In Syria the armed opposition says that it no longer recognizes Kofi Anan’s seize fire plan. But it still is not clear who is responsible for violating it.
Is Syria headed to civil war? And will there be a foreign military intervention? In another development a British newspaper has revealed that British Special Forces and the MI6 agents have set up camps on Syrian soil. But what is the real reason for presence on another countries soil?
Why are there so many unanswered questions when it comes to the Syrian crisis?
In this edition of News Analysis we will discuss the situation.
Simple Truths: your cannons are for killing | your planes are for killing
On June 2, 2012, an Egyptian judge sentenced former President Hosni Mubarak to life in prison after being found guilty of conspiring in the killing of about 850 protesters during the first six days of protests that ended his rule. He was found not guilty of corruption. Together with him was convicted Former Interior Minister Habib al-Adly for the same charges; he got the same punishment. All other persons accused, including his sons Alaa and Gamal, were found not guilty. After the weak verdict, angry protestors filled again Tahrir Square, the heart of the upheaval. Yet, this is an important milestone in the Middle East: a corrupt tyrant is seen by the people behind bars.
Much better this way!
Out of the blue, we saw what looked as the strongest regime in the Middle East collapse in 18 days of peaceful demonstrations. That happened in a country were over a million people (out of a population of slightly over 80 million) formed part of a Walsinghamian secret police formidably equipped by the USA. A true 1984 type of society. The Israeli Administration was shocked; their strongest (and comfortably silent) ally had been defeated.
On February 11, 2011, Mubarak resigned. A dictator openly supported by the American government double-standards was peacefully forced out of office with the unlikely help of western social weapons: Google, Twitter and Facebook. The American president coughed several times—his thick phlegm was clearly caught by nearby microphones—but eventually America was forced to recognize the legitimacy of the Egyptian people’s human rights. Ironic, but true. North Korea, China, the USSR and Israel also claim(ed) being democracies; as them, America is being forced to face reality. Roughly at the same time of Mubarak’s fall, Secretary of State Clinton admitted that American supremacy is now only relative; showing us her mercifulness, she skipped the American tired preaching on democracy. The West and its allies are stuck in 1984; stuck in a world of systematic secret police harassment, history rewriting by the media, and thinly disguised world-wide state-terror. The Cold War is over: both the USA and the USSR lost. Other allies will follow; the only open question is the order of their fall. Winds of freedom are in the air. The real parameters of social struggle are now different; regimes failing to understand that will be replaced. Israel seems to be on this path.
Simple Truths: they don’t kills us | It is you that has brought the things for killing
Next to this fallen American ally there is another one. Beyond its benevolent façade, Israel runs a highly restrictive and discriminatory police state, as I had described extensively in The Cross of Bethlehem, and in this website. Prime Minister Netanyahu is kept busy by the settlers on a daily base (see Everything is Quiet along the Iranian-Israeli Border). Meanwhile, he failed to suppress the Jewish social protests that fill Tel Aviv’s squares since mid-2011 (see Bibi Antoinette: Guillotine in Tel Aviv). He may overcome all this with the help of brute force and his very efficient secret-police, the Shin Beth. However, certain things are beyond human power, as Hosni Mubarak recently found out. Netanyahu is dealing with the wars of Israel’s past instead of solving the problems that may lead to Israel’s last war: an inner struggle for social justice.
By the end of every year, Israel’s Bureau of Statistics repeats an annual rite, releasing the official population numbers for the State of Israel. These numbers are clearly biased. West Bank settlers are defined as full citizens of the State of Israel despite clearly living beyond its boundaries (even outside the borders recognized by this odd state; settlers can vote for the Knesset, while all other Israelis abroad cannot). This happens while the settlers’ immediate neighbors—the West Bank Palestinians—are not allowed to vote. There are other intrinsic problems with these figures. Yet, even these highly biased numbers are useful to some extent.
In their last show of awesome arithmetic skills, the bureau claimed Israel has about 7.5 million people; six million Jews (could it be any other number?) and 1.5 million Israeli-Arabs. This last term is an awkward Israeli code for Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.
The bureau doesn’t provide statistics on the systematic discrimination performed routinely by the Israeli administration. The Israeli-Arab population (20% of the total within the Green Line) is systematically discriminated; they have protested extensively in the past. The bureau doesn’t provide clear statistics on the Jewish population. The borderline between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews is unclear (there are mixed marriages, some congregations are difficult to define, international media is highly misleading on this); however, it is clear many Sephardic Jews are discriminated by the always-Ashkenazi Administration. Protests on that have been reported for at least forty years. Moreover, since the Law of Citizenship was amended in 2005, 632 requests of citizenship due to marriage were rejected by the state on the grounds that the petitioners may use their new status to become terrorists with easier access to Israel; 632 broken families; 1264 new testimonies of Israel’s inhumanity. One awesome testimony of Israel unacceptable claim of possessing precognition powers. The list of state-sponsored grievances towards the civil population goes on. The state doesn’t have a constitution, thus human right violations are systematic and widespread. Overall, there is a wide base for social unhappiness in Israel.
Considering the example given by the populations in the neighboring countries—especially in Egypt—will the Israeli population revolt? Could a civil revolt begin in the harshest police-state in the Middle East? Would the people wake up and demand their unconditionally-deserved human rights? Right now—as it was true in the pre-revolution Egypt—it is difficult to imagine such an event. Yet, everything is ready. The revolt won’t begin at any of the major Jewish cities; the epicenter will probably be between Tel Aviv and Haifa.
