Egypt: Jeers to Cheers; Staging a “Democratic” Military Coup

During the 2011 Egyptian uprisings, the military was jeered for cracking down on protestors and for the infamous virginity tests they conducted on detained female protestors.  In June 2012, when Mohamed Morsi won the presidential race with 51% of the votes, crowds gathered in Tahrir Square to celebrate his victory, chanting : "God is great" and "down with military rule."    Barely a year passed before the crowds were cheering the U.S.-backed military for ousting their first democratically elected president in a coup dubbed by various media outlets as a democratic coup.   What transpired?

 

Mr. Morsi alienated both Egyptians and foreign states in his short term in office.  No doubt many Egyptians were alarmed and opposed to what they perceived as his ‘power-grab’, as well as the new constitution which passed in a referendum with 64% of a measly 33% turnout; but inarguably,  the economy was a huge factor in sending protestors to the streets.  The lack of progress in dealing with the economy, the fuel shortages,  and the IMF loan delay also contributed to the continuous unrest in Egypt. 

 

It is worthwhile mentioning here that a significant percentage of Egypt’s economy is run by the military.    Robert Springborg, an expert on Egypt’s military told The New York Times: “Protecting its businesses from scrutiny and accountability is a red line the [Egyptian] military will draw”.    Also of note is the fact that long lines formed at gasoline stations in Cairo amid an apparent fuel shortage, disappeared quickly after the coup.  This led to speculation that the fuel crisis had “been deliberately engineered to feed unrest and dissatisfaction with the Morsi government in the days before its overthrow.”

 

Gripped in social and economic crisis, it came as no surprise that on May 1^st, a group opposed to Mr. Morsi which called itself “Rebel” organized a 1 million people march to be held on June 30^th.    The group also planned on delivering a signed petition to the Prosecutor General at the same time with the aim of collecting 15 million signatures by that date.  “In one month, movement promoters travelled the length and breadth of the country, collecting signatures door to door, on buses, in restaurants and offices as well as on the internet.” They claimed that they had secured just over 7 million signatures, and four weeks later, on June 28^th, the Washington Post reported that the group had secured 22 millions signatures.   (Given the timeframe and the challenges, surely this number has a place in the Guinness Book of World Records – if only it could be verifiable).

 

This number cited by “Rebel” became an accepted reality and was promoted by media outlets without verification.  As anti-protestors marched on Tahrir as planned, military  tanks and personnel blocked the pro-Morsi crowd from the onset;  enabling the media lens to capture the sea of anti-Morsi demonstrators and marginalizing his supporters.  These actions together with the unverified 22 million signatures claim played an essential role in calling a military coup a “democratic” coup.  Washington was off the hook and funds could to secure the Egyptian army’s cooperation and loyalty to Washington. 

But one should ask why was it that Washington which has a long standing relationship with the Moslem Brotherhood[1] rejected Morsi?

 

There are many answers to this question – with the most basic being that he was not part of the plan.  As early as 2007 speculation about Hosni Mubarak’s  replacement appeared in the American mainstream media.  Discussing his ailing health, in October 2007, Michael Stackman's opinion piece in The New York Times addressed the importance of a Mubark's replacement to be someone who would continue the same policies towards Israel and Washington. 

 

With this in mind, in 2008, young, 'civil society' Egyptians met with former Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice who called the young Egyptian activists the "hope for the future of Egypt".  The "hope of Egypt" also met the US National Security Advisor and prominent Congressional member. These meetings were organized by The Freedom House (see link here).  The Freedom House, an outfit which calls itself "independent" but receives 80% of its funding from the US government, including the National Endowment for Democracy -- a CIA front -- claimed to provide "advanced training on civic mobilization, strategic thinking, new media, advocacy and outreach".  

In 2010, Freedom House boasted of teaching new media tools to Egypt's "hope". 

