|
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
||||||||||
The
Obama administration, like any government, routinely makes public
statements about its intentions. Let us consider three recent cases. 1. Last
Friday it was reported that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is
pushing for another round of United Nations sanctions against Iran.”[1] Here, the US government is
projecting that Iran is the bad guys and that the US will work to
undermine Iran. 2. A week
ago, President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel stated to a group
of rabbis that “ ‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we
can that is in Israel’s security – and long-range interests. Watch what
the administration does.’ ”[2] Here, the US government is
projecting that Israel is the good guys and will work to strengthen
Israel. 3. Last
Tuesday, it was reported that “US Middle East envoy George Mitchell is
scheduled to hold talks in Ramallah on Wednesday with Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, marking the launch of the ‘proximity
talks’ with Israel.”[3] This
comes after very strong and public statements from the Obama
administration demanding that Israel reach a final agreement on a
so-called ‘two-state solution’ with the Palestinian Authority. Now, the
‘Palestinian Authority’ is none other than PLO/Fatah. So here the US government is projecting that
PLO/Fatah is the good guys and should govern its own state on strategic
territory now controlled by Israel. Are
these three nearly simultaneous statements of intentions consistent
with each other? There is one hypothetical scenario under which they
are. This scenario requires that we accept certain things as fact.
First of all, on the basis of Iran’s universally recognized sponsorship
of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which openly declare
their goal to exterminate the Israeli Jews while attacking Israeli
civilians, we accept the president of Iran’s public declaration that
his government would like to “wipe out” the State of Israel. Second, we
accept that PLO/Fatah has nothing at all to do with Iran or its
terrorist proxies, and merely wants a piece of land so that it may live
in peace with Israel. If this is all true, then it makes sense that the
US should simultaneously oppose Iran and wish to see a ‘two-state
solution’ signed between Israel and PLO/Fatah. But
one can imagine other hypothetical scenarios. For example, if it should
turn out that PLO/Fatah really is part of an Iranian offensive
to “wipe out” Israel, then the Obama administration’s quite aggressive
diplomacy to endow PLO/Fatah with its own state in strategic
Israeli territory would be in contradiction with 1) its stated
opposition to Iran, and 2) the supposedly determined effort it makes to
further “Israel’s security – and long-range interests.” In such a case
a student of geopolitics would have to think harder about what is
really going on. Here
we will examine the historical relationship between PLO/Fatah and
Iran in order to establish that PLO/Fatah is part
of an Iranian offensive to destroy Israel. This will prepare us for
some hard geopolitical thinking. ___________________________________________________________ Table of Contents █
Introduction (above) █
PLO/Fatah’s role in Ayatollah Khomeini’s coup. █
PLO/Fatah’s alignment during the Iran-Iraq war █
‘Estrangement’ leads to renewed love █
The intentions of the US government ___________________________________________________________ PLO/Fatah’s role in Ayatollah Khomeini’s coup When
the Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah of Iran in early 1979, with
whom did the Ayatollah Khomeini want to celebrate, right away and
before sharing the joy with anybody else? With Yasser Arafat, head of
PLO/Fatah. It was just two weeks after the Ayatollah
Khomeini returned to Iran and took power that the New York Times
reported: [Quote
from New York Times begins here] “The
PLO announced today that its chairman, Yasser Arafat, had accepted an
invitation to visit Teheran soon. It also said that followers of
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had seized the former Israeli diplomatic
mission in Teheran, and the PLO had accepted an offer to turn it into a
Palestinian embassy. Wafa,
the Palestinian press service, reported that the Ayatollah’s forces had
contacted Mr. Arafat by telephone yesterday and proclaimed their
solidarity and gave their thanks. Palestinian
sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the revolutionary
forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian guerillas since
the early 1970s.”[4] [Quote
from New York Times ends here] When
Arafat announced that he would visit Teheran “soon” he meant it. Four
days later the New York Times was reporting his public
declarations from that city. [Quote
from New York Times begins here] “An
exultant Yasir Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization,
proclaimed here today that the Iranian revolution had ‘turned upside
down’ the balance of forces in the Middle East. ‘Today
Iran, tomorrow Palestine,’ he said. Mr.
