Posts Tagged ‘UN resolution’


November 26, 2011

21st Century Wire
November 26, 2011

Patrick Henningsen, a political analyst from the US-based online magazine and Editor of 21st Century Wire, believes that the escalation of tensions over Syria between the world’s major powers may lead to a new chilling in world politics.

“I think we are going to see a new Cold War emerge in the next two years, and we are seeing the initial steps of that new Cold War right now,” he told RT.

Another chief concern is Russia’s close military co-operation with Syria – with reports of S-300 missile defense installations having been supplied from Moscow. Henningsen adds here:

“If the Western powers think they are going to get away with a no-fly zone in Syria, this is a very different prospect than Libya. This will be the first time, in Syria, and also, if you look forward – with Iran, that the West, actually, is engaging a country that has the ability to fight back”.



While Blood Flows, Arab League Call Their Meeting In Cairo To Discuss… Syria?

November 25, 2011

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
November 25, 2011

If anyone has any doubts as to how out of touch the Arab League is with regards to Arab events, they only have to digest this twisted piece of theater taking place in Cairo.

Members of the Arab League scheduled an emergency meeting today in Cairo, Egypt to work out what exactly they ‘must do about Syria’ – while outside of their conference (in Egypt, the world’s largest Arab country), a shamelessly violent US-backed military junta continues to crack the heads of genuine unarmed protesters in Tahrir Square.

Meanwhile, no harsh words from Hillary Clinton, no democracy speeches from Obama, and certainly no condemnation from the Arab League – most of whom run military-style dictatorships back in their respective countries. Certainly, US puppet Bahrain can shoot who it wishes in its streets, and you will hear nothing from the Arab League. And certainly, not a peep from the UN.

The Arab League has now publicly adopted the official Western propaganda line for this latest contrived stage of a so-called “humanitarian crisis” in Syria, claiming that President Bashar al-Assad has refused to end a ‘brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters’ in his country.

The irony here is only eclipsed by the hypocricy of the pro-American Arab League. As Syria struggles to maintain order with CIA and MI6-backed armed rebels running wild inside its own borders, Egypt’s unelected military regime have murdered 35 and seriously injured over 1,500 of its own unarmed citizens protesting the military’s illegal occupation of the country’s civilian government. In addition, Syria’s own neighbor Turkey are hosting a 15,000-strong force of  paramilitary insurgents called the “Free Syria Army” over Syria’s Turkish border.

This confirms the existence of an armed force operating with the covert approval of the Turkish government, and follows evidence that their attacks inside of Syria are placing Syrian security forces into body bags. Any US, UK, French or Israeli support of this armed insurrection is a clear violation of international law, and as is the case for Libya, this should be viewed as a crime against humanity. But do not expect the UN to raise any objections here.

Somehow, the hypocrisy does not seem to bother Arab Leaguers, as Egyptian blood runs through the streets of Cairo. Instead, the Arab League stick to Washington, London and Tel Aviv’s agenda for Syria of economic sanctions, a No-Fly Zone and of course, regime change.

While Syria fights against a western-backed civil war in its own country, the UN are no where to be found – a sad international situation which brings back memories of another useless international ‘league’ – The League of Nations, founded as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War.

During Hitler’s rise to military dominance, the League aptly stood by and did nothing as Germnay’s aggressive war machine marched eastward through Czechoslovakia, and later Poland in the early days of WWII. The result was the that feeble nature of the League of Nations was exposed on a global stage. Historically, the parallels between the reasons for the League’s collapse and today’s castration of the United Nations in New York have never been so stark:

On 23 June 1936, in the wake of the collapse of League efforts to restrain Italy’s war against Abyssinia, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin told the House of Commons that collective security had…

“failed ultimately because of the reluctance of nearly all the nations in Europe to proceed to what I might call military sanctions … The real reason, or the main reason, was that we discovered in the process of weeks that there was no country except the aggressor country which was ready for war … [I]f collective action is to be a reality and not merely a thing to be talked about, it means not only that every country is to be ready for war; but must be ready to go to war at once. That is a terrible thing, but it is an essential part of collective security.”
Ultimately, Britain and France both abandoned the concept of collective security in favour of appeasement in the face of growing German militarism under Hitler.

In 2011, and under the cloak of UN Resolution 1973, the recent illegal war and destruction of sovereign state Libya by Western Axis powers and their NATO military coalition, demonstrated the same policy of appeasement by UN member states towards the ambitions of the US, Britain, France, Italy and Israel – whose joint strike led to the dismembering of the Libyan state and its government. Following the war, Western nations have shamelessly moved in to carve up Libya’s state assets and bolster its new unelected government.