Freedom House had reason to boast.  2010 was a crucial year to decide and settle on Mubarak's successor as time was of the essence given Mubarak's health and terminal illness.  In April 2010, the pro-Israeli Jerusalem Post ventured that former IAEA Chief, Egyptian-born Mohammad El baradei would "add excitement to Egyptian politics."  He did.   Mr. El-Baradei served on the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group funded by Carnegie, Soros, and Ford (Ford Foundation was a conduit for CIA funds during the Cold War – Saunders 2000[i]) where he rubbed shoulders with colleagues Shimon Peres, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal,  Richard Armitage,  Zbigniew Brzezinski, etc.

Morsi’s election not only interrupted Washington’s efforts to replace Mubarak in spite of his close cooperation with Washington (specifically in cutting ties with Syria).   Morsi presented Washington with many challenges.  Not only was he reported to have called “Jews descendants of pigs and apes”,  but his election into office was warmly welcomed not only by HAMAS, but also by the U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who called Morsi "the choice of the great people of Egypt" while one of his senior aides, Saeb Erekat, said the democratic vote for Morsi "meant the Palestinian cause was the Number One priority for all Egyptians".   Washington was not in the business of making Palestinians jubilant, or contradicting Israel’s demands. .

Regardless,  Morsi dug in deeper.    Soon after taking office, Morsi forced NGO’s out of Egypt, raising the ire of Freedom House (NGOs were referred to as force-multipliers by Colin Powell, and have been instrumental in executing US policies around the globe).   Additionally, Morsi forced out powerful military figures in order to reclaim the military power the army had seized.  As Juan Cole put it, ‘a coup against the generals’.  Israel called the move "Instability in Egypt to threaten Israel," and "Muslim Brotherhood on our doorstep."  However,  Morsi made the mistake of appointing Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi as military chief – a man with close ties to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.   

 Perhaps his most serious offense was his opposition to a dam which both Israel and Saudi Arabia favored as they had plans to divert water from the Nile.  In 2012, it was reported that Saudi Arabia had claimed a stake in the Nile.   Israel’s ambitions went much further back. 

First initiated by Theodore Herzl in 1903, the diversion plan was dropped due to British and Egyptian opposition to it only to be picked up again in the 1970s.  At that time, Israeli’s idea was to convince Egypt to divert Nile water to Israel.  In 1978, President Anwar Sadat “declared in Haifa to the Israeli public that he would transfer Nile water to the Negev. Shortly afterward, in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Sadat promised that Nile water would go to Jerusalem.  During Mubarak’s presidency, published reports indicated that Israeli experts were helping Ethiopia to plan 40 dams along the Blue Nile.”[ii]

 On May 30, 2013, The Times of Israel reported that the construction on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (on the Blue Nile) had sparked a major diplomatic crisis with Egypt.  The article also reported (citing Al-Arabiya) that Major General Mohammed Ali Bilal, the deputy chief of staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces, had said Egypt was not in a position to confront the project (countries).  “The only solution lies in the US intervening to convince Ethiopia to alleviate the impact of the dam on Egypt.”  No such solutions from the U.S.

 On June 3^rd,  Morsi met with his cabinet to discuss the dam and its implications.  Cabinet members were surprised to learn that the meeting was aired live.   During the meeting, a cabinet member said: “Imagine what 80 million of us would do to Israel and America if our water was turned off”.  Morsi contended that “We have very serious measures to protect every drop of Nile water.” The day prior to Morsi’s ouster, on July 2^nd, Fox News reported that work on the dam was “proceeding apace”, with plans to finish the project in 2017.

It seems the only “serious measure” undertaken was the ouster of Morsi.  With him gone, the military engaged, and the poring in of Saudi money, the dam project will proceed unhindered;  blood-diluted Nile water will flow to the enemies of the Egyptian in sink with a current of jubilation by the crowds who ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’.