Arafat received a pledge from Ayatollah Khomeini that the Iranians
would ‘turn to the issue of victory over Israel’ after Iran had
consolidated its strength, the Teheran radio reported. …Bantering
and grinning, the guerrilla leader declined to furnish details about
support the PLO had given to various Iranian guerrilla organizations,
saying: ‘It is
enough that we are here, and no matter how much we have helped we
cannot offer as much back as the Iranian people have offered us. It is
enough for us to be among the Iranian people. Asked
whether the Palestinian movement felt ‘stronger’ since the Iranian
uprising, he said: ‘Definitely.
It has changed completely the whole strategy and policy in this area.
It has been turned upside down.’ ”[5] [Quote
from New York Times ends here] The Globe
and Mail reported: [Quote
from Globe and Mail begins here] Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat said yesterday that Iranian guerrillas would fight
alongside Palestinian forces against Israel. ... Mr.
Arafat, the first prominent visitor to Iran since the revolution, said
the Palestinian and Iranian aims were identical. “We will continue our
efforts until the time when we defeat imperialism and Zionism,” he said. A
close aide of Ayatollah Khomaini, Deputy Premier Ibrahim Yazdi, also
attended the inauguration of the PLO office and referred to the
identity of the two causes and the large number of Palestinian
sacrifices in the PLO's struggle against Israel. ... The
son of Ayatollah Khomaini, Seyyed Ahmad Khomaini, a Moslem clergyman
who also spoke at the inauguration of the new PLO office, pledged Iran
would continue its revolutionary struggle until all Islamic countries
had been set free. The
bearded, black-turbanned Seyyed Khomaini said: “We will continue our
struggle until we free all Islamic countries and hoist the Palestinian
flag together with ours.”[6] [Quote
from Globe and Mail ends here] The
picture is clear. PLO/Fatah had been training Khomeini’s troops,
he was the first honored guest to go and celebrate with Khomeini the
success of the Iranian Revolution, and Khomeini pledged himself to
assist PLO/Fatah against Israel. Soon
after this Arafat bestrode the world stage as the indispensable best
friend of Khomeini, negotiating the safety of the Americans held
hostage in the US Embassy in Teheran at the request of ...(drum
roll)... the US government. This topic is dealt with in a
separate HIR piece: ►“Grand Theater: The US, The PLO, and the Ayatollah
Khomeini: Why did the US government, in 1979, delegate to the PLO the
task of negotiating the safety of American hostages at the US embassy
in Tehran?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 December 2005;
by Francisco Gil-White This
makes it rather obvious that the PLO was very powerful in Iran. The New
York Times wrote the following in November of 1980: [Quote
from the New York Times begins here] The
P.L.O. currently enjoys close ties with some of the Iranian
revolutionary leaders who rose to power with the Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini. One of the most intriguing delegates at the Fatah conference
in Damascus at the end of May, for example, was Arbas-Agha Zahani whose
nom de guerre is Abu Sharif. He was then the head of the Ayatollah's
Revolutionary Guards, or Pasdaran Enghelab, a post he resigned in a
power play in June that was designed to weaken the position of the
relatively ''moderate'' President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr. (Abu Sharif was
subsequently reappointed deputy chief of the Pasdaran Enghelab.) Abu
Sharif rose to a position of influence thanks to the patronage of the
present Iranian Defense Minister, Mustafa Chamran. Like Yasir
Arafat, both Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran are fervent advocates of
exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East - in
particular, to the conservative states of the Arab Gulf. Abu
Sharif's links with Arafat, Abu Jihad and other key figures in the
P.L.O. leadership date back to the early 1970’s, when he attended a
guerrilla training course at a Fatah camp in Lebanon. After the
downfall of the Shah, Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran relied heavily on
their P.L.O. contacts for help in setting up a new secret police to
replace the Sha's notoriouus Savak. A special P.L.O. unit, whose
members had received intelligence training in the Soviet Union, was
dispatched to Teheran to assist in rooting out
‘counterrevolutionaries.’ Abu Sharif repaid his personal debt to the
P.L.O. by successfully lobbying -- with the backing of, among others,
one of the Ayatollah's grandsons -- for a big Iranian contribution to
the Palestinian war chest and for the dispatch of more than 200 Iranian
‘volunteers’ to fight with the P.L.O. in southern Lebanon. The
current head of the P.L.O. network in Iran is Hani al-Hassan, alias Abu
Hassan, a Jordanian citizen who belongs to Arafat's inner circle of
advisers. Before he was sent to Teheran, Abu Hassan served as deputy
chief of Fatah’s security department. He enjoys a remarkable entree
to Khomeini and other key members of the Iranian regime -- so much so
that one Western diplomat suggests that the P.L.O. envoy should be
counted as one of the most influential men in Teheran.[6a]
[emphasis added] [Quote
from the New York Times ends here] Two
points above deserve a comment. The first is that, though PLO/Fatah is
always represented as a secular organization, to be
distinguished from the ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘Islamists,’ it is obvious
that if Yasser Arafat’s ideology was always to spread the Iranian
Revolution then he was an Islamist. The
second is that, though the PLO supposedly rooted out
“counterrevolutionaries” to help create the Ayatollah’s new secret
service, exiled Iranians were pointing out that the new SAVAMA
was almost identical in all its personnel to the old CIA-created SAVAK.