Recent reports of the detention of 7,000 people in prisons and camps by the anti-Gaddafi forces, along with hundreds of reports of brutal rape, torture and extrajudicial assassination by NATO-backed Libyan rebels – all met with a deafening silence from the UN – as it was indeed complicit in the looting and raping of Libya by the West under the cynical disguise of “humanitarian intervention”.

UN member states will normally stand back, preferring not to challenge the US and partner Israel, for fear of economic and political reprisals. This policy of economic and political retribution was demonstrated recently as the US threatened the withdraw the funding for the UN’s own UNESCO branch following a successful application for international recognition via UNESCO membership by fledgling state Palestine. Ultimately, the US retains control over the UN, because the US pays for most it, as well as hosts UN operations. This fact alone nearly compromises the entire institution.

Following the US lead, Israel proceeded to pile on additional punitive measures against Palestine, threatening to build an additional 2,000 settler homes and freeze the transfer of Palestinian tax funds – all for joining UNESCO.

Despite the open corruption and illegal coercion present through the Palestine debacle, once again, the UN and its member states remained mostly silent – further proof of the non functionality of the UN. Those who did voice an objection, would never be able to back it up with any real action, as the issue becomes swallowed into the UN’s internal politics and its impressive multi-billion dollar bureaucracy.

The Arab League has shown itself to be nothing more than a passive functionary of US and NATO nation interests in the Middle East, and the UN has become nothing more than a newLeague of Nations, and acts a passive functionary of US and its partners.

Unfortunately for the Syrians – as it was for Libya, regime change in Syria and the carving up of that country’s resources and national assets are a high priority now for the US and its Axis powers. And nothing can stop them, save for another powerful nation intervening on Syria’s behalf.

Certainly, the UN will not do anything this time but flash a green light as it did with Libya, making the UN one of the biggest obstacles to international justice and  material accomplice to injustice the world has ever seen.

The Arab League and the UN are simply two bad apples of the same bunch, and both need to exit from the world stage sooner than later.

The Syrian affair is just the latest in a string of UN-sponsored, Western regime change and economic rape project by the West – nothing more.

Meanwhile real reformers are beaten to death in Cairo, right in front of our eyes.

‘SYRIA HERE WE COME’ – Patrick Henningsen interview on THE ALEX JONES SHOW

October 25, 2011

21st Century Wire
October 25, 2011

Gaddafi has exited the stage, and now Syria looks to be the next target for the regime change gang in Washington DC.

Viewers need to pay attention to the popular talking points coming out through the mainstream globalist media via Washington designed to sway public opinion against the ruling government in Damascus. Watch the following interview segments hosted by Aaron Dykes, with Patrick Henningsen reporting for on events going on across the Middle East and North Africa:

Now US Puppet Regime in Iraq is Calling for a ‘Regime Change’ in Syria

September 22, 2011

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
September 22, 2011

It’s one thing when imperial bureaucrats in Washington call for ‘regime change’, but it’s quite another thing when the rallying cry is coming from US-installed puppet regime.

In this case, we’re talking about the now fully domesticated US-puppet government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in Iraq, who is now calling for a regime change in its neighboring embattled country Syria. You would think that of all people, the Iraqis would not want to wish a US-sponsored sectarian free-for-all on their worst enemy, or neighbor. But think again.

In terms of Washington’s ambitions for a full spectrum domination of the Middle East grand chessboard, Syria occupies the prime location, sharing borders with Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and of course, the most important fence in the yard- Israel. But out of all these surrounding territories, the border it shares with the US-occupied Iraq is the only border that offers Washington direct access to Syria.

Nuri Kamal al-Maliki

It's not easy appearing to be independent when you are occupied by the US (PHOTO: Johan Spanner/Polaris, for The New York Times)

As for maintaining the illusion of international diplomacy and utilizing the UN, Washington will certainly need to exploit any political cover it can gain from its compliant, well-trained and well paid puppets in Baghdad.

Syria is being set up to fail, and there are many reasons for this. Syria constitutes one of the last(if not the last) independent secular states in the entire Arab world. Politically, it’s dominated by the Baath party and the Baath organizational structure, and it remains fiercely independent, anti-Imperialist and populist. But most of all, it is on Washington’s chopping block because it is closely allied with Iran, and it naturally supports the 70 year struggle of the Palestinian people against Israeli occupation.

So it is not surprising at all that presently, Syria is preparing to resist the impending globalist takeover of their country at the hands of the US-NATO and Israeli coalition.