---

[1] During the early years of the Cold War, American spies in Cairo  "engaged in an operation to show Soviet ungodliness"  by circulating anti-Islamic literature and attributing it to the Soviets.   When the nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to become America’s man in Egypt, CIA looked for a "religious spellbinder" who could tip the scales of Arab opinion and "divert the growing stream of anti-American hostility."  The intent was to “groom a messiah who would start out in Egypt, and then spread his word to Africans and perhaps other Third World peoples” in order to “immunize them against false prophets," namely Nasser[1]. Although no ‘messiah’ was groomed, the CIA did co-opt leaders of the Islamic revival movement known as the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood and “the seeds of a  furtive relationship between the CIA and the Ikhwan were planted.”  In the years ahead, the agency would become a de facto accomplice of the Muslim Brotherhood and its “terrorist” activities[1].  

---

[i] Frances Stonor Saunders. The Cultural Cold War: the CIA and the World of Arts

and Letters. New York: New Press 2000

[ii] “Will Nile water go to Israel? North Sinai pipelines and the politics of scarcity”, Middle East Policy  (Sep 1997): 113-124.

 

Where Does 22 million come from?

Whoever claimed there were 22 million signatures gathered to recall Morsy?  Why did the media repeat if without verifying. 

 

The made up number is intended to justify the army's actions.  Lets get this clear - regardless of how one feels about Morsy and Moslem Brotherhood and their policies, one must look at the bigger picture. 

 

According to Asia News, reporting from Egypt, the goal was for 15 million signatures by June 30th.  They gathered just over 7.5 million.  But two days earlier, June 28th,  WAshington Post claimed they had reached 22 million - and of course, it catches like wildfire http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-28/world/40255650_1_cairo-supporters-tahrir-square

 

I hope more prominent news services look into this and bring it to light.  This military coup was stupidly called "democratic coup" - what an oxymoron!

 

Here is the Asia News article

 

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Young-Egyptians-rekindle-revolution-by-collecting-more-than-7-million-signatures-against-the-Morsi-government-28063.html

 

05/30/2013 13:29
EGYPT
Young Egyptians rekindle revolution by collecting more than 7 million signatures against the Morsi government
Recall campaign aims for 15 million signatures by 30 June. Calling themselves "rebels", organisers see their initiative as an alternative to street demonstrations. Their move raises concerns in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Cairo (AsiaNews/Agencies) - A new movement of young Egyptians successfully collected 7,540,535 signatures to demand an end to the government of Mohamed Morsi and the domination of the Muslim Brotherhood over Egypt.
Organised by a "rebel" group, the campaign began on 1 May with the aim of 15 million signatures by 30 June, which marks the first anniversary since Egypt's first Islamist president took office.
In one month, movement promoters travelled the length and breadth of the country, collecting signatures door to door, on buses, in restaurants and offices as well as on the internet. Once completed, the petition will be handed over to Prosecutor General Talaat Abdullah.
Along with the collection of signatures, young people are also preparing a protest march of at least one million people that will march on 30 June from Tahrir Square to the presidential palace located in the district of Heliopolis.
"Whoever wants the revolution to prevail must rebel," said Mohamed Abdel-Aziz, one of the movement's organisers.
The young man calls for a new peaceful uprising demanding jobs, freedom and respect for justice, something that no longer exists in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Let 30 June be a decisive day for the revolution," he added.
The success of the rebels' campaign scares the Egyptian president. According to national media, support for the Muslim Brotherhood leader dropped by at least 20 percentage points from the 50 per cent he won in the 2012 presidential election.
On 25 May, at a press conference during Morsi's visit to Ethiopia, a reporter asked the president about the drop in support and the rise of the new movement.
"Some people say I barely got 52 percent of the vote in [last year's] presidential election," Morsi said, "but legally and constitutionally, I am the legitimate president."

 

 

 

Interview wiht RT on the Military Coup against Egypt's Morsy

Coup in Egypt

Syria: The Faces Behind The Terror

In her extraordinarily bold and direct speech addressed to the Irish Parliament, Clare Daly (TD, Dublin North) called Obama a “war criminal” and “hypocrite of the century”.  In describing the fawned reception of Obama in Ireland akin to pimping and prostituting of that nation,  Ms. Daly hit the nail on the head.   Sadly, America dwarfs Ireland and elsewhere in the undignified category of prostitution – the 29 standing ovations from Congress in May 2011 for war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu attests to this tragic fact.  