This would make sense if the Islamist Iranians and PLO/Fatah all
answered to the same (US) master. Otherwise it is very strange. ___________________________________________________________ PLO/Fatah’s alignment during the Iran-Iraq war To
understand just how intimate the relationship between the Islamist
Iranian government and PLO/Fatah, one must take into account
that such a strong alliance with the Iranian Shiites angered almost
every Arab government that was supporting PLO/Fatah, and yet
Yasser Arafat remained close to his friend Khomeini. A month after the
Iran-Iraq war broke out in late 1980, the Arab governments had sided
with Iraq and the situation had become politically dangerous for
Arafat. Consider: [Quote
from Globe and Mail begins here] MANAMA
BAHREIN -- MANAMA, Bahrein (AP) - Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf
states have tightened restrictions on an estimated 400,000 Palestinians
since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war, diplomatic sources say. A ban
on political gatherings by Palestinians has been imposed and strict
visa requirements are being rigidly enforced. The reason is that the
authorities are suspicious of Palestinian ties to the militant Shiite
Moslems in Iran, who have vowed to export their Islamic revolution. Other
sources said that Yasser Arafat, head of the Lebanon-based Palestine
Liberation Organization, has reassured Persian Gulf governments that
his guerrilla movement would never upset the stability of the oil- rich
area and ordered his representatives in Gulf capitals to remain neutral
in the Iran-Iraq conflict. “The PLO has been treading a delicate path
of neutrality between Iraq and Iran and that has not been easy,” one
Arab diplomat said. “Iraq, and all other Arab powers, insist that the
PLO must put its political cards on the table and declare its
unchangeable commitment to the Arab cause against that of the
(non-Arab) Persians.” At the same time, Iranian leaders are reported to
have asked the Palestinians to support Iran in return for their support
of the guerrilla movement. Palestinian
opinion, while reflecting the PLO’s reluctance to choose sides in a war
between its two allies, appears much more pro-Iranian than that
of conservative Gulf governments.[7]
[Emphasis added] [Quote
from Globe and Mail ends here] That
was October 1980. In December, this was the situation: [Quote
from Washington Post begins here] Dependent
on fellow Arab governments for virtually everything -- physical
protection, diplomatic backing, arms, money -- Arafat has had to watch
helplessly as the Persian Gulf war split his benefactors into
antagonistic blocs with the PLO caught uncomfortably in the middle. More
damaging was the way the PLO’s much advertised independence crumbled
under the arm-twisting pressures of the two camps. When the showdown
came before last month’s divided Arab summit meeting, Arafat and the
PLO were forced by Syrian President Hafez Assad, leader of the pro-Iran
axis, to join a boycott of a summit whose aim was to organize a
long-term strategy for the Palestinians’ crusade against Israel.[8] [Quote
from Washington Post ends here] I
would call this remarkable. Even though the PLO was dependent on Arab
states for everything, when these states got together to plan a
long-term strategy for the PLO’s fight with Israel, the PLO sides with Iran.
It was “uncomfortable,” sure, but it sided with Iran. In
March 1981 Arafat had a sympathetic meeting with Iraqi Shiites allied
with Iran, as reported by Tehran’s news service. [9] ___________________________________________________________ ‘Estrangement’ leads to renewed love But
this could not last. As observed above, the PLO’s entire infrastructure
was based in the Arab states. Soon the PLO was forced to take a more
pro-Arab position. And then, as the Iran-Iraq war was ending with the
cease-fire in 1988, the prelude to the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process was getting
into high gear. This process represented the terrorist PLO/Fatah
as a moderate organization that wanted to make peace. So to
keep matters propagandistically consistent, Iran just had to
accuse Arafat of ‘treason’ against the Palestinian cause, while Arafat
just had to pronounce himself in public against Iranian
terrorism. Thus,
for example, when a bomb exploded in Tel Aviv in 1996, the Egyptian
news agency MENA reported that Arafat was blaming the Iranians: “Nabil
Abu Rudaynah, adviser to Palestinian President Yasir Arafat, ...accused
foreign, non-Palestinian, elements in the region of being behind these
terrorist incidents to wreck the peace process. He specifically accused
Iran...”[10] Shortly
before that, Arafat had claimed that two Palestinians working for Iran
had tried to assassinate him.[11] This
is how a story of ‘estrangement’ between Arafat, formerly Khomeini’s
best friend, and the Iranian regime was built. But
just one year later, the Palestinian daily Al Quds reported
that a top PLO/Fatah leader had come back from Iran with a
renewed relationship. What’s an assassination attempt between friends?
