PALESTINE - MIDDLE EAST: THE MYTH OF PALESTINIAN CENTRALITY

THIS WESTERN-FORMULATED MYTH OF PALESTINIAN CENTRALITY HAS LED TO AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION OF MIDDLE EAST COMPLEXITIES

Executive Summary:

• The myth of PALESTINIAN centrality has dominated western policy in the MIDDLE EAST, while contrasting the reality of the MIDDLE EAST.
• Unlike ARAB policy makers, WESTERN policy makers and public opinion molders are preoccupied with the PALESTINIAN issue, misperceiving it as the root cause of MIDDLE EAST turbulence, the crown jewel of ARAB policy making and the crux of the ARAB –ISRAELI conflict.
• Though not publicly articulated: most Arab countries consider PALESTINIANS a tribe which has for centuries been living among other ARABS in different parts of the MIDDLE EAST.
• PALESTINIAN never-ending quest for more land.
• Are SAUDI ARABIA and other ARAB STATES really arch foes with ISRAEL?
• EL AL flies daily flights from TEL - AVIV to BANGKOK over SAUDI  ARABIAN and OMAN airspace  
• Former SAUDI king ABDULLAH had even permitted certain relations with ISRAEL, as long as they were/ are kept secret.
• ISRAEL’S war on PALESTINIAN terrorism in GAZA also haunts EGYPTIAN and JORDANIAN homeland security.
• PALESTINIAN-JORDANIAN confederation would sidestep the difficulties of reciprocal recognition - a PALESTINIAN state by ISRAEL and ISRAEL by the PALESTINIANS.
• HAMAS reaps over HALF A BILLION DOLLARS a year from tariffs on the EGYPT-GAZA tunnel trade
• ISRAEL-ARAB relations and the ARAB-ISRAELI conflict have never revolved around the PALESTINIAN axis.
• The 1948/49 War was launched by ARAB countries, against the newly-born JEWISH State, at the expense – and not on behalf – of a PALESTINIAN cause, exposing the myth of PALESTINIAN centrality.
• Upon the conclusion of the war, IRAQ occupied SAMARIA (the northern west bank), but transferred the area to JORDAN, not to the PALESTINIAN ARABS.
• In 1959, EGYPT and the ARAB LEAGUE dissolved the ineffective provisional PALESTINIAN (“ALL PALESTINE”) government, which was established by them in 1949.

A corollary to this thesis is that EGYPT, SYRIA, JORDAN and SAUDI ARABIA are not motivated by the ISLAMIC doctrine that they must keep all ISLAMIC lands for ISLAM. That is a product of the Grand Mufti of JERUSALEM, his protégé ARAFAT and the PLO. They objected to ZIONISM from the start. These countries, not so much. The ARAB invasion in 1948 was intended as a land grab now that BRITAIN was gone. Today, these countries more than ever, need a strong ISRAEL to protect them and to be on the front lines. IRAN and TURKEY use the PALESTINIAN cause as a rallying cry for their own hegemony.

Another corollary is that they wouldn’t lend a hand or shed a tear if ISRAEL were to get the “Palestinians” to leave and annex all of J&S and GAZA. In fact they would welcome it because a strong and expanded ISRAEL is in their interest. 

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring: In July 2011 we wrote: 

THOUGH NOT PUBLICLY ARTICULATED: MOST ARAB COUNTRIES CONSIDER PALESTINIANS A TRIBE WHICH HAS FOR CENTURIES BEEN LIVING AMONG OTHER ARABS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST   

Pallywood - The "Palestinian" lies EXPOSED!

See also: Perceptions of GAZA, as the Palestinians and bias mainstream media want the world to showcase the suffering of Palestinians:

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2015/01/palestine-and-mainstream-media.html

What no mains stream media ever reports are the opinion, citizens of other ARAB Nations and tribes have of the PALESTINIANS. Ask for example SYRIAN, JORDANIAN or LEBANESE citizens,   and they will in most cases comment, that no Sunni ARAB tribe or nation really want PALESTINE Arabs in their country for PALESTINIAS are notorious when it comes to land ownership, for they never are satisfied with what they have and always claim to be entitled to statehood. For that they even tried to overthrow the king of JORDAN in not too distant past. "Thus it’s better to let the ISRAELIS struggle with them instead of us." 