For years, Syria has made serious efforts to cooperate with Washington regarding the Iraqi border, particularly in terms of halting the operations of terrorists, their arms and finance, and on intelligence sharing. But recently Syria has run into a diplomatic stone wall with Washington and London, and it is now an open secret that Washington and the global elite establishment would like to see Syria fall, as the next domino to make way for their complete restructuring of the Middle Eastern region.

Only last month, the elite globalist think tank, The Council on Foreign Relation (CFR) announced its desire  for “regime change in Syria”, a call which will in turn, be loyally heeded by Washington’s imperial bureaucratic elite, presently led by Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton. A clearer indication you will not get as to plans that have already been drawn up to both bring down, and later restructure that country.

The formula which has worked so well already in Libya, will most likely also be deployed against Syria, whereby the US-NATO alliance and its agencies will trigger internal social chaos, and any reaction by the Syrian government against this will be used to discredit the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad and make way for a laundry list of UN-related “interventions”.

This process is already underway, as Michel Chossudovsky has reported:

“Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence have conducted terrorist attacks on government buildings and acts of arson.

Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers have targeted the police, the armed forces as well as unarmed civilians.

The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, including the deployment of tanks and armored vehicles with a view to eventually justifying a “humanitarian” military intervention, under NATO’s  “responsibility to protect” mandate.”

So it’s no surprise to hear the war drum now beating out of Baghdad, whose country will most certainly become a major staging ground when US-NATO military hostilities eventually begin against Syria.

A recent New York Times report has confirmed this, with Maliki’s adviser, Ali al-Moussawi stating yesterday,  “We believe that the Syrian people should have more freedom and have the right to experience democracy”. Al-Moussawi added, “We are against the one-party rule and the dictatorship that hasn’t allowed for the freedom of expression.”

A moral crusade no less. So now the puppet regime in Iraq is in lock-step with the CFR and Washington.

Bashir Assad

As an independent secular state, Syria is alone in the Middle East (PHOTO: AP)

On the other side of the coin is Iran. Recently Iran had asked Syria’s leader Assad to support Mr. Maliki for another term as prime minister, and so relations between Iraq and Syria have been healthy.  But that looks to be a thing of the past as the US-NATO timetable for the region is requiring thing to move along.

The New York Times report also mentioned a key point which should give clarity to any doubters of the US-NATO actual intentions in Syria, stating:

“Mr. Moussawi said Tuesday that the Iraqi government was concerned that if Mr. Assad’s government collapses, violence will spill over the border and further destabilize Iraq, which is still dealing with violent attacks nearly every day.”

The key word there is “destabilization”, and that is exactly what the master planners have in mind in the coming months and years. The process begins with the decapitation of Syria, followed by destabilization.

Only through a policy of destabilization and sectarian strife can the US and its allies maintain any form of long-term military presence and full-spectrum domination over the entire region, also enabling it to continue to launder hundreds of billions of US greenbacks overseas, an effort which is helping to prop up the value of America’s flagging currency.

If you have any doubts to the power and effectiveness of this policy, just ask the puppet government in Baghdad.


August 23, 2011

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
August 24, 2011

With globalist restructuring plans for the Middle East and North Africa looking to be nearly complete, one major hurdle remains. After a relatively easy path to victory in Tunisia and Egypt, and with the project to dismantle and re-privatise the Libyan state nearly complete, only Syria remains as the last serious contender for resistance against a globalist effort to dominate the greater region.

According to a report yesterday in USA TODAY, the Syrian leader, President Bashar Assad is “not worried” about the security of his country, and also warned NATO against any foreign military operations against this country. The report continues by stating:

“I am not worried about the security situation right now, we can say the security situation is better… It may seem dangerous, but in fact we are able to deal with it,” Assad concluded.

NOT ROLLING OVER: Assad's Syria will be one of the globalists most difficult regime change operations.

Led by the globalists’ top PR spokesperson Barack Obama, the West, without question has long set its sights on Syria. Western media consumers can firstly expect a trial by media of Assad, followed by more Western-backed provocateur actions within the country designed to sway international opinion in favour of the  following:
1. International sanctions
2. UN Resolution
3. No Fly Zone
4. A long, protracted NATO bombing campaign
5. “Regime change

This is the current formula(above) being employed by the US, UK and its ‘Coalition’ partners to win control of a country. After the US over-step in Iraq in 2003, the acceptable diplomatic technique is now done whereby the US/UK will work through the UN by pushing a vague resolution, and using NATO as the quasi-legal enforcement arm of a UN-backed NO FLY ZONE. Certainly, this has worked so far with Libya.