But in fact this made perfect propaganda sense, because the newly
elected Iranian president Mohammad Khatami was supposed to be an
Iranian Gorbachev pushing liberal reforms, and Arafat was ‘making
peace’ with Israel. Under this guise, an open friendship could resume. [Quote
from the BBC’s translation of Al Quds begins here] Bethlehem:
Brig-Gen Abu Khalid al-Lahham, who recently returned from Iran, said
that Hojjat ol-Eslam Mohammad Khatami is considered a close friend of
Palestine and the Palestinian people, as well as a personal friend of
President Yasir Arafat. Moreover, he called him the Iranian Napoleon
and described him as Iran's saviour. In an
exclusive interview, Lahham said... the new Iranian leadership will
strive to refute its image of exporting revolution and interfering in
the internal affairs of other people. On the
internal level, the new leadership will engage in building a free
economy and will allow freedom of thought and faith and the formation
of political parties. Lahham,
who arrived in Iran 10 days before the elections on an assignment by
President Yasir Arafat, added that the new leadership will support the
Palestinian people with all their leaders and inclinations, including
the peace process, but it will fight to defend its role and presence as
a major Middle Eastern state. The Palestinian people will be able to
ask for Iran's support.[12] [Quote
from the BBC’s translation of Al Quds ends here] By
early 2002, the Christian Science Monitor was writing as
follows, under the headline: “Palestinian ties to Iran, Hizbullah look
firmer.” [Quote
from the Christian Science Monitor begins here] ...[T]he
once-frosty relationship between Iran and Arafat appears to have thawed
since the outbreak of the [second] intifada in September 2000. Iran,
which opposes Israel's very existence, is a staunch backer of the
intifada, opening its hospitals to wounded Palestinians, training
fighters, and rallying support for the uprising. In
April last year, Tehran hosted a conference for 34 Arab and Islamic
countries and organizations. All the hard-line Palestinian groups were
there as well as Hizbullah. But also attending was a representative of
the Palestinian Authority, Salim Al Zeenoun, who admitted that the Oslo
Accords had turned out to be "a sandcastle of illusion." Two
months later, Arafat sent a telegram to Iranian President Mohammed
Khatami to congratulate him on his re-election. “We
look to all the people of the Islamic world, foremost among them the
Muslim Iranian people and their faithful leadership, to support, aid,
and assist [Palestine],” Arafat said. He also asked Iran to “work fast
to end this bloody and savage war which the Israeli government has been
waging for eight solid months.” Israel
says that the military alliance between Iran and Arafat and the scheme
to smuggle a shipload of weapons to the Palestinian Authority [the
famous Karine A incident] was born at around this time. [13] [Quote
from the Christian Science Monitor begins here] The
above makes clear that Iran, “which opposes Israel’s very existence,”
was participating in the ‘Second Intifada.’ And the ‘Second Intifada,’
mentioned above, was Arafat’s -- that is to say, PLO/Fatah’s
-- war. Not even the mainstream Western media, so
often a cheerleader for Arafat, was denying that most of the violence
was due to the activities of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah
terrorist group. Here is the Times of London (2002): “A new
group directly linked to Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement through its
Tanzim military wing, the [Al Aqsa Martyrs] brigades are behind the
majority of recent shootings and suicide attacks against Israelis.”[14] But,
simultaneously with this admission, the road was being prepared for
Mahmoud Abbas to posture as the anti-terror ‘peacemaker’: [Quote
from The Australian begins here] Israeli
officials said documents captured last year in a massive military raid
on the West Bank after a series of suicide bombings inside Israel
showed the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which carried out many of the
attacks, was an arm of Fatah, Arafat’s political organisation. They
also said the documents proved the Palestinian Authority’s intelligence
apparatus, also headed by Arafat, was involved in planning terror
activity. Israeli
officials said the documents showed Arafat had personally authorised
fund transfers for such activity. ‘Arafat views terrorism as a
legitimate tool for obtaining the Palestinian national goal,’ said one
official. Palestinian
prime minister Mahmoud Abbas resigned last month after Arafat refused
to hand over control of the security forces Abbas said he needed to
make Hamas and Islamic Jihad halt their suicide bombings.[15] [Quote
from The Australian ends here] Notice
what is being prepared above: Yes the terrorist activity is all being
directed by Arafat, but when Abbas takes over there will be peace. Only
problem: the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- the most violent Palestinian
terrorists -- in fact preferred Abbas to Tanzim boss Barghouti as a
replacement for Arafat when the latter died. An Associated Press
wire dated December 2004 reports that: “Abbas
already has been nominated as Fatah’s presidential candidate, so
Barghouti must run as an independent. But as a leading Fatah member, he
would likely undermine Abbas’ prospects… Zakaria Zubeidi, the
29-year-old West Bank leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a
violent group linked to Fatah, said he would back Abbas. ‘Barghouti. .