While Daly was quite right in censuring Obama for his criminal policies, including aiding terrorists in Syria, it is worthwhile noting that Obama is merely a willing instrument; the  faces and factors behind his handlers and the policies merit greater scrutiny and exposure. 

Backing and arming the so-called Syrian opposition distracts from the threat posed by Israel and its’s expansionist agenda by internalizing the enemy in order to weak the State.    As former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin  told the audience at the  Israel Policy Forum in February 2013:  “And this military [Syrian], which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating.  We still have risk from Syria-- a risk of being an AlQaeda country, a Somalia-type country -- but from military point of view, each one of these are less dangerous than the Syrian regular army."

 Perpetuating adversaries to kill each other is a time-tested tactic – one which was used during the bloody eight year Iran-Iraq war;  a war which according to Leon Wieseltier[i] was a  “distraction” when Israeli boots were on the ground in Southern Lebanon.   In that war,  the United States was providing arms and intelligence to both sides.    When asked what the logic was in aiding both sides in the bloody war, a former official replied: “You had to have been there”[ii].   But why Syria?

The Need for Water

The primary goal of the early Zionist leadership was to control and secure the region’s waters.   At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Chaim Weizmann declared that ‘it was of vital importance not only to secure all water resources feeding the country, but to control them at the sources – and the development of these waters became the primary aim of the Yishuv as a whole[iii].    This policy remained in place. As Israel’s third Prime Minister Levi Eshkol put it, water was “the blood flowing through the arteries of the nation”.

As previously stated (HERE and HERE), the chaos we witness in Syria today has been in the making for years with the aid and backing of Israel-firsters in order to accommodate Israel’s agenda – expansion and control of regional water supplies while weakening its adversary/ies.

Israel faced one of its worst droughts in 1990-91.  A second more serious drought in 1998, forced it to turn to water rich Turkey.  Turkey and Israel engaged in serious negotiations starting in May 2000 to import 50 billion cubic meters of fresh water from Turkey using tanker ships, but using tankers was not cost effective for the transport of water.  Alternate plans were suggested.

In September 2000,  the same year that young Bashar-al Assad succeeded his father as President of Syria, a strategy paper entitled “The Geopolitics of Water” by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) opined that "Since extensive water planning proposals will necessitate the establishment of pipelines and energy grids stretching across borders, a political and military structure that can ensure the safety and security of the carriers will be the prerequisite to effective water sharing” ….. “But an effective regional system would require political-military cooperation against Syria”. 

How to achieve this?

 Israeli-Firsters to the rescue

 Media mogul Haim Saban became involved in politics in the mid 1990’s with a view to support Israel.  Saban professes that his greatest concern is the “protection” of Israel.   At a conference in Israel, Saban described his method of influencing American politics : ‘Make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets’. (Saban penned an opinion piece in The New York Times in support of President Obama in his 2012 re-election bid). 

 It was no surprised therefore that in 2002, Saban pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  Saban Center would play an important role in propping up Syrian opposition (as it did in fermenting unrest post-2009 Iran elections with their June 2009 publication titled: "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran"^[1]).  

 In 2006,  Time Magazine revealed that that the US had been agitating, funding, and supporting "opposition" in Syria.  According to the Time,  the U.S.  was  "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."  

It is worthwhile mentioning here that America’s support of the so-called  “opposition” which includes criminals, terrorists, and foreign fighters to effect regime change underscores America’s stark hypocrisy.   According to  18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government (Cornell Law), advocating the overthrow of the government, ‘organizing or help or attempt to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of the government of the United States or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence’ bears serious consequences including fines and prison sentence of up to 20 years.

What is most revealing about the abovementioned Time Magazine piece of 2006 is that America’s efforts to aid the opposition and undermine Assad were run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF).   Abdulhamid was a visiting Fellow at the Saban Center (2004-2006) before moving on to the Neocon-run National Defense of Democracies.  