Globalist think tank The Council on Foreign Relation (CFR), officially called for “regime change in Syria” on August 18th. This should be as clear an indication as any that plans have already been drawn up to restructure the country.

The story by now, should be a familiar one. As with Libya, top analysts have concluded that the recent Syrian unrest was planned many months ago, and has since been seized upon by the western media. It is not surprising here that unrest in that country has been both financed and driven mainly by a foreign agents of influence, and not true reform seekers as is depicted in the western mainstream press.

As with the technique used in Libya, the western PR machine will then spin the story that Assad’s forces opened fire on “peaceful protesters” and therefore render him(in the eyes of western media consumers) illegitimate as the ruling government in that country. Another humanitarian intervention– it’s a formula that has apparently worked thus far in Libya, and to a lesser degree in both Egypt and Tunisia. This PR effort is then helped along by digital trending using social networks like Twitter, with the majority of regime change activity being posted in English language format.

As we have seen in the final stages of the fall of Libya, not only are western-backed rebels receiving heavy arms and NATO air support, Britain’s M16 have been on the ground directing military activities in the country, as well as known terrorists being shipped in and used by western intel agencies during the final stages of the civil war. The same can be expected in Syria should the country descend into an artificial civil war.

Western intelligence openly active in supporting and directing “rebel” forces in Libya.

Clearly, Assad is unlikely to resign from power, which creates the ideal media conflict between him and his western detractors.

Predictably, and once again, in this situation President Barack Obama‘s calls for sanctions against Syria and for its leader President Assad to “step down” from power are all part of a PR and diplomatic process designed to soften the ground for an impending NATO, or “coalition” group military intervention in Syria.

The US have already scrambled its military assets in the region of Syria, and have been conducting manuevers there for a number months already, through Operation Sea Breeze 2011 and other similar exercises.

Few would deny the strategic importance of Syria on the grand chessboard. It’s bordering neighbors include no less than Israel, Turkey, Lebanon and most importantly now, Iraq. It is a given that all of those neighbors, with a possible exception of Lebanon, will do the USA’s bidding when is comes to cooperating in an operation against Syria. But Syria is also a natural political ally of Iran, a trading partner with Russia and China, and is still aligned firmly with the region’s last remaining effective, independent militias- Hezbollah, based in Lebanon.

To break Syria, and then bring it under the globalist umbrella would be a key jewel on the globalist crown in their effort to control the entire Middle East and Central Asian region. In addition, Syria is one the region’s most economically independent sovereign states and possesses an incredible basket of natural resources. For all these reasons, Syria is a very high priority for globalist economic privatisation and dismantling of the state that is currently in place.

Israel’s stake in Syrian regime change is first and foremost- land. The remainder of the Golan Heights, as well as its formerly occupied prize in the form of South Lebanon will be firmly within Israel’s grasp if the country should eventually come under US and European globalist control.

LAND IN QUESTION: Israel has its sights set on both the Golan Heights and South Lebanon.

Unlike Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Gaddafi in Libya, President Assad’s confidence in Syria’s ability to overcome the current western-backed coup is not misplaced optimism. Unlike other soft targets in the surrounding region, Syria maintains one of the largest, most loyal, and well-trained standing armies and air force operations in the region. They have state-of-the-art anti-aircraft defense systems in place, and a very sophisticated and well-oiled intelligence network, one which has given its near neighbor and traditional adversary, Israel’s IDF and Mossad, a difficult time penetrating over the years. 

The report further states that:

“Assad warned against Libya-style military intervention, saying “any military action against Syria will bring repercussions that (the West) cannot tolerate.” There have been no serious international plans to launch such an operation, in part because the opposition has said it does not want Western countries to interfere.

Assad declared to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday that military and security operations have stopped in Syria. Despite that pledge, the government’s offensive has continued, although on a smaller scale.”

The western globalist effort to absorb Syria in its fold will be by anyone’s estimation, a long, expensive and very difficult process to install a US-Euro-Israeli compliant regime to replace Assad’s government. Time is not on their side. It is doubtful that despite their recent victories in North Africa, the US-Euro-Israeli Axis will be able to withstand the domestic political and economic pressures which face the ruling regimes at home.

If there is a country that can, and are prepared to hold out, despite globalist PR and political pressures- it is Syria. In addition, tempting the wand of fate with Syria also risks pulling Iran- or Russia, into a wider regional conflict, the results of which, war game planners in Whitehall and the Pentagon are already studying and preparing scenarios for.

For those reasons, the coming months may reveal a series of successive western moves which planners in Washington, London and Tel Aviv hope will accelerate destabilisation of the country leading to regime change. This may include pre-emptive measures, like an early assassination attempt on President Assad using  western or Israeli intelligence operatives already in play in the region.