.should resign from Fatah,’ he told The Associated Press.”[16] And it
is important to point out that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is a tool of Iran.
Two months earlier, with Arafat still alive, the Daily
Telegraph had reported: [Quote
from the Daily Telegraph begins here] Israel
believes that much of the Fatah-affiliated armed faction, calling
itself the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, has now come under Iran's sway,
especially in the West Bank. Scores
of Palestinian attacks, accounting for roughly a third of the 98
Israelis killed so far this year, are believed to have been
orchestrated by the Lebanese Hizbollah movement. The
Shia group pioneered the use of suicide bombings in the 1980s,
kidnapped westerners and successfully drove the Israeli army out of
south Lebanon in 2000. Hizbollah is now a political party in Lebanon. “Hizbollah
is a finger of Iran's hand,” the senior Israeli security source said.
“In the past year we can see increasing Iranian influence in
Palestinian attacks on Israel. “The
same people sometimes receive money both from Arafat's headquarters and
from Hizbollah. If the attack succeeds in causing fatalities, they get
a bonus from Hizbollah.” Another
security source said Hizbollah rewards Palestinian cells to the tune of
$5,000 ( pounds 2,900) for each Israeli killed. Israel
regards Teheran as its mortal enemy, and has every interest in
presenting Iran as a dangerous state sponsor of international
terrorism. But on the issue of penetrating Fatah, Israel is in unusual
agreement with Palestinian leaders. Yasser
Arafat, the Palestinian ‘president’ who has been confined to his
Ramallah headquarters for more than three years, said this week that
Hizbollah was trying to infiltrate Fatah. He
said Iran was financing radical Islamist groups, and denounced Iran's
spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei. He
said: “Khamenei is working against us. He is giving money to all these
fanatical groups. Khamenei is a troublemaker.”[17] [Quote
from the Daily Telegraph ends here] So
nobody was denying, not even Arafat, that Iran was heavily involved
with the Fatah terrorists. Naturally, when documentation was produced
that Iran was involved with his own terrorists, Arafat had to deny that
he approved of the “fanatical groups.” But the above speaks of a close
collaboration between PLO/Fatah and Iran. And I must underline
this point: the PLO/Fatah group getting a lot help from Iran
and working closely with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, the most violent
Palestinian terrorists known as Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, were the most
stalwart supporters of Mahmoud Abbas -- the current ‘Palestinian
Authority’ president -- becoming Yasser Arafat’s replacement. It
appears, then, that PLO/Fatah (or the ‘Palestinian Authority’)
is allied with Iran to destroy the State of Israel. ___________________________________________________________ The intentions of the US government It is
now probably a good idea to review HIR’s First Principles, in order to
do some hard thinking about US geopolitics. ARGUMENT A. Premise 1. The way to do better geopolitics is to have a more
accurate representation of the intentions and capabilities of other
players in the international system. Premise 2. The Government of the United States, the most important
geopolitical player, has the strongest motivation to do better
geopolitics. Therefore: The Government of the United States works very hard to
obtain a better understanding of the intentions and capabilities of
other players in the international system. Fact: CIA director George Tenet said in the year 1998 that the
budget on that year had been a little under 27 billion. Recently, a US
Intelligence official said in a press conference that the yearly budget
was now 44 billion. But the truth is that nobody knows for sure,
because the budget for
US Intelligence is a state secret. Hypothesis: The Government of the United States has very good
information—definitely better than my own—on which to base its
geopolitical decisions. ARGUMENT B. Premise 1. The Government of the United States, for many years
running, has been the most powerful in the world. Premise 2. Idiots don’t become the most powerful people in the
world. Therefore: The Government of the United States is not run by idiots. Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States behaves in ways
that seem idiotic to me, then a) there is something I don’t yet
understand; or b) this government has different values than my own.