When in  2008, Israel-firster Dennis Ross met with the "opposition" to discuss "Syria in Transition", Saban’s fellow - Amar Abdullhamid  was present.   In February 2009, Dennis Ross joined the Obama Administration team.  In April  2009, the US funded, London-based Baraada TV started its anti-Assad propaganda into Syria (The epicenter of the uprisings' was Baraada over water distribution).  Baraada  TV’s  chief editor, Malik al-Abdeh, is a cofounder of the Syrian exile group Movement for Justice and Development headed by Anas al-Abdah who was in attendance at the 2008 meeting with Dennis Ross. 

 It came as no surprise that John McCain who was a member of the  Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) formed to rid Iraq of Saddam Hossein, and a cheerleader for the Libya intervention, the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak, for bombing Iran, and so on…..visited Syrian “opposition” (via Turkey) in order to encourage more bloodshed.  And expectedly, he was de-briefed -- not at the White House, but at the Saban Center!  

Soon after McCain’s presentation at the Saban Center, the White House disputed UN’s account and claimed that that Syria had crossed the ‘red line’ and used chemical weapons.

 It is not the intention of this article to exclude the plethora of other individuals, think tanks, forums, and media pundits who have institutionalized Israel’s policies and promoted them as ‘America’s  interests’; these are too numerous to mention here.   However, a notable other Israel supporter must be named.

The Evangelical Factor

While various groups in Washington perpetuate and support Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies -- at a cost to America, non have the zeal and the zest of the Evangelicals who support Israel to death.   According to the dispensational model, a time of turmoil lies ahead, but believers will be "raptured" away before it begins. This period of tribulation will culminate in the final battle at Armageddon, a valley northwest of Jerusalem.   

The close association between American evangelicals and Israel has been a clear goal of Israeli politicians, especially those in the Likud party.    According to Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of AJC, “the evangelical community is the largest and fastest-growing bloc of pro-Jewish sentiment in this country”[iv].   Israel and Jewish  organizations continue to  rely on the support of Evangelicals to justify Israel’s occupation of Arab land even as  Christian Zionists zest for evangelizing Jews remains a point of tension.  

For example, within days of the June 1982 invasion of Lebanon (with a green light from Reagan), full-page ads appeared in leading papers requesting Evangelical support for the invasion[v].  In 1998, when Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, he met with Jerry Falwell and numerous fundamentalist Christians before meeting with President Clinton.  Similarly, as recently as April 2013, Pat Robertson warned that brokering  peace between Israel and Palestine would bring  punishment on America.   

 It has been alleged that funds raised in America by right wing Christians is funneled to West Bank settlements.  The mayor of Ariel on the West Bank had estimated that two thirds of all Jewish settlements were funded by Christian Zionists.[vi]

 Building for Armageddon?

 While Evangelicals (not all) are rupture-ready and encourage Israel’s expansionist agenda, Israeli politicians are not yet Armageddon-ready; at least, not yet.

In March 2013, Business Inside revealed that the United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars building bunkers in Israel due to be completed 900 days from February 13, 2013.     The project called Site 911 “will have five levels buried underground and six additional outbuildings on the above grounds, within the perimeter. At about 127,000 square feet, the first three floors will house classrooms, an auditorium, and a laboratory — all wedged behind shock resistant doors — with radiation protection and massive security.  Only one gate will allow workers entrance and exit during the project and that will be guarded by only Israelis”.

 Each door of the facility will have a detailed description of the mezuzahs written in “in-erasable ink”.

This should be heartwarming news to Americans whose taxes are spent on such projects while the bridges at home are crumbling. 

 The future

The political establishment and the media has pimped out the nation.  The list of conflicts awaiting us is long and bloody.  Syria will not be the last conflict.   This has been a brief and incomplete overview of what drives our nation, and where we are headed, the handlers and the willing instruments (in the words of Clare Daly, pimps and prostitutes).  We continue to sink our head in sand and hope for a hero – for ‘something to happen’.   There is only one hope for the future, and the only one power that can alter this destructive path:   “We, The People”.

---

[1] Chapter 6 reads: “The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.” Beyond this, US-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt US funding for promoting democracy in Iran). US economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership......”

