Sadat himself admitted that the Soviets told Nasser more than once, when he met them in Moscow following the 1967 defeat: “Go and talk to the Americans.” During the four times Sadat went to Moscow as President, the Soviets used to tell him: “Go and open a dialogue and talk to the Americans.” Gromyko also told Ismai’il Fahmi: “The United States own the essential cards in this game. This is a clear fact to all…”
There are sound reasons for believing that Sadat, in this case, is telling the truth. Senior Soviet analysts had been urging Egypt and Syria to adopt a strategy whereby the United States would be induced to do for them what these Arab countries, even with Soviet military assistance, were unable to achieve for themselves on the battlefield. As Ra’anan points out in a geopolitical analysis made just prior to the opening of the Suez Canal in 1975:
“The Soviet Union, for reasons of its own, was and is very eager to recover lost Arab territories for its Middle Eastern clients since the Israeli presence there is a visible reminder of Moscow’s inability to “deliver.” Needless to say, however, the Russians hope to achieve this aim at no major cost to themselves. What they have is to tell their clients that an open confrontation with the West is not in the cards. Consequently, Moscow has asked its clients for time, promising that it will gradually maneuver the United States into doing the job of handing back the lost territories of Russia’s Middle Eastern allies. How this aim was to be achieved could be learned from a detailed analysis which was printed in the soviet magazine The U.S.A.: Economics,Politics, Ideology. The author, Yevgeny Primakov (years later Prime Minister of Russia) is generally believed to occupy an influential position within the “apparat” concerned with Middle Eastern affairs. Primakov’s major emphasis is on the divisions within the U.S. on Middle East policies…On the one hand, he says, there are the so-called Gulf of Mexico oil interests. They have most of their investment in the Western Hemisphere and feel that there are sufficient oil reserves in that region for the Middle East to remain of secondary importance…However, Primakov says, there is another group, the so-called Atlantic oil interests. This group has strong supporters in the State Department. These circles have huge investments in the Middle East…They keep pushing the White House and the Pentagon to abandon the line of measured deterrence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East, because it also implies containing Russia’s Arab clients who, if they are not oil producers, at least control oil transit lines. Consequently, these Atlantic oil interests demand a policy of appeasement toward the Arab countries. Primakov comments that, to be sure, the final aims of these circles and of Moscow are different; he implies however that their immediate objectives are similar. He infers that the unwritten, short-term alliance between these interests, the U.S. State Department, and the Kremlin will succeed in pressuring the U.S. and, through it, the Israelis to withdraw unilaterally, without the Soviet Union or its allies having to pay any very serious price for this withdrawal. There are reasons for thinking that this analysis is precisely what the Soviet Union has been presenting to its friends in Cairo and Damascus.” (Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Foreign Assistance of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. P.61-62)
The success of this deception depends largely on the widespread and mistaken belief that Egypt’s acquisition of Western and especially U.S. arms will result in the substitution of American for Russian leverage. The trouble is that Moscow can always outbid Washington. In Ra’anan analysis:
“If Carter offers Sadat half of the Sinai, then Moscow, of course will “remind” Egypt that it should have all of the Sinai. If Carter then somehow obtains all of the Sinai for Sadat, the Kremlin will point out that Egypt, prior to 1967, also held the Gaza Strip and that it would be a betrayal of the Arab cause to neglect the West Bank and the Golan Heights. If Carter subsequently proceeds to pressure Israel into a total rollback to the pre-1967 demarcation lines, the Soviet leadership merely has the point out to Egypt that, as all official Soviet maps have shown consistently, the USSR acknowledges as legitimate only the territorial lines of the abortive 1947 U.N. Partition Plan, which would whittle down Israeli territory way beyond the 1949 Armistice lines. (ib. p. 65)
In fact, Sadat’s confidant, al-Quddis, revealed the scenario for this piecemeal destruction of Israel in Al-Ahram. In an article dated November 14, 1975, he stated: “Israel is experiencing a feeling of waning or ‘withering.’ This withering will not stop even if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders…This waning may make Israel face the Security Council resolution of 1948 which calls for returning the Arab lands to their owners or compensating them…The Arabs, of course, refuse any compensation and insist on recovering the land, that is, they are compelling Israel to return to the Partition Resolution of 1947.” Needless to say, Israel would then cease to exist.