Or both. (And I have yet to accept this, which is why I think the
behavior is idiotic.) ARGUMENT C. Premise 1. The true preferences of someone are revealed in his/her expensive
behaviors. Premise 2. Saying “My intentions are X” is not expensive but cheap. Therefore: Speech acts (e.g. public and official declarations)
don’t necessarily convey information about the true intentions of a
government. Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States consistently,
year after year, spends billions of dollars and achieves always similar
results, and if these results contradict the government’s publicly
declared intentions, the publicly declared intentions must be
deliberate deceptions. US
Intelligence knows perfectly well everything that I have documented in
this article. And it knew it long before I did. Hence, the US
Government is applying very strong pressure on Israel to create a
‘Palestinian State’ run by PLO/Fatah on strategic Israeli
territory knowing full well that PLO/Fatah is allied with Iran
to destroy Israel. Is
this consistent with other expensive US Government behaviors?
It is. There
is a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Why? In order to prevent weapons
from reaching the Gaza population. Why? Because as soon as the Israeli
government withdrew its troops and even evacuated the Jewish population
of Gaza in order to give this territory to the ‘Palestinian Authority,’
Gaza has been turned into a tremendous terrorist chaos. From Gaza
thousands of rockets have been raining against the Israeli population. Recently
a flotilla of ships on their way to Gaza from Turkey—supposedly laden
with humanitarian supplies for the Gaza Strip Arabs—refused to respect
the naval blockade. They were informed that humanitarian aid could be
unloaded in the Israeli port of Ashdod, and transferred, under
supervision of those who brought it, to the Gaza Strip. But the
flotilla shouted insults over the radio (e.g. “¡Go back to Auschwitz!”)
and announced that it would not respect the blockade. This made it
necessary for the Israeli naval forces, according to international law,
to board the ships and take control. None
of the ships in the flotilla gave any trouble, except one. When the
Israeli soldiers boarded the Mavi Marmara some of the passengers,
violent terrorists who meant to provoke an incident, attacked the
soldiers with tubes, clubs, hammers, knives, and other such weapons.
The Israeli soldiers were under orders to protect civilians (apparently
no matter the cost, because they defended themselves, at first, with
non-weapons such as paint-ball guns). It was only after one of
the wounded Israeli soldiers was thrown from the upper deck and the
lethal weapons of the soldiers were taken from them by the attackers,
that their fellow soldiers opened fire to protect them. The result was
that some of the attackers died. The
images of the brutal attack against the Israeli soldiers—a blood
curling lyinching—are available to the public. The
mainstream mass media, curiously, has not shown these images,
preferring to construct a story according to which the ‘evil Jews’
‘attacked’ the ‘friends’ of the ‘poor Palestinians.’ It is
interesting in this context to examine the reaction of US president
Barack Hussein Obama. The Montreal Gazette reported on June
10, 2010: “The president Barack Obama said yesterday that he will
pressure Israel to find the way to relax the naval blockade on the Gaza
Strip...” Not only that: “The White House yesterday promised 400
million in assistance for Gaza and the West Bank... The money... will
be given to the Palestinian Authority.”[16a] Quite
naturally, president Barack Obama is perfectly informed of what
happened in this incident. He is one of the best informed people in the
world, and the relevant information, in any case, is in the public
domain. Therefore the president of the United States has elected to
reward anti-Israeli terrorists for their violent provocation. The first
has been to push for a relaxation of the naval blockade of Gaza (which
he has achieved), which will make things easier for those who wish to
smuggle weapons into Gaza. The second is to send a mountain of money to
the Palestinian Authority, an ally of Iran. This money,
naturally, will be used to prepare more hostile anti-Israeli terrorism
(and to oppress further the Arabs that PLO/Fatah supposedly
‘represents’ but in reality abuses daily). In the
context of the foregoing, the
accusations of some that a close advisor of Obama had something to do
with the planning of the Turkish flotilla incident are not exactly
beyond the pale. Especially when we consider that the advisor in
question, John O. Brennan, who studied in Cairo, can speak fluently in
Arabic about the beauties of Islam. Truly
there is consistency here. As we
have documented on HIR, the entire history of US foreign policy toward