 

---

[i] Wieseltier, Leon, “Israel meets Iran in Lebanon; The Wrong War”, The New Republic, Apr 8, 1985

[ii] Stephen R. Shalom, The United States and Iran-Iraq War,   citing Stephen Engelberg, "Iran and Iraq Got 'Doctored Data, U.S. Officials Say," New York Times, 12 Jan. 1987, pp. A1, A6.

 

[iii] Jan Selby, “Water, Power & Politics in the Middle East; The Other Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

 

[iv] Donald Wagner,  “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”, The Christian Century, Nov. 4, 1998).

 

[v] Donald Wagner,  “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”,  ibid

[vi] Colin Shindler, “Likud and the Christian Dispensationalists: A Symbiotic Relationship”, Israeli Studies, March 31, 2000

RT - America mulls arming rebels amidst allegations of WMB

includes RT interview with Soraya

http://rt.com/news/hagel-us-syrian-rebels-736/

Why We Must Change The Narrative On Syria

For some time now, the predominant narrative about Syria has been that the unrest has been fueled in order to weaken Iran.  This prevalent account is common to neoconservatives and liberals alike.  While The New York Times trumpeted Israeli-firsters Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham message that “rebel fighters deserved to be armed and that helping them take on the Syrian government would aid Washington’s effort to weaken Iran”, moderate and independent outlets such as Truthout, Counterpunch, and numerous others echoed this same objective – but whilst decrying the plan.   Even Iran’s state-run media shares this account.

 This is sheer misdirection -- deliberate or otherwise.  Undisputedly, Syria and Iran have been staunch allies since the Iranian Revolution in their joint cause to protect the Palestinian rights and to stand up Israel and America, and any change in Syria would adversely affect Iran (as it would Russia).   But this is a secondary consideration.  The generally accepted  narrative takes the focus away from the primary reason for the current assault on Syria – Israel.

Since the 1948 war, Syria and Israel have been in a state of war (with brief periods of unsuccessful negotiations).   The conflict has been primarily over land and water (see  a previous essay The Syria Imperative).   Since the 1950’s, conflict over water (and land) has been at the root of hostilities between the two.  In the 1950’s, Eisenhower commissioned Eric Johnston to generate a regional water allocation agreement.  The failure of the Johnston plan exacerbated the conflict. The published diaries of Israeli Foreign Minister Sharett helps understand why the Johnston negotiations were unsuccessful.  Sharett maintained: “[P]olitical decisions concerning the occupation of the rest of Eretz Israel were taken as early as 1954, although implemented in 1967.[i]”

The 1967 occupation of Syria Golan (Golan Heights) and the Upper Mount Hermon by Israel enabled Israel to seize the entire Upper Jordan River  giving Israel the advantage of placing its riparian position to fully upstream.   Consequently, not only was Syria denied access to Upper Jordan waters, but its territorial and national integrity were assaulted.

 Some years later, Haaretz would reveal the existence of a study (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv university) under General Aaron Yariv, former intelligence services chief, which outlined a “zone of hydraulic security”, which called for placing water resources in Syria and Lebanon under full Israeli control[ii].  Disputes continued unabated and the status quo maintained until 1982 when the military prowess of both sides were tested. 

 A 1987 book by Col. Emmanuel Wald of the Israeli General Staff entitled “The Ruse of the Broken Vessels: The Twilight of Israeli Military Might (1967-1982) reveals the aims of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the month of pre-planning that had gone into it.  Wald writes that Ariel Sharon’s master plan codenamed “Oranim” was to defeat the Syrian troops deployed in the Bekaa Valley all the way to the district of Baalbek in North of Lebanon.  According to Wald, “during the fist days, it was quietly approved by the U.S.”.

 With this aim, on June 6, 1982, Israeli advanced into Lebanon.   However, the Syrian army halted the Israeli army advance in the battle of Sultan Yakub and the battle of Ain Zahalta.  Sharon’s plan to conquer all of Lebanon and destroy Syria as a military power was thwarted.  In reviewing the book and the battles, the famous scholar and activist, Israel Shahak, opined that “the principal purpose of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was destruction of the Syrian Army”[iii].