A successful NATO operation in Syria would probably come at a high cost, but it would in effect remove the Middle East’s last remaining strong and independent states from the chess board, paving the way for a unified, geopolitical globalist grip over the greater region. 

TREND: Israelis Rush for Second Passports

June 6, 2011

“Perhaps as many as half of the Jews living in Israel will consider leaving Palestine in the next few years if political and social trends continue.”

By Franklin Lamb
June 5, 2011

Perhaps historians or cultural anthropologists surveying the course of human events can identify for us a land, in addition to Palestine, where such a large percentage of a recently arrived colonial population prepared to exercise their right to depart, while many more, with actual millennial roots but victims of ethnic cleansing, prepared to exercise their right of return.

One of the many ironies inherent in the 19th century Zionist colonial enterprise in Palestine is the fact that this increasingly fraying project was billed for most of the 20th century as a haven in the Middle East for “returning” persecuted European Jews. But today, in the 21st century, it is Europe that is increasingly being viewed by a large number of the illegal occupiers of Palestinian land as the much desired haven for returning Middle Eastern Jews.

To paraphrase Jewish journalist Gideon Levy “If our forefathers dreamt of an Israeli passport to escape from Europe, there are many among us who are now dreaming of a second passport to escape to Europe.”

LOSING ITS APPEAL: Thousands of Israelis are now looking to jump ship to Europe, the US or Canada.

Several studies in Israel and one conducted by AIPAC and another by the  Jewish National Fund in Germany show that perhaps as many as half of the Jews living in Israel will consider leaving Palestine in the next few years if current political and social trends continue. A 2008 survey by the Jerusalem-based Menachem Begin Heritage Center found that 59 per cent of Israelis had approached or intended to approach a foreign embassy to inquire about or apply for citizenship and a passport. Today it is estimated that the figure is approaching 70 per cent.

The number of Israelis thinking of leaving Palestine is climbing rapidly according to researchers at Bar-Ilan University who conducted a study published recently in Eretz Acheret, (“A Different Place”) an Israeli NGO that claims to promote cultural dialogue. What the Bar-Ilan study found is that more than 100,000 Israelis already hold a German passport, and this figure increases by more than 7,000 every year along an accelerating trajectory. According to German officials, more than 70,000 such passports have been granted since 2000. In addition to Germany, there are more than one million Israelis with other foreign passports at the ready in case life in Israel deteriorates.

One of the most appealing countries for Israelis contemplating emigration, as well as perhaps the most welcoming, is the United States. Currently more than 500,000 Israelis hold US passports with close to a quarter million pending applications. During the recent meetings in Washington DC between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s delegation and Israel’s US agents, assurances were reportedly given by AIPAC officials that if and when it becomes necessary, the US government will expeditiously issue American passports to any and all Israeli Jews seeking them. Israeli Arabs need not apply.

NO LONGER THE VICTIM: Israel's oppression of the native Palestinians has turned the moral table on Zionist politics.

AIPAC also represented to the Israelis that the US Congress could be trusted to approve funding for arriving Israeli Jews “to be allocated substantial cash resettlement grants to ease transition into their new country.”

Apart from the Israeli Jews who may be thinking of getting an “insurance passport” for a Diaspora land, there is a similar percentage of Jews worldwide who aren’t going to make aliyah. According to Jonathan Rynhold, a Bar Ilan professor specializing on U.S.-Israel relations, Jews may be safer in Teheran than Ashkelon these days—until Israel or the USA starts bombing

Interviews with some of those who either helped conduct the above noted studies or have knowledge of them, identify several factors that explain the Israeli rush for foreign passports, some rather surprising, given the ultra-nationalist Israeli culture. The common denominator is unease and anxiety, both personal and national, with the second passport considered a kind of insurance policy “for the rainy days visible on the horizon,” as one researcher from Eretz Acheret explained.

Other factors include:

• The fact that two or three generations in Israel has not proven enough to implant roots where few if any existed before. For this reason Israel has produced a significant percentage of “re-immigration” — a return of immigrants or their descendants to their country of origin which Zionist propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding, is not Palestine. Fear that religious fanatics from among the more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank will create civil war and essentially annex pre-1967 Israel and turn Israel more toward an ultra-fascist state.

• Centripetal pressures within Israeli society, especially among Russian immigrants who overwhelmingly reject Zionism. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, some one million Jews have come to Israel from the former Soviet Union, enlarging the country’s population by 25 per cent and forming the largest concentration in the world of Russian Jews. But today, Russian Jews comprise the largest group emigrating from Israel and they have been returning in droves for reasons ranging from opposition to Zionism, discrimination, and broken promises regarding employment and “the good life” in Israel.