Iran, despite the loud public condemnations, is one of consistent and
dramatic assistance to Iran’s long-term goals. Here is a good place to
start: ► “Will the US attack Iran?: An alternative hypothesis”;
Historical and Investigative Research; 23 February 2006; by Francisco
Gil-White US
Intelligence also understands perfectly well, and knew it long before I
did, that Al Fatah was created by Hajj Amin al Husseini, top
leader of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution against the European Jews: ► “How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British
sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING
THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT: An HIR Series, in four parts; Historical and
Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White On the
basis of this evidence we may conclude that when President Obama’s
chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel states to a group of rabbis that “
‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in
Israel’s security -- and long-range interests,’ ” the Obama
administration is lying. The US Government -- not the American people,
but the US Government -- is an enemy of Israel, and is trying to
destroy it. This
is consistent with HIR’s detailed investigation of US foreign policy
toward the Jewish people and state since the 1930s, which shows
conclusively that -- contrary to popular belief -- the US ruling elite
has always worked hard to undermine Israeli security. ► “Is the US an ally of Israel?: A chronological look at
the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco
Gil-White Israeli
leaders are cooperating with this process, because they have not yet
expelled PLO/Fatah from Israel. On the contrary. Though they
pretend to drag their feet, they are engaged in an on-again, off-again
process with PLO/Fatah that (let’s face it) is designed to give
it everything it wants, in exchange for... Well, for nothing, because
PLO/Fatah has not laid down its arms and does not intend to. The
Israeli government is also much better informed than I am, and likewise
knew everything I have reviewed here long before I did. After all, my
documentation is publicly available, and one of the main targets of
Israeli intelligence-gathering is, naturally, PLO/Fatah.
So
what are Israeli leaders doing? It is an important question. One
hypothesis says that Israeli leaders are doing something quite similar
to what their predecessors did in the prelude to, and during, World War
II. For those who would like to know more about this historical
background, here is a good place to start: ► “The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor Zionist)
Israeli leaders during the Shoah ('Holocaust')”; from THE PROBLEM OF
JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE: An HIR series; Historical and Investigative
Research; 21 February 2007; by Francisco Gil-White If
this hypothesis is correct, then the Jewish people is in great peril,
for when the causes recur, so do the consequences. And if
the Jewish people is in peril, then so are ordinary people all over the
West, because 2500 years of Western history show conclusively that
periods of Jewish persecution coincide with periods of savage
oppression against non-Jews (a recent and dramatic example is the 20th
c. Holocaust).
Footnotes and Further Reading [1] “Obama
the appeaser; The transnational dove has left a vacuum that Iran is
filling”; The Washington Times, May 21, 2010 Friday, B, COMMENTARY; Pg.
3, 777 words, By Jeffrey T. Kuhner SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES [2] “US
‘screwed up’ message on Israel, Emanuel tells rabbis. Officials deny
administration changing view on Israeli nuclear policy”; The Jerusalem
Post, May 16, 2010 Sunday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 1197 words, HERB KEINON, JTA
contributed to this report. [3] “Mitchell
to meet Abbas, Netanyahu as proximity talks swing into gear”; The
Jerusalem Post, May 18, 2010 Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 786 words, KHALED
ABU TOAMEH and HERB KEINON [4] SOURCE:
P.L.O. Is Cool to Dayan Remarks; Statements Given Prominence; By
MARVINE HOWE Special to The New York Times. New York Times
(1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 15, 1979. p. A12 (1 page) [5]
Arafat, in Iran, Reports Khomeini Pledges Aid for Victory Over Israel;
Visit a Sign of Iran's Sharp Turn; ARAFAT, IN TEHERAN, PRAISES THE
VICTORS; By JAMES M. MARKHAM Special to The New York Times. New York
Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 19, 1979. p. A1 (2 pages) [6] “Four
more generals executed; PLO, Iran will fight Israel, Arafat says”; The
Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 20, 1979. p. P.10 [6a]
“TERROR: A SOVIET EXPORT”; New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)).