Sadat accomplished what all the oil of Saudi Arabia could not accomplish: the American mass media were now openly pro-Arab and anti-Israel. He also had succeeded in undermining Israel’s “special relationship with the U.S. – what Clausewitz would have called Israel’s “center of gravity.” Well, Sadat did not succeed in undermining Israel’s “special relationship” with God, the same God who millennia ago hardened the hart of Pharaoh so he refused the Hebrew slaves to go. God did that to show his people His Might. And similarly, He hardened the heart of President Sadat…
Atlantic Oil Interests
An extremely informative book has been published recently. The volume is titled Forbidden Truth, and it was written by French authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillome Dasquis, and translated into English. The book discusses United States-Taliban secret oil diplomacy and the failed hunt for Osama bin Laden. Here are just a few quotes from the book:
“The Carlyle Group’s leading investors include many figures from former US President George H.W. Bush’s entourage, as well as that of President George W. Bush. Its board of directors includes important figures from the Bush team: James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State under the first President Bush; Frank C. Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan; Richard G. Darman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under George H.W. Bush between 1989 and 1993, and John Sununu, former White House Chief of Staff under G. Bush. In addition, Saudi Prince Al Waleed Bin Talal, nephew of King Fahd, own an indeterminate stake in the group. Even President G.W. Bush was a member of the board of directors of one of the Carlyle Group’s subsidiaries, Caterair, between 1990 and 1994.” (p. 132) This quote is from the section entitled “Khalid Bin Mahfouz: The Lucrative Business of Terrorism,” from the chapter titled “The Banker of Terror.”
The book ties together many leading world figures with Arab oil companies, such as Aramco and Standard Oil of New Jersey. If all of these assertions in this book are factual, then the International Oil Business is heavily involved in Islamic terrorism and many world leaders are involved with big oil. Another telling passage appears in the foreword: “What’s more, the president’s close advisors benefited from considerable experience in managing world affairs, also acquired from their contact with Bush Senior and Texas oil companies. First in rank was the placid, enigmatic Condoleezza Rice. Even glossy celebrity magazines are interested in her; listing the same pedigree each time: professor at Stanford, Soviet specialist, and former security counselor (under Bush Senior) in charge of Soviet affairs. Meanwhile, from 1991 to 2000, Rice was a director of the Chevron group – one of the leading oil companies in the world – in which she notably dealt with questions related to the development in Kazakhstan.”
The Historical Logic Behind the Soviet Retreat from the Middle East
In May 1939 came the British White Paper renouncing the Balfour Declaration and the mandate on which British authority rested. The White Paper was prepared by George Antonius’s, The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1939) The British imperialism in the Middle East was justified in such words: “There seems to be no valid reason why Palestine should not be constituted into an independent Arab state in which as many Jews as the country can hold without prejudice to its political and economic freedom would live in peace, security and dignity, and enjoy full rights of citizenship. Such an Arab state would naturally be tied to Great Britain by a freely negotiated treaty, which should contain provisions for the safeguarding of British strategic and economic interest. It would secure Great Britain’s interests on a firm basis of consent. And it would restore Palestine to its proper place, as a symbol of peace in the hearts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” From that policy flowed the greatest tragedy ever to befall a single people in written history – and perhaps not-unrelated decline of British power.
In 1943 British officials expressed their fears to the State Department that Germany might “change over from a policy of extermination to one of extrusion and aim at embarrassing other countries by flooding them with alien immigrants.” In 1944 both British and American officials worried that “Germans might play the card of offering an unmanageable number of refugees to the UN.” The fate of Jewish people was thus sealed.