• Approximately 200,000 or 22 per cent of Russians coming to Israel since 1990 have so far returned to their country. According to Rabbi Berel Larzar, who has been Russia’s chief Rabbi since 2000, “It’s absolutely extraordinary how many people are returning. When Jews left, there was no community, no Jewish life. People felt that being Jewish was an historical mistake that happened to their family. Now, they know they can live in Russia as part of a community and they don’t need Israel.”

• No faith in nor respect for Israeli leaders, most of whom are considered corrupt.

• Feelings of anxiety and guilt that Zionism has hijacked Judaism and that traditional Jewish values are being corrupted.

• The recent growing appreciation, for many Israelis, significantly abetted by the Internet and the continuing Palestinian resistance, of the compelling and challenging Palestinians narrative that totally undermines the Zionist clarion of the last century of “ A People without and land for a land without a people.”

• Fear mongering of the political leaders designed to keep citizens supporting the government’s policies, ranging from the Iranian bomb, the countless “terrorists” seemingly everywhere and planning another Holocaust or various existential threats that keep families on edge and concluding that they don’t want to raise their children under such conditions.

Explaining that he was speaking as a private citizen and not as a member of Democrats Abroad Israel, New York native Hillel Schenker suggested that Jews who come to Israel “want to make sure that they have the possibility of an alternative to return whence they came.” He added that the “insecurities involved in modern life, and an Israel not yet living at peace with any of its neighbors, have also produced a phenomenon of many Israelis seeking a European passport, based on their family roots, just in case.”

Gene Schulman, a former American-Jewish fellow at the Switzerland-based Overseas American Academy, put it even more drastically, emphasizing that all Jews are “scared to death of what is probably going to become of Israel even if the U.S. continues its support for it.” Many observers of Israeli society agree that a major, if unexpected recent impetus for Jews to leave Palestine has been the past three months of the Arab Awakening that overturned Israel’s key pillars of regional support.

According to Layal, a Palestinian student from Shatila Camp, who is preparing for the June 5 “Naksa” march to the Blueline in South Lebanon, “What the Zionist occupiers of Palestine saw from Tahrir Square in Cairo to Maroun al Ras in South Lebanon has convinced many Israelis that the Arab and Palestinian resistance, while still in its nascence, will develop into a massive and largely peaceful ground swell such that no amount of weapons or apartheid administration can insure a Zionist future in Palestine. They are right to seek alternative places to raise their families.”

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and is reachable at:


March 23, 2011

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
March  24, 2011

Received wisdom states that if you understand history and apply it to the present day, you stand a better chance of not making the same mistake twice. It’s also true that the victors write the history of world events- one of the spoils of war we are told. But after decades of changing the language of modern war and its recent history, all those old lessons are becoming buried- under a heap of customised propaganda and legalese. This is the new language of war.

Regarding all of the West’s military strikes, invasions and occupations over the last decade, namely Iraq and Afghanistan, the victors and their mercenary legal teams have indeed written their way into wars, and afterwards attempted to write their own version of popular history, skillfully rewriting international law in the process- all of which has been recycled, yet again, in order to justify a new globalist operation Libya.

This week has witnessed the latest bombing attack unleashed under fake humanitarian cover against the sovereign state of Libya. Lest we forget- that’s right, Libya is still a sovereign state.

With Libya, like with past conquests in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, we see the same identical twisted neo-conservative doctrine which was officially chrisined under George Bush Jr, formerly known as the “pre-emptive strike”, now refashioned for neo-liberals like Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy… as the humanitarian strike.

The idea of the humanitarian strike is ultimately more profound than its predecessor because the term effectively disarms columns of  liberal-minded mainstream pundits and intellectual academics. It’s quite an ingenious evolution from the lumbering NeoCon days. But do not be confused, they are both contrived terms designed to cover the same exact long-range foreign policy goals: regime change, followed by carving up the assets of the host country through a series of military operations and western corporate privatisation projects. In time, Libya will face the same long corporate onslaught that Iraq has.

LOOKING TOUGH: British PM David Cameron insists his first war is altogether 'perfectly legal'. PHOTO: Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA

Last week’s UN Security Council resolution appeared to be, on its surface anyway, a quick, drive-through triumph for diplomacy. But this quick agreement managed to conceal the underlying political approach and the military strategy to follow. But for the big player abstainers like Russia and China, a humanitarian no-fly zone was as far as they would go in order to secure peace on the ground in Libya. Air patrols they said, would stop Colonel Gaddafi mounting air attacks on civilians. End of story, right? We all wished. As we have learned from past no-fly zone projects like Iraq, these are effectively a UN-enforced martial law and may only exacerbate or lead to a full-on civil war, followed by military escalation.

