genuine self-determination or democracy in the Middle East because any freedom of
choice for the populations of the Middle East would act as a barrier and spoiler to the
economic interests of these powers. This is exactly why dictatorships are the ideal form
of government in the Middle East in regards to Anglo-American and Franco-German foreign
policy interests.
The Palestinian Territories are not an exception to this. The U.S., Israel, their allies,
and the corrupt oligarchs of the upper circle of power within Fatah are set on
establishing autocratic rule in the Palestinian Territories. To the satisfaction
of planners in Israel and the U.S. the Hamas-Fatah split has helped push back the
democratic path that the Palestinians were following through the election of their
own leadership and has cleared the way for attempts to establish dictatorial Palestinian
proxy administrations in the future. The process has already started in the West
Bank.
By late-2008 Hamas had clarified that it intended to field its own candidate for the the
post of Palestinian Authority president in the Palestinian election that was supposed to
be held in January, 2009. This is a direct challenge to the power that Mahmoud Abbas and
the leaders of Fatah hold through control of the office of Palestinian Authority
president. Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah had rebuffed Hamas, before the Israeli attcks on the
Gaza Strip, by declaring that such an election would not take place until Hamas
surrenders its authority to Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian prime minister and
government in the West Bank that Mahmoud Abbas has handpicked outside the
democratic process.
In retalation the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip declared that it will refer
to the Palestinian legal code. Palestinian law which stipulates that in such
situations the role and post of president would be transfered to the speaker of the
Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the parliament of the Palestinians, for an interim
period. Ahmed Bahar, a member of Hamas, is currently in the position of
speaker of the PLC.
Crushing Palestinian Democracy: Middle Eastern Geo-Politics and Palestinian
Governance
In link to this move to oust Hamas are the broader geo-political and
strategic initiatives for encircling and confronting Syria and Iran. [7] Israel with
the help of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, had been trying to negotiate a one-sided truce
with the Hamas-led Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip for months. This move was
launched simultanously with Israeli initiatives linked towards Hezbollah, Lebanon,
and Syria.
These Israeli initiatives are a means to dismantle and dissolve the Resistance Bloc, a
coalition of nation-states and non-state actors againts foreign control and
occupation within the Middle East. This grouping includes, amongst others, the Arab
resistance movements in Anglo-American occupied Iraq, the Palestinian Territories, and
Lebanon. It has challenged the Washington Consensus and the economic reconfiguration of
the Middle East that is being implemented through such actions as the Anglo-American
invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Tel Aviv was going nowhere in its negotations with Hamas and now appears to favours the
establishment of an autocratic Fatah administration in the Gaza Strip that will readily
comply to Israeli edicts. This would also free Tel Aviv for any confrontations with
Lebanon, Syria, or/and Iran.
The Final Act: The Power of the People: The Act yet to be Played Out
The breaches of the Rafah Crossing between Egypt and the Gaza
Strip were a sign of the crumbling of tyranny, but there is still a long way to
go. [8] The mass protests worldwide from Egypt and the Arab World to Europe and Asia
are a sign that the “Second Superpower” — the power of the
people — is rearing its head.
In the end it will be the people who will decide, against the interest of the politicians
and their economic power brokers.
The people see beyond the issues of nationality, ethnic
division and man-made boundaries. They believe in justice and equity for
all and they feel a pain in their hearts when they see the suffering of others, no
matter the differences.
Worldwide, those that are just and honorable are a nation to themselves
— whether they are Israelis or Arabs or Americans — and it will be their
choices that will decide the direction of the future.
The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which includes a diverse spectrum of groups from Hamas
to Communists (e.g., the Marxist Democratic Front for the Liberation of
Palestine) and Christians, have done what the military foces of Jordan, Egypt,
Syria, and Iraq could not do.
The Israeli massacres in the Gaza Strip will prove to be a historic turning
point and the catalyst behind change.
The political and strategic map of the Middle East and the Arab World will be changed, but
not in favour of Israel, the House of Saud and the dictators of the Arab World.
Change is coming.
NOTES
[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, NATO and Israel: Instruments of
America's Wars in the Middle East, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), January 28,
2008.
[2] Khaled Abu Toameh, PLO to form separate W. Bank parliament, The Jerusalem Post, January
14, 2008.
[3] Emine Kart, Ankara cool towards Palestine troops, Today's Zaman, July
3, 2007.
[4] Jamal Al-Majaida, NATO
chief discusses alliance's role in Gulf, Khaleej Times, January
27, 2008.
[5] Avi Isaacharoff, PA chief of staff: We must be ready to use force against Hamas to
tahe control of Gaza, Haaretz, September
22, 2008.
[6] Dominique René de Villepin, Déclarations de Dominique de Villepin à propos du Grand
Moyen-Orient, interview with Pierre Rousselin, Le Figaro, February
19, 2004.
[7] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Beating the Drums of a Broader Middle East War, Centre for
Reseach on Globalization (CRG), May
6, 2008.
[8] Days after the Rafah Crossing was opened to free movement Mahmoud Abbas, the Israel
government, and the Egyptian government all pushed for Fatah to take armed control of
the Rafah Crossing and close it the Palestinian people. Not only is this a sign that none
of these players care about the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip it also illustrates
that Mahmoud Abbas has no interest in the welfare of Palestinians. The Rafah Crossing also
has an E.U. monitoring security force that implicates the E.U. as an accomplice in the
oppression of the Palestinians.
|
Be A Golden Rule Citizen! 