(The Author of “Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring” worked and lived in various Middle Eastern countries for over 10 years, thus had the opportunity to obtain above views from citizens and public figures on first hand basis.) 

PALESTINIAN NEVER-ENDING QUEST FOR MORE LAND

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/10/jordan-and-israel.html

..........that offer to share the large land was so logical, generous and right, it was literally ‘an offer he couldn't refuse’--but Arafat did in fact refuse that huge geographical land mass for a homeland. Instead he tried to overthrow the King and take over all of Jordan........

Read entire article at: 

http://specialguests.com/guests/viewnews.cgi?id=EFFkkVkuulgKBngPvH&style=PrintFull&tmpl=fullprint   and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

More Background Information at:

PALESTINE AND PARANOIA - JORDAN, JERUSALEM AND JITTERS

http://jordanispalestine.blogspot.com.ar/2011/04/palestine-and-paranoia-jordan-jerusalem.html

LICENSE TO STATEHOOD? 

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2011/07/license-to-statehood.html

THE MYTH OF PALESTINIAN CENTRALITY HAS DOMINATED WESTERN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHILE CONTRASTING THE REALITY OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

In 2015, following in the footsteps of Presidents MUBARAK and SADAT, EGYPTIAN President AL-SISI does not subordinate EGYPT’S national security ties with ISRAEL to EGYPT’S ties with the PALESTINIANS.

President AL-SISI – just like his two predecessors – considers the transnational MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD and PALESTINIAN terrorism mutual threats to ISRAEL, EGYPT, JORDAN, SAUDI ARABIA and other ARAB GULF STATES, which have never regarded the PALESTINIAN issue as a top priority, and have denied the PALESTINIAN Authority their financial generosity. Notwithstanding PALESTINIAN opposition, strategic cooperation between ISRAEL and EGYPT, as well as between ISRAEL and JORDAN and other moderate ARAB regimes, has surged to an unprecedented level.

Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring:

ARE ISRAEL, SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER ARAB STATES REALLY ARCH FOES?

   

EL AL FLIES DAILY FLIGHTS FROM TEL AVIV TO BANGKOK OVER SAUDI AND OMAN AIRSPACE 

Geopolitics are not always what they seem. Publicly ISRAEL and SAUDI ARABIA are arch foes, or so it seems.

That SAUDI ARABIA permitted IDF fighter jets to use its airspace to bomb the alleged nuclear facility in IRAQ in 1981 has in recent past, become public knowledge. Aside from strategic issues, SAUDI ARABIA and ISRAEL do foster also economic as well as political ties with each other, which are utilized when deemed necessary.

What the public hardly knows, is that the ISRAELI State Airline “EL AL” crosses SAUDI and OMAN airspace on its TEL AVIV - BANGKOK flights on a daily base. Hardly something one would expect, given the “offensive” rhetoric’s towards each other, when under public scrutiny. Flying over SAUDI and OMAN airspace means ISRAEL pays overflight right or rout charges (See: http://www.eurocontrol.int ), to SAUDI ARABIA and OMAN, meaning they accept  ISRAELI Bank transactions. 

   

For references see: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ly81/#5604841 ,

thus it becomes clear that:

FORMER KING ABDULLAH HAD EVEN PERMITTED CERTAIN RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL, AS LONG AS THEY WERE/ ARE KEPT SECRET.