According to newly released records of Winston Churchill’s wartime cabinet meetings on July 2, 1943 Churchill said: “I’m committed to creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Let us go on with that; and at the end of war we shall have plenty of force with which to compel the Arabs to acquiesce in our design. Don’t shirk our duties because of difficulties…” (Week in Review, Jan 22, 2006).
The expression “Jewish National Home” is not equivalent to “a Jewish state”. It was taken by Churchill from the Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2, 1917 in which the relevant passage goes like that: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
Actually, very cynical political goals were hidden behind the Balfour Declaration. Lord Palmerston, the architect of British 19th century policy regretted that Palestine, the very hinge of the new Egyptian Empire, contained no suitable minority, whose protection Britain could undertake as a pretext for evicting the Egyptians. Since there was no protectable minority in Palestine, Palmerston wondered if it might not be possible to inject one. Could Jewish nostalgia for the Holy Land, perhaps, be used in Britain’s interest? Having ascertained from the British vice-consul that there were already ten thousand Jews living in Palestine, Palmerston next wrote to the British ambassador in Constantinople: “It would be of manifest importance for the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return to, and settle in Palestine; because the wealth which they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan’s dominions; and the Jewish people, if returning under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan, would be a check upon any future evil designs of Muhammad Ali or his successors.”
Palestine guaranteed the eastern approaches to the Suez Canal. A Jewish Palestine dependent on Britain would be a counterweight to the ambitions of France and Russia, who both had clients in the eastern Mediterranean: the Russians patronized the Orthodox while since the days of Louis XIV the French had taken an interest in the Maronites of Mount Lebanon. Britain lacked a client minority, though it had, in Egypt, a client dynasty. Germany’s successful intrusion into the Middle East could prompt Great Britain to a counterthrust. If German influence dominated Constantinople, Britain would have a clear interest in killing off the empire she had long kept alive; this was the occasion under which the Zionists might get Palestine for nothing. By offering the Zionists something of what they wanted, Britain might get hold of Palestine. A Palestine under British control would safeguard the approaches to the Suez Canal and give access to that new target of the imperialists, Iraq.
Chaim Weizmann was well aware of that when in 1919 he stated: “I trust to God that a Jewish state will come about; but it will come about not through political declarations, but by the sweat and blood of the Jewish people. That is the only way of building up a state. No other way is known to me in all the history of the world.”
The present promotion of Nazi ideology in Great Britain by the upper classes is as relentless as it was in the 1930s when Hitler and his thugs received millions for their anti-Semitic, genocidal propaganda. The British sympathy for the Nazis also determined their policy in the post-war Palestine. The intelligence documents cited in A Memorandum Submitted to the Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nation in April 1948 by The Nation Associates show that before the 15 May 1948 invasion, British intelligence knew that the Arabs terrorizing the future Israel were being led in part by Nazi advisers. These included Bosnian Muslims from the infamous Handzar Division of the Waffen SS. According to a French intelligence document published by The Nation seven month later, the British sent thousands of Nazi prisoners of war, including top war criminals, to assist the Arab attack. This was after the Arab invasion.
Consistent with British tolerance for and apparent employment of Nazi war criminals against new-born Israel, The Nation memorandum shows that the British adopted a propaganda line reminiscent of the Nazis’ “Jewish-Bolshevist plot” which five years later was embraced by the ill-famous Senator McCarthy. The British accused Jewish Holocaust survivors trying to get to Palestine of being Soviet Communist infiltrators.
The Nation Associates presented the facts in their memorandum as essential to a wise and just decision. An examination of these facts show that the post-war violence in Palestine resulted from:
1) British sabotage of Partition – This British sabotage was deliberately undertaken in order to insure British base rights in Palestine in perpetuity, as well as to safeguard British oil and trade and military interests in the Middle East
2) British Alliance with Arab League – Within a month after the November 29th resolution, the Arabs were encouraged to believe partition would be substituted by a Federal State, and arms shipments continued to the Arab States despite their known use for Palestine warfare. On April 28, 1948 Foreign Minister Bevin was still refusing to halt them.