It’s pretty obvious to any astute observer of world events that western coalition countries have quickly cobbled together a vague enough UN resolution- a fait accompli attack plan disguised as a “No Fly Zone”. No end-game plan was given by the West during the UN hearing on Libya, but surely even the most naive political observer knows there is no simple ‘exit strategy’ with no-fly zones.

The new language of war

By a flick of the linguistic wand, any military action can be justified by the self-styled moralist and the 21st century political shape-shifter. First comes the humanitarian “No-Fly Zone”, a legal foot in the door. Then come the “surgical” air strikes. And by extension, any foreign peoples who happen to be killed by an officially branded Allied Air Strike fall under the category of “collateral damage”.

This week, Deputy National Security adviser Ben Rhodes invented more new language to describe the air strikes against Libya stating, “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.” Very, very impressive language.

Entrusting our modern language to UN bureaucrats, White House Press Secretaries and major media talking heads from CNN, ABC, MSNBC, FOX and others has meant that public opinion on such matters has become more or less irrelevant. They have successfully replaced the old, out-dated humanist language which described modern warfare pre-Desert Storm in 1991, with a new language and a new improved perspective. Naturally, this means a new play book for all wars. Those who are awake to this fact can only sit back in wonder as it gets increasingly ridiculous. Likewise, those who remain in a trance, thoroughly impressed by the science they have come to learn and love the new lingua franca of modern warfare, are dazzled by it.

This is perhaps one of the most significant trends of the 21st century. We now live in a world where, as Western audiences go, anything can be made acceptable by the use of received ‘official’ language. It’s that simple. You can compare this world of creative writing to life in the modern American legal system- a place where any lawyer will tell you, there is no right or wrong, only legal definitions that are constantly changed and reinvented, allowing its inhabitants to navigate through their morally relative pathways, constantly filled with the air of hypocrisy. It’s certainly no place for a layman. It’s a place where only a skilled lawyer lives and breathe.

Few will argue that when it comes to the punch, Western foreign policy is now the exclusive domain of lawyers and their vast labyrinth of legalese. According to British PM David Cameron, his first military adventure in the Mediterranean would hold up in a court of law. The PM has proclaimed, “It’s necessary, it’s right and… it’s legal”. That of course is the clincher for PM Cameron- it’s legal.  This is, after all, Barrack, Nicolas and David’s first virgin war and so it’s very, very important to cover one’s political ass, so to speak, particularly in the wake of Tony Blair’s dubious and very long (and still pending it seems…) international war crimes criminal rap sheet.

A moment of clarity for the Mad Dog

Muammar Gaddafi claimed earlier this week that the UN resolution authorising international military intervention in Libya is “invalid”. Moral shape-shifters will of course say that Gaddafi is simply mad. However, according to International Law, the Libyan leader is actually correct. By definition, what has transpired in Libya is defined as a civil conflict and does not involve in any way (despite initial western media scares of refugees over the border into Egypt), any of its neighboring UN member states.

Whether you are a fan of Gaddafi or not, you have to recognise what looks to be a moment of clarity for Libya’s notorious Mad Dog. Earlier this week it appears that the Libyan leader had sent a message to US President Barack Obama defending his decision to attack rebels and their enclaves in certain cities:

“If you found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do.”

The statement came via a government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli and speaks volumes. Whether it’s a democracy, a monarchy, or a dictatorship- there are no two ways about it, civil unrest is civil unrest. Not responding to it will certainly lead to anarchy and all its unsavoury trappings. This is validated by the reports of armed gangs marauding and robbing their way through Benghazi, a familiar scene when law and order breaks down. And how a government deals with such an event will certainly differ according the particular circumstances.

DEEP THOUGHT: What would Barrack do if US gangs burned down the White House?

What would Barrack do?

Now, let’s rewind a few weeks. How the current civil conflict in Libya actually started was from an organised group of protesters who took over the Libyan Parliament building and proceeded to set it on fire. This followed by an organised attack on the state-run television station and further attacks on police stations.

Were these so-called rebel groups backed given support beforehand by Western Intelligence agencies as they have across the globe throughout recent history? The answer to this question will eventually come out in the wash, but putting that aside for the minute, what would a Western leader do when faced with such a situation? This scenario is not even far-fetched, particular in the case of Sarkozy’s own France, the most likely candidate for a “Flash Mob” manifestation in 2011 and 2012.