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2015/01/saudi-arabia-next-geopolitical-tsunami.html

SAUDI ARABIA — ENGAGE IN COVERT “INFORMATION SHARING” WITH ISRAEL

Israel used Saudi airspace to strike IRAQI nuclear reactor in 1981

……..This was less important to ISRAEL when it had a strong relationship with TURKEY, but that cannot be assumed to be salvageable until the last of the present leadership team departs office in TURKEY. Meanwhile, the Sunni states — and particularly SAUDI ARABIA — engage in covert “information sharing” with ISRAEL to boost ISRAEL’S hostility toward IRAN, and this has been particularly effective with Prime Minister Netanyahu.……

Read entire article at:

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/08/israel-and-iran-airstrike-unlikely.html

ISRAEL’S WAR ON PALESTINIAN TERRORISM IN GAZA ALSO HAUNTS EGYPTIAN AND JORDANIAN HOMELAND SECURITY

In 2014, AL-SISI and most pro-US ARAB regimes – which have never embraced the myth of PALESTINIAN centrality – supported ISRAEL’S war on PALESTINIAN terrorism in GAZA, which also haunts EGYPTIAN and JORDANIAN homeland security.

In 1977, EGYPTIAN President SADAT embraced ISRAELI Prime Minister BEGIN’S peace initiative, in spite of stormy PALESTINIAN opposition, and in defiance of President CARTER’S initial objection to direct negotiation between JERUSALEM and CAIRO. CARTER promoted the concept of an international conference, centering on the PALESTINIAN issue, which he assumed was the chief axis of the ARAB-ISRAELI conflict. He pressured BEGIN to highlight the PALESTINIAN issue, but received no effective support from SADAT.

Background Information:

PALESTINIAN-JORDANIAN CONFEDERATION WOULD SIDESTEP THE DIFFICULTIES OF RECIPROCAL RECOGNITION - A PALESTINIAN STATE BY ISRAEL AND ISRAEL BY THE PALESTINIANS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/01/israel-jordan-and-palestine.html

HAMAS REAPS OVER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FROM TARIFFS ON THE EGYPT-GAZA TUNNEL TRADE

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/11/israel-and-gaza.html

ISRAEL-ARAB RELATIONS AND THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT HAVE NEVER REVOLVED AROUND THE PALESTINIAN AXIS

ISRAEL-ARAB relations, in general, and the ARAB-ISRAELI conflict, in particular, have never revolved around the PALESTINIAN axis, irrespective of WESTERN conventional wisdom and political correctness, which have been shaped by ARAB talk rather than ARAB walk, by oversimplification and wishful thinking rather than MIDDLE EASTERN reality.

The 1948/49 War was launched by ARAB countries, against the newly-born Jewish State, at the expense – and not on behalf – of a PALESTINIAN cause, exposing the myth of Palestinian centrality.

Thus, IRAQ leveraged the war to advance its goal of intra-Arab hegemony and control the oil pipeline from KIRKUK to HAIFA; JORDAN joined the assault on ISRAEL to expand all the way to the MEDITERRANEAN; EGYPT was more interested in foiling JORDAN’S expansionist plans than the annihilation of the JEWISH State; and SYRIA aspired to advance its vision of GREATER SYRIA.

THE 1948 PAN-ARAB INVASION OF ISRAEL WAS A CLASSIC SCRAMBLE FOR TERRITORY AND NOT A BATTLE FOR PALESTINIAN NATIONAL RIGHTS

The 1948 War was not a war of, for, or (mostly) by PALESTINIAN ARABS. According to Prof. Efraim Karsh, a leading MIDDLE EAST expert from LONDON’S Kings College, “the 1948 pan-ARAB invasion of ISRAEL was a classic scramble for territory and not a battle for PALESTINIAN national rights. As the first Secretary General of the Arab league, ABDEL RAHMAN AZZAM, admitted, the goal of JORDAN was to swallow up the central hill regions of PALESTINE…. The EGYPTIANS would get the NEGEV. The GALILEE would go to SYRIA, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to LEBANON.”

Background Information:

PALESTINIAN LEADERS DON’T WANT AN INDEPENDENT STATE

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2014/06/palestinians.html

UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE WAR, IRAQ OCCUPIED SAMARIA (THE NORTHERN WEST BANK), BUT TRANSFERRED THE AREA TO JORDAN, NOT TO THE PALESTINIAN ARABS.