 Shahak posits that Israel needs to win its wars quickly or not at all.  In spite of technological and nuclear superiority, another assault on Syria would not predictably bring an easy win to Israel and defenses could ‘drag out a war endlessly’.   He further argues that during the entire history of  Israel, Israeli Jews have shown themselves to be  highly sensitive to their losses, and high losses make Israelis “susceptible to political arguments against modes of domination and oppression which they otherwise would accept”.

 Shahak’s analysis shed a light on events which pursued the failure of “Oranim” as outlined in The Syria Imperative.   Israel continues to pursue its grand strategy, using a different tactic given its awareness of, and its familiarity with the strengths of the Syrian army -  an army which must be disrupted from within given Israel’s 1982 failure to do so.  And this is the primary reason for arming terrorists posing as “opposition”.

 It is not without irony that Netanyahu has recently admitted that he does not rule out arming Syrian rebels, given Israel’s age-old tactic of arming minorities or rebels and cultivating dissent and chaos (such as the Anya Nya in Sudan , later the Sudanese People Liberation Army (SPLA), and the leader of the Sudanese rebels, John Garang armed by Israel  from neighboring countries).  This is a scenario being repeated in Syria. 

Paradoxically,  the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) who are today on a mission to secure Israel’s vision (with a nod from Washington)  by arming rebels and undermining Syria, were all in favor of securing Syria in 2003 when they told Washington: "We think the threat to Syria should stop. We don't think Syria wants a war or to escalate any situation. We reject any infringement of Syria's security.”[iv]   There is no end to their duplicity.  

 Amos Yadlin, the outgoing military intelligence chief warned the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in November 2010 that Israel's next war  would take longer and be fought on more fronts.   Yaldin warned that Syria in particular,  posed a greater military obstacle to Israel than at any time in the past three decades.  It would appear that  the Syria unrest has allayed his concerns. The Syrian forces which put up such a resistance in 1982, are now engaged fighting terrorists, while the world is being told that they are the violators.  Perhaps Netanyahu’s plan will succeed where Sharon’s Oranim failed.

 Regardless, it is important to change the accepted narrative about Syrian uprisings.   Given the decades lone demonization of Iran, it may be more palatable to associate the fueling of unrest in Syria point to a ‘weaker’ Iran, but let there be no mistake -  Syria today is in turmoil in order to promote Israel’s grand strategy – even as the perpetrator – Israel,  plays the victim and  warns of chemical weapons use by Assad’s regime, demanding intervention.    “Evil requires the sanction of the victim.”  Ayn Rand.

---

[i] Livia Rokach, "Israeli State Terrorism: An Analysis of the Sharett Diaries," Journal of Palestine Studies 9, no. 3 (Spring, 1980), 3-28.

 

[ii] Zeev Shiff, "The Censored Report Revealed," Ha'aretz, 8 October 1993

[iii] Sahak, Israel.  Israel Considers War With Syria as It Ponders 1982 Invasion of Lebanon,The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (September 30, 1992).

[iv] Janardhan, N, Iraq: Gulf Council Urges U.S. to Stop Threats to Syria, Global Information Network [New York] 17 Apr 2003

Argo’s Oscar Win -- Hollywood’s ‘Coming Out’

Foreign policy observers have long known that Hollywood reflects and promotes U.S. policies (in turn, is determined by Israel and its supporters).   This fact was made public when Michel Obama announced an Oscar win for “Argo” – a highly propagandist, anti-Iran  film.  Amidst the glitter and excitement, Hollywood and White House reveal their pact and send out their message in time for the upcoming talks surrounding Iran’s nuclear program due to be held tomorrow -  February 26^th.    

Hollywood has a long history of promoting US policies.   In 1917, when the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information (CPI) enlisted the aid of America’s film industry to make training films and features supporting the ‘cause’.  George Creel, Chairman of the CPI believed that the movies had a role in “carrying the gospel of Americanism to every corner of the globe.”