The Triangle (Hebrew: HaMeshulash; Arabic: al-Muthallath) is the largest concentration of Israeli-Arab towns. Umm al-Fahm is the largest among these. They occupy a strategic position along Highway 65. As a matter of fact, these towns can dissect Israel, disconnecting Haifa and the Galilee from the rest of the country. Contrary to propagandistic Israeli media editorials, the dissection can be accomplished without the use of massive military units (which the towns do not have). This explains the ruthlessness shown in the past by the Israeli police during protests. In 1999, 500 denizens were hurt in riots protesting the Israel government inhuman expropriation of lands. In September 2000, rioting during the Second Intifada left three dead and over 100 wounded. Such riots could erupt again and expand into other cities under certain circumstances; for example, if the human rights flag was to be effectively used. After all even Tel Aviv features a large Palestinian population. Jaffa—Yafo in Hebrew—is a Palestinian town that was annexed to Tel Aviv in order to avoid having a Palestinian city at the epicenter of Gush Dan, Tel Aviv’s Metropolitan Area. Jaffa, Ramle, Lod and other towns with a significant Palestinian population would join such protests. Jewish “development towns” wouldn’t be far behind. Rabbi Meshulam—a proud Pharisee—and his followers have already protested in the past against the crimes performed against Yemenite Jews by the State of Israel. The ground is ready and waiting for a spark.
Simple Truths: We don’t want this government | we don’t won’t the Americans
If such a revolution happened in Egypt, there is hope also for the Israeli state-slaves. People of Israel and the Occupied Territories, don’t let the moment pass. The price may be high, but freedom is worth it. Please, don’t let the moment pass. Go to the nearest junction and put a sign denouncing the Israeli Administration violations. Don’t let the moment pass, please place six million signs against the systematic abuse, the methodical violence, the illegitimate eavesdropping, the constant Holocaust scares performed by the Zionist regime. Put six million signs against your being crippled by the state, against your being robbed daily by a self-serving oligarchy. Put six million signs demanding peace and love. You deserve it.
Winning Without Weapons | Phan Thi Kim Phuc, 9 years old, was attacked by the USA on June 8, 1972, in Trang Bang. Eventually, she won the war.
Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel?
Part of the answer is in a single word – pride. From the Jewish perspective there was indeed much to be proud about. Little Israel with its small but highly professional defence force and its mainly citizen army had smashed the war machines of the frontline Arab states in six days. The Jewish David had slain the Arab Goliath. Israeli forces were in occupation of the whole of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip (Egyptian territory), the West Bank including Arab East Jerusalem (Jordanian territory) and the Golan Heights (Syrian territory). And it was not much of a secret that the Israelis could have gone on to capture Cairo, Amman and Damascus. There was nothing to stop them except the impossibility of maintaining the occupation of three Arab capitals.
But the intensity of the pride most Jews of the world experienced with Israel’s military victory was in large part a product of the intensity of the fear that came before it. In the three weeks before the war, the Jews of the world truly believed, because (like Israeli Jews) they were conditioned by Zionism to believe, that the Arabs were poised to attack and that Israel’s very existence was at stake and much in doubt.
The Jews of the world (and Israeli Jews) could not be blamed for believing that, but it was a big, fat propaganda lie. Though Egypt’s President Nasser had asked UNEF forces to withdraw, had closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and had reinforced his army in the Sinai, neither his Egypt nor any of the frontline Arab states had any intention of attacking Israel. And Israel’s leaders, and the Johnson administration, knew that.
In short, and as I detail and document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the offensive Israel launched at 0750 hours (local time) on Monday 5 June was not a pre-emptive strike or an act of self-defence. It was a war of aggression.
The summary truth about that war is this.
Assisted by the regeneration Palestinian nationalism, which became the tail that wagged the Arab dog despite the brutal efforts of the intelligence services of the frontline Arab states to prevent it happening, Israel’s military and political hawks set a trap for Nasser; and he walked into it, with eyes half-open, in the hope that the international community, led by the Johnson administration, would restrain Israel and require it and Egypt to settle the problem of the moment by diplomacy. From Nasser’s perspective that was not an unreasonable expectation because of the commitment, given by President Eisenhower, that in the event of the closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt to Israeli shipping, the U.S. would work with the “society of nations” to cause Egypt to restore Israel’s right of passage, and by so doing, prevent war.
A large part of the reason why today rational debate about making peace is impossible with the vast majority of Jews everywhere is that they still believe Egypt and the frontline Arab states were intending to annihilate Israel in 1967, and were only prevented from doing so by Israel’s pre-emptive strike.
If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that the existence of the Zionist state was not in danger was only that of a goy (a non-Jew, me), it could be dismissed by supporters of Israel right or wrong as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact the truth the statement represents was admitted by some of the key Israeli players – after the war, of course.
On this 45th anniversary of the start of the Six Days War, here is a reminder of what they said.
In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in Ma’ariv as follows:
We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.
In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations during the war and a nephew of Chaim Weizmann, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”
In a radio debate Peled also said: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
In the same programme General Chaim Herzog (former Director of Military Intelligence, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and President of his state) said:
There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.
On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for Le Monde. He wrote:
All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.
The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizmann was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel.”
It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword; but it is more than remarkable, I think, that the mainstream Western media continues to prefer the convenience of the Zionist myth to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why. When reporters and commentators have need today to make reference to the Six Days War, almost all of them still tell it like the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was. Obviously there are still limits to how far the mainstream media is prepared to go in challenging the Zionist account of history, but it could also be that lazy journalism is a factor in the equation.
For those journalists, lazy or not, who might still have doubts about who started the Six Days War, here’s a quote from what Prime Minister Begin said in an unguarded, public moment in 1982.
In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.