JORDAN occupied JUDEA (the southern WEST BANK) and annexed JUDEA and SAMARIA to the EAST BANK of the JORDAN RIVER.

EGYPT OCCUPIED GAZA AND DID NOT TRANSFER IT TO THE PALESTINIAN ARABS.

Just like JORDAN, EGYPT prohibited PALESTINIAN national activities and expelled PALESTINIAN activists.

In 1959, EGYPT and the ARAB LEAGUE dissolved the ineffective provisional PALESTINIAN (“ALL PALESTINE”) government, which was established by them in 1949.

THE 1956 (SINAI) WAR WAS ALSO NOT TRIGGERED BY THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE.

It was a derivative of EGYPTIAN-sponsored terrorism (activated by PALESTINIAN ARABS in GAZA), aimed at undermining ISRAEL’S sovereignty in the NEGEV; EGYPT’S nationalization of the BRITISH and FRENCH-owned SUEZ CANAL; and EGYPT’S support for anti-FRENCH elements in MOROCCO, ALGERIA and TUNISIA.

The 1967 Six Day War erupted as a result of EGYPTIAN President NASSER’S aggression, aimed at advancing his PAN-ARAB megalomaniac aspiration, which were unrelated to the PALESTINIAN issue: EGYPT’S blockade of ISRAEL’S southern (oil and commerce) waterway; EGYPT’S violation of the 1957 SINAI PENINSULA demilitarization agreement; the EGYPT-SYRIA-JORDAN Military Pact.

SINCE 1973, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN ARAB - ISRAELI WAR

The 1969-70 EGYPT-ISRAEL war of attrition along the SUEZ CANAL took place irrespective of the PALESTINIAN issue. And, the 1973 War (the most recent ARAB-ISRAEL war) was initiated by EGYPT, SYRIA, JORDAN and IRAQ, independent of the PALESTINIAN issue.

Since 1973, there have been a number of wars between ISRAEL and PALESTINIAN ARABS, none evolved into an ARAB-ISRAELI war.

ARABS have been aware of the subversive/terrorist track record of PALESTINIAN ARABS, and therefore have showered them with rhetoric, not resources, and certainly not on the battlefield.

For example, the 1982 ISRAEL war on PLO terrorism in LEBANON was launched on June 5, but the ARAB LEAGUE did not convene until September, following the PLO expulsion from BEIRUT. The 1987-1992 and the 2000-2003 waves of PALESTINIAN terrorism were quelled by ISRAEL’S defense forces with no ARAB intervention, as were ISRAEL’S wars on PALESTINIAN terrorism in GAZA (2008, 2012 and 2014).

Background Information:

CONTEMPLATING A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE PALESTINIAN POSITION ON A POLITICAL 
AGREEMENT: POSSIBLE ISRAELI RESPONSES

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/10/israel-and-palestine-to-be-or-not-to-be.html

Unlike ARAB policy makers, WESTERN policy makers and public opinion molders are preoccupied with the PALESTINIAN issue, perceiving it as the root cause of MIDDLE EAST turbulence, the crown jewel of ARAB policy making and the crux of the ARAB –ISRAELI conflict.

This WESTERN-formulated myth of PALESTINIAN centrality has led to an oversimplification of MIDDLE EAST complexities, corrupting Western policy, undermining vital Western interests, exacerbating problems rather than advancing solutions, intensifying terrorism, diverting attention away from major obstacles to peace, thus creating another major obstacle to peace.

Related Articles:

TWO “ARCH FOES” ALLIED IN OPPOSING IRAN DEAL?

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/11/israelis-saudis-and-iranian-agreement.html

Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring: 

As mentioned numerous times on this blog, mainstream media and to some extend even alternative media report that IRAN presents the most serious threat to ISRAEL, and that IRAN’S nuclear threat should be a concern for the entire world is mainly a convenient bargaining tool for both, ISRAEL and IRAN. In most likelihood the behind the scene scenario looks rather different. Like with AZERBAIJAN, ISRAEL may conduct secrete wheeling and dealings with the PERSIAN state, a scenario not at all impossible, since ISRAEL’S new political doctrine fosters geopolitical as well as economic alliances with non-Arab Muslim stated. After all the two countries, in the not too distant past, had not always been arch enemies. 