The pact grew stronger during World War II, when, as historian Thomas Doherty writes, “[T]he liaison between Hollywood and Washington was a distinctly American and democratic arrangement, a mesh of public policy and private initiative, state need and business enterprise.” Hollywood’s contribution was to provide propaganda. After the war, Washington reciprocated by using subsidies, special provisions in the Marshall Plan, and general clout to pry open resistant European film markets[i].

Hollywood has often borrowed its story ideas from the U.S. foreign policy agenda, at times reinforcing them. One of the film industry's blockbuster film loans in the last two decades has been modern international terrorism. Hollywood rarely touched the topic of terrorism in the late 1960s and 1970s when the phenomenon was not high on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, in news headlines or in the American public consciousness. In the 1980s, in the footsteps of the Reagan administration’s policies, the commercial film industry brought ‘terrorist’ villains to the big screen (following the US Embassy takeover in Tehran – topic of “Argo”) making terrorism a blockbuster film product in the 1990s.  

Today, whether Hollywood follows US policy or whether it sets it, is up for discussion.  But it is abundantly clear that Hollywood is dominated by Israelis and their supporters who previously concealed their identity.   According to a 2012 Haaretz article “from the 1930s until the mid-1950s, Hanukkah never appeared on screen. This was because the Jewish studio heads preferred to hide their ethnic and religious heritage in attempting to widen the appeal of their products[emphasis added]. Jews were thus typically portrayed as participants in an American civil religion, whose members may attend the synagogue of their choice, but are not otherwise marked by great differences of appearance, speech, custom, or behaviour from the vast majority of American”.   This is no longer the case.

In sharp contrast to its past, Hollywood “celebrated” Israel’s 60^th “birthday” [occupation] with a Gala called “From Vision to Reality”.  Israeli TV blog wrote of the Gala:  ‘Don’t Worry Israel, Hollywood is behind you’.   Actor Jon Voight said: “World playing a dangerous game by going against Israel”.   Israeli businessman and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan, was a longtime weapons dealer and Israeli intelligence agent who purchased equipment for Israel's nuclear program (the book, “Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan,” written by Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman, recounts Milchan's life story, his friendships with Israeli prime ministers, U.S. presidents and Hollywood stars).

It is important to understand Hollywood not only in the context of a multi-billion dollar industry, but the propaganda aspect of it and as one of  the most powerful and universal methods of spreading ideas through visual propaganda.  “Propaganda is defined as a certain type of messaging that serves a particular purpose of spreading or implanting a particular culture, philosophy, point of view or even a particular slogan”.   With this capability, Hollywood owns the world of ideas on a scale too large and too dangerous to ignore - see this excellent example by Gilad Atzmon - Hollywood and the Past.

Atzmon writes: “History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.”  
As Hollywood and the White House eagerly embrace “Argo” and its propagandist message, they shamelessly and deliberately conceals a crucial aspect of this “historical” event.  The glitter buries the all too important fact that the Iranian students who took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, proceeded to reveal Israel’s dark secret to the world.  Documents classified as “SECRET” revealed LAKAM’s activities.  Initiated in 1960, LAKAM was an Israeli network assigned to economic espionage in the U.S. assigned to “the collection of scientific intelligence in the U.S. for Israel’s defense industry”[ii].  

As it stands, the purpose of the movie and its backers was to push the extraordinary revelations to the background while sending a visual message to the unsuspecting audience – to lay the blame of the potential (and likely) failure of the upcoming negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program on the Iranians -- the gun-wielding, bearded Iranians of “Argo” who deserve America’s collective punishment and the crippling, deathly sanctions.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby group.

---

[i] Martha Bayles, Wilson Quarterly, Summer 2005

[ii] U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Israel: Foreign Intelligence and Security Services, Washington, D.C., March 1979, p. 9 (typescript). The report classified SECRET, was released to the world by Iranian students who occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979.  Cited by Duncan L. Clarke, “Israel's Economic Espionage in the United States” (1998).