The British have also allowed 10,000 foreign invaders to enter Palestine, offering the feeble excuse that the British armed forces, consisting, at the outset, of over 80,000 men, could not adequately protect the border. Through their action they have admitted into Palestine Arabs of known Nazi allegiance in command of the invading forces, and have even admitted escaped Nazi prisoners of war, now to be found in command of Arab detachments.
Their prejudice against the Jews has been clearly indicated in their refusal to allow the Jews to arm for defense against Arab attack, and their blowing up of Jewish defense posts; in their turning over to the Arabs - and to certain death - members of the Haganah; in their confiscation of Haganah arms; in their treatment of Jewish defense personnel as criminals. The British have connived at the starving of the Jewish population of Jerusalem by their failure to keep the highways open. They have refused armed escorts to the Jews.
By arrangement with the Arab League, if partition is shelved through any of several schemes to assure Arab dominance in Palestine, the British are to receive base rights in Haifa, the Negev and Galilee. But the British are not depending on Arab promises alone. They have already taken the necessary steps to assure the permanent rights in Palestine to air bases and land and sea communications. To be able to carry out this program, the Mandatory has required a free hand. That is why it has kept the United Nations Commission out of Palestine and refused it cooperation.
So intent were the British upon destroying partition that they have shown themselves oblivious to the facts that with it they may destroy the authority of the United Nations, and even the peace of the world.
The Nuremberg Trial Indictment prepared by the four powers (Cf. the so-called Quartet) had been sharply attacked in July of the same year by the Polish, governmental organ Rzeczpospolita which blamed the US, the UK, the Soviet Union and France for trivialization of the crime of genocide committed on the Jewish people. The wartime policy of the United Nations is still reflected in the Encyclopedia Americana; the entry Nuremberg War Crimes Trials does not simply mention the Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide; it universalizes the Jewish Holocaust as “crimes against humanity.” And yet the Wannsee Conference was not about humanity, but about Jews!
August 28, 2011
Laura Booth, sister-in-law of Quartet envoy Tony Blair, has called on “Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt liberate Al-Quds [Jerusalem].”
The former British prime minister’s family member has previously sailed illegally to Gaza on a flotilla boat. She joined an anti-Israel rally in London Trafalgar’s Square, where another protest today (Sunday) may be the last as the mayor London vows to crack down on the incitement as the date for the next Olympics approaches.
"The Mayor believes that intolerance of our fellow citizens and hate crimes against specific communities are totally unacceptable, particularly in a city like London and especially in 2012 when the eyes of the world will be on the capital,” said a spokesman for Mayor Boris Johnson, the London Jewish Chronicle reported.
The spokesman added, “The Greater London Authority will not be authorizing political rallies in Trafalgar Square during the Olympic and Paraolympic Games."
The Trafalgar Square rallies against Israel have featured Hizbullah flags.
During last week’s demonstration, Booth went on another rant against Israel. “We say here today to you, Israel, we see your crimes and we loathe your crimes. And to us your nation does not exist, because it is a criminal injustice against humanity. We want to see Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt go to the borders and stop this now. Liberate Al Quds! March to Al Quds!”
Another speaker claimed, somewhat myopically as far as historical accuracy goes, that “the only time that land has seen peace between Muslim, Christian and Jew living side by side was when sincere Islamic rulers ruled with justice.”
During Ottoman Islamic rule, Jews were second-class citizens, called "Dhimmis". The myth of their "peaceful lives" has been debunked by historians, although they were not subject to pogroms as frequently as European Jews..
In fact, Jordan, during its occupation of the Old City and other parts of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria between 1949 and 1967, denied Christians and Jews all access to holy sites except for visiting dignitaries.
Israel opened up the sites to all religions after it restored the areas under its sovereignty in the Six-Day War in 1967.
No comments:
Post a Comment