See:

ARE IRAN AND ISRAEL REALLY ARCHENEMIES, OR IS IT JUST A FACADE?  

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/05/iran-and-israel-real-archenemies.html 

IRAN SOFTENS TUNE ON ISRAEL 

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/05/iran-and-israel-improvement-in.html

AZERBAIJAN'S ISRAEL DIPLOMACY TESTS IRAN 

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/05/israel-azerbaijan-and-iran.html 

and

ISRAEL’S IRAN “WARMONGERING RHETORIC’S” ARE DECEIVING TACTICS FOR A GREATER CAUSE 

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/10/israel-azerbaijan-and-kazakhstan_6.html

LIBYA THEN AND NOW – THE BALKANIZATION OF LIBYA (Final Part)

Libyan Desert 

THE WAR ON LIBYA AND THE WEST'S AFRICAN GEOPOLITICS

Issues concerning LIBYA, one does not read in mainstream media!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

• LIBYA and its Geo- strategic importance
• BERBERS and ARABS in LIBYA
• LIBYA’S national assets have been sold off to foreign corporations and privatized, thus LIBYA is no longer a competitive economic power in AFRICA anymore
• OBAMA “A new beginning” in CAIRO
• LIBYA: from financial powerhouse of AFRICA to indebted country, thanks to foreign intervention……
• Tribal fighting could destabilize neighboring countries – thus Western entities began speaking about an ARAB-BERBER divide in north AFRICA in 2011
• The grand plot – Arab spring – “new beginning” and the transitional council of LIBYA
• ISLAM – a convenient tool for AMERICA’S Geo -strategic policies?
• LIBYA now: destitute, divided and in conflict LIBYA then: the historic project to divide LIBYA dates back to 1943 and 1951.
• BRITAIN and FRANCE and their destructive colonial policies in the middle east and AFRICA
• Federalism imposed on LIBYA in 1951 – a ANGLO-FRENCH treachery
• BEVIN - SFORZA agreement, another ANGOL - ITALIAN ( FRENCH) colonial mishap
• SYKES–PICOT agreement, another devastating ANGLO – FRENCH colonial mishap with ongoing consequences in the MIDDLE EAST
• Upon the end of the conflict LIBYA will, according to the USA, be revert to its previous monarchical federalist divisions have two or three different administrations
• The state has basically been “failed” by Western entities

Coalition Forces operations in the LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA have helped erode LIBYAN political unity, which has had clear implications for the NORTH AFRICAN country’s spatial unity and all the nations bordering LIBYA. LIBYA and its region have been destabilized. The domino effect can clearly be seen at work in NIGER, MALI, and the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC where there has been fighting as a result, at least in part, of the coalition forces war on LIBYA.

Background Information:

ANOTHER AFRICAN HOTSPOT – MALI, CHAD AND NOW the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/10/france-and-central-african-republic.html

INTEREST IN STABILIZING CHAD

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/10/chad-and-its-oil-reserves.html

LIBYA AND ITS GEO-STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 

Within a strictly AFRICAN context, LIBYA sits at an important geographic point. The country is a geographic gateway into AFRICA and connects the n)ortheast and northwest sections of the continent. LIBYA’S national territory falls within the SAHARA and SAHEL regions and events in LIBYA directly influence SUDAN, EGYPT and the regions of the MAGHREB, WEST AFRICA, and CENTRAL AFRICA.

LIBYA is also one of the states that provide access to the open sea for landlocked CHAD and NIGER. Aside from TUNISIA, all of the countries on LIBYA’S borders touch and connect the bulk of AFRICA’S regions with the exception of the southern region of the continent. Casting out the TUNISIAN Republic, these bordering AFRICAN states are EGYPT, SUDAN, CHAD, NIGER, and ALGERIA.