Now let’s think about it for a minute. If a group of armed militia decided to takeover and burn down David Cameron’s own Parliament building in London, or Sarkozy’s own Palais de Élysée in Paris, or Barrack Obama’s Captial Hill building in Washington, would there be a swift and firm response on the part of government forces? Judging by the current climate in the UK, where peaceful protestors need to file for a permit to protest, and where US protestors are only allowed to demonstrate in specific government-designated “Free Speech Zones”, and where hundreds of peaceful young American G20 demonstrators in Pittsburgh, PA were brutally beaten, shot with ‘bean-bag’ rounds by police, targeted with ear-piercing sound cannons, then it is safe to expect that any escalation to organised armed gangs attempting to burn down the centres of government and take over cities and towns in these same western countries… would certainly be met with lethal force. Yes, American or British demonstrators would shot down in cold blood in order to avert the complete descent into urban anarchy.

Following such a domestic event in the West, in the case of the Washington Press Secretary, you can also bet that it would not be classed as “an insurrection by rebel forces”, as is the case with the Western media depiction of Libya’s civil unrest. No, it would be under the heading of “treason by anti-American, domestic terrorists”. Later, once quashed, do you really believe that the UN would go on to pass a new resolution laying blame on Obama’s DC government, like it has in the case of Libya, for “murdering its own citizens”? Definitely not.

    HOW IT ALL STARTED: Another side to the Libyan story.

The Party Line

As innocent Libyan bodies begin to wash up, Western apologists, along with the endless platoons of mindless media pundits and other moral shape-shifters will be (amazingly albeit predictably) parroting the exact same lines in defense of military attacks on Libya. It generally sounds something like this:

“Lighting fires to buildings isn’t exactly great, but with a government ignoring citizens, killing them in the streets for rising against evil and continuing to act like they’ve got a fierce stronghold on the people, we can’t just sit back and do nothing. I support the rebels because by burning down these reminders of corruption and evil, the people flush out the offenders giving them no place to hide.”

So here we find ourselves again, at that same familiar place we have come loath about our once great western civilisation. We have the modern double standard held high by the usual suspects: the UN, US, UK and their fabled Coalition. And if that’s not enough, Coalition Forces have already begun to accumulate their own list of dead Libyans, most of which will of course be civilians. By western moral standards it’s OK if western military forces kill Libyans but it’s not OK if Libyan military forces kill Libyans, because when western military forces do it, again, it’s simply written off as collateral damage.

FRIENDS & BUSINESS PARTNERS: Like bookends, Blair and Gaddafi are two versions of the same character- the criminal opportunist.

Authentic sands of change

Popular history may describe today’s events as something like this:

“With all the uprisings in the Middle East, the time of dictatorship appears to be winding down, as oppressed people in nations all over are using their voices along with social media to demonstrate public opinion”.

Indeed, it was Gaddafi’s own son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi who displayed some formidable rhetoric in his university dissertation entitled, “The Role of Civil Society in the Democratisation of Global Governance Institutions: From Soft Power to Collective Decision Making?”. In his paper, he describes a philosophy where he believes that governments should be more democractic, in effect condemning the very things his father has been doing over the last 40 years. Later on, he declared he would not succeed his father’s position because it was against Libya’s new progressive system. However, after some 40 years of oppression, progression which was to be in the hands of the people, is now firmly in the hands of the UN, and its gang of three – the US, Britain and France.

We should know by now that the gang of three will never sit idle and let a real progressive democracy develop over time, as would have been the case in Libya, especially if there’s oil and gas under those sands.

Interestingly enough, while all these societies throughout North Africa and the Middle East all appear to be evolving towards something ultimately better and more dynamic, the West seems to moving backwards… towards something more monolithic. Both domestically, and in a foreign intervention sense, the West is effectively rewriting their law books as they go along, attacking who they want around the world and revoking domestic civil rights where they see fit. Hardly progress.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin condemned the air and missile strikes waged by the US and its allies in Libya as another “crusade”. China has condemned the Allied attack on a sovereign state. It’s a charming twist, the West now has China and Russia doling out moral lessons on foreign intervention, as it appears the US and Europe have already been publicly and permanently compromised by their wanton power-grabs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are pedestrian politicians and middle class voters in the US and Europe able to see any of this? They should, because they already had a master course in it since 2001. Still, we haven’t even begun to catalogue the long list of lies that we’ve been sold, used to justify all these foreign, undeclared wars.  But we will…

Stay tuned in.

Patrick Henningsen is a writer, pr/communications consultant and Managing Editor at 21st Century Wire.