New York, N.Y.: Nov 2, 1980. pg. A.42; by Robert Moss [7] “Gulf
states tighten hold on Palestinians”; The Globe and Mail. Toronto,
Ont.: Oct 23, 1980. p. P.14 [8] “War,
arab Feuding Leave Arafat, PLO in Disarray; Gulf War and Arab Feuding
Leave Arafat and PLO in Disarray”; The Washington Post, December 14,
1980, Sunday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 1487 words, By Loren
Jenkins, Washington Post Foreign Service [9] “Arafat's
Meeting with Iraqi Da'wah Party Delegation”; BBC Summary of World
Broadcasts, March 3, 1981, Tuesday, Part 4 The Middle East and Africa;
A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/6663/A/8; , 395 words. TEXT: BBC
Summary of World Broadcasts A
delegation representing the Da'wah Islamic Party in Iraq met with
Brother Yasir Arafat the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and
member of the delegation commissioned to study the issue of the war
that has been imposed on Iran by the Iraqi regime, at noon today. The
spokesman for the Iraqi Da'wah Islamic Party briefed Brother Arafat on
the measures of suppression, oppression and banishment that have been
carried out by the infidel Tikriti regime against the Iraqi Mujahidin.
The spokesman, who supported his statement with pictures, statistics
and documents, added that during the past year alone, Saddam's regime
had killed and executed 100,000 Iraqi strugglers. The spokesman added
that the Iraqi regime's suppressive measures have escalated to the
extent that even women, children and old men are not spared. They, too,
have been subjected to tyranny, injustice, imprisonment and execution. The
spokesman stressed that the stance of the government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran did not represent the stance of the Government and
people of Iran alone, but also the claims of more than 60,000 exiled
Iraqis and the claims of the help- less Iraqi people. Speaking to
Brother Arafat, the Iraqi spokesman added: We ask you, as a true
revolutionary, not to deal with us in terms of international political
principles and international relations; we call upon you to help our
voice of truth be heard through- out the world and to pressure Saddam's
bloody infidel regime to change its position on the oppressed Iraqi
people and end the war he has imposed on both of the Muslim peoples in
Iraq and Iran. Then
one of the Iraqi mujahidin spoke and said to Brother Arafat: O Brother
Abu Ammar, I am a struggler and revolutionary just as you are, and my
duty is to fight at your side against the Zionist regime and for the
liberation of Palestine and not to be exiled by Saddam's regime to Iran
after a period of torture. Then the struggler showed the marks that
remained on his body after being tortured by the Iraqi regime to
Brother Arafat, and said that the torture carried out by Saddam's gang
against the Iraqi mujahidin was much more than that carried out by the
Zionist entity against the Palestinian combatants. Seeing and hearing
all this, Brother Arafat could not prevent his tears of sympathy for
the Iraqi brothers from falling. . . [10]
“PALESTINIAN REACTION; Arafat's adviser accuses Iran of sheltering
terrorism”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, March 5, 1996, Tuesday,
Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; AFTERMATH OF TEL AVIV BOMBING;
EE/D2553/ME, 326 words [11] “
‘SABOTAGE’ ATTEMPT; Two pro-Iran Palestinians reported arrested for
plotting to kill Arafat”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, February 21,
1996, Wednesday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST;
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS; EE/D2541/ME, 79 words [12]
“Arafat adviser visits Iran, brings message of support for
Palestinians”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, June 12, 1997,
Thursday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; ISRAEL;
ME/D2943/MED, 428 words [13]
“Palestinian ties to Iran, Hizbullah look firmer”; Christian Science
Monitor (Boston, MA), January 18, 2002, Friday, WORLD; Pg. 08, 1353
words, Nicholas Blanford Special to The Christian Science Monitor [14] “A
bitter taste for vengeance”; Sunday Times (London), April 7, 2002,
Sunday, Features, 2938 words, Marie Colvin in Ramallah [15]
“Arch-terrorist or hero of peace: Arafat's enduring image”; The
Australian, September 25, 2003 Thursday All-round Country Edition,
WORLD-TYPE- FEATURE-BIOG- YASSER ARAFAT; Pg. 8, 1079 words, Abraham
Rabinovich [16] Barghouti
Seeking Palestinian Presidency, Associated Press Online, December 1,
2004 Wednesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 836 words, MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH;
Associated Press Writer, RAMALLAH, West Bank [17] “Iran
‘in control of terrorism in Israel’; Hizbollah, described as a ‘finger
of Teheran's hand,’ is said to be paying $5,000 for every Israeli
killed.” Anton La Guardia reports from Tel Aviv; THE DAILY
TELEGRAPH(LONDON), October 15, 2004, Friday, 803 words, by Anton La
Guardia |
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