LIBYA’S position is very special in this regard and this territorial embrace with these other large AFRICAN states bordering multiple countries and regions is very important and would be pivotal if the LIBYAN project to connect the continent through a NORTH to SOUTH and EAST to WEST transportation and trade corridor were to be developed fully.

BERBERS AND ARABS IN LIBYA

From a socio-cultural standpoint, LIBYA has tribal and cultural ties to all of the bordering countries. Ethnic differences in LIBYA exist too, but are minor in degree. LIBYANS predominately consider themselves to be ARABS. The largest LIBYAN minority are the BERBERS, which can roughly be divided into northern groups and southern groups. There was always awareness that tribalism in LIBYA, if given antagonistic political connotations, could be a very dangerous issue for LIBYA and its bordering countries. The tribes that LIBYANS belong go beyond LIBYAN borders and form a chain in an overlapping tribal network extending all the way from NIGER into BURKINA FASO and MAURITANIA.

TRIBAL FIGHTING COULD DESTABILIZE NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES – THUS FOREIGN ENTITIES BEGAN SPEAKING ABOUT AN ARAB-BERBER DIVIDE IN NORTH AFRICA IN 2011

Tribal fighting in LIBYA could destabilize countries like SENEGAL and MALI in WEST AFRICA, CHAD in CENTRAL AFRICA, ALGERIA in NORTH AFRICA, and SUDAN in EAST AFRICA. It is in this context that NATO powers began speaking about an ARAB-BERBER divide in NORTH AFRICA in 2011. Regime change in TRIPOLI has left a political vacuum where politics has fueled tribalism and regionalism in LIBYA, which is now warily watched by all of the countries bordering LIBYA and affecting them.

“A NEW BEGINNING” IN CAIRO

President Obama's speech at the Cairo University 2009

Identity politics and faith have also wound up as factors in the competing exchange of geopolitical currents governing the sea of events surrounding LIBYA. The questions of what is a LIBYAN and what is an ethnic ARAB have been superimposed as factors in the war on the JAMAHIRIYA as a means of attacking the PAN-AFRICAN MOVEMENT and separating LIBYA, and NORTH AFRICA in broader terms, from the rest of AFRICA. Faith and religiosity have also been mounted as dynamics that are being sought as geopolitical tools and weapons of influence

Background Information:

SAHEL BELT

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/11/france-and-mali.html

THE SECURITY AND STRATEGIC DIMENSION OF GERMANY’S PRESENCE IN AFRICA

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2014/01/germany-and-france.html

EU FUNDS MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE SAHEL UNTIL 2020

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/11/european-union-acknowledges-need-of.html

President BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA was elected by tapping into the hopes of the US public and presenting himself as a “prince of peace” and “messiah of hope.” Amongst his elegant speeches, he claimed to have a desire to reengage with the so-called Muslim World. Since 2009 OBAMA has consistently tried to utilize what he sees as both his AFRICAN and Muslim credentials on the basis of having a KENYAN father who was a Muslim, to present himself as a “Son of AFRICA” and as someone sympathetic to Muslims. As part of his outreach to Muslims, President OBAMA gave a highly promoted speech at CAIRO University on 4 June 2009. Obama’s presidential speech was named “A New Beginning” and was supposedly meant to repair the damages in the relationship between the US and the so-called Muslim World. The speech is described as such by the White House:

“On June 4, 2009 in CAIRO, EGYPT, President OBAMA proposed a new beginning between the UNITED STATES and Muslims around the world, based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. Specifically, the President said that the U.S. would seek a more comprehensive engagement with Muslim-majority countries, countries with significant Muslim populations, and their people by expanding partnerships in areas like education, economic development, science and technology, and health, among others, while continuing to work together to address issues of common concern.”

OBAMA PROVED TO BE NO LESS OF A WAR HAWK THAN HIS PREDECESSORS

Many people in predominantly Muslim states were fooled by his pledges of peace and mutual respect. In his actions, Barack OBAMA proved to be no less of a war hawk than his predecessors in the Oval Office. His CAIRO speech was significant because it actually marked the start of a new campaign by the US to Geo-politically use Muslims and their hopes and aspirations.

In the same time frame as his speech, the US State Department began to engage with the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD and even prior to the speech asked for members to attend CAIRO University to hear him.

THE GRAND PLOT – ARAB SPRING – “NEW BEGINNING” AND THE TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL OF LIBYA

Almost as if foreshadowing the coming of the so-called ARAB Spring, the speech in CAIRO’S fourth point was about the rise of democracy and the instability of regimes suppressing democratic values.

Many of the organizations and figures that became involved in the ARAB SPRING and supportive of the war in LIBYA would all hasten to OBAMA’S calls for a “New Beginning.” Among them was ALY (ALI) ABUZAAKOUK, who helped found the Transitional Council.

(See: http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2015/01/libya-then-and-now-balkanization-of.html : Putting together their colonial designs and mobilizing their agents, the US and its allies began organizing the stage for establishing the TRANSITIONAL NATIONAL COUNCIL (TNC) – simply called the TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL – and similar bodies to govern LIBYA as its new puppet leadership.)

ISLAM – A CONVENIENT TOOL FOR AMERICA’S GEO-STRATEGIC POLICIES?

From JAKARTA, INDONESIA, in late-2010, OBAMA would go on with his themes of engagement with the Muslim World and speak about democracy, faith, and economic development in his second speech addressing Muslims. From that point on AL-QAEDA faded from the spotlight of US foreign policy and, well into the upheavals of the ARAB SPRING, the US worked to put the ghost of OSAMA BIN LADEN to rest by declaring in statements that were altered several times that the AL-QAEDA leader was killed in PAKISTAN by a team of CIA agents and US Navy commandos on 2 May 2010. What this all amounted to was the preparations for the fielding of US agents among opposition groups in the predominately Muslim countries of the ARAB world and an attempt to subordinate Islam as an alleged  tool of US foreign policy by using fighters and proxy political parties that used the banner of Islam.

Thus, Washington’s alliance with deviant militant groups claiming to fight under the banner of Islam was rekindled in 2011. This alliance manifested itself in the fighting in LIBYA and later further east on the shores of the Mediterranean in SYRIA and LEBANON.

LIBYA NOW: DESTITUTE, DIVIDED AND IN CONFLICT

LIBYA THEN: THE HISTORIC PROJECT TO DIVIDE LIBYA DATES BACK TO 1943 AND 1951.

It started with failed attempts to establish a trusteeship over LIBYA after the defeat of ITALY and GERMANY in NORTH AFRICA during the Second World War. The attempts to divide LIBYA then eventually resulted in a strategy that forced a monarchical federal system onto the LIBYANS similar to that established over IRAQ following the 2003 ANGLO-AMERICAN invasion. If the LIBYANS had not accepted federalism in their relatively homogeneous society they could have forfeited their independence in 1951.

BRITAIN AND FRANCE AND THEIR DESTRUCTIVE COLONIAL POLICIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA

During the Second World War the LIBYANS aided and allowed BRITAIN to enter their country to fight the ITALIANS and the GERMANS. BENGHAZI fell to BRITISH military control on 20 November 1942, and TRIPOLI on 23 January 1943. Despite its promises to allow LIBYA to become an independent country, LONDON intended to administer the two LIBYAN provinces of TRIPOLITANIA and CYRENAICA separately as colonies, with PARIS to be given control over the region of FEZZAN, which is roughly one-third of LIBYA, the area to the southwest of the country bordering ALGERIA, NIGER, and CHAD. Following the end of the Second World War, the victors and ITALY attempted to partition LIBYA into territories that they would govern as trust territories.

The AMERICAN, BRITISH, FRENCH, and SOVIET governments referred the matter to the UN General Assembly on 15 September 1945. There, the BRITISH and the ITALIANS made a last-ditch proposal on 10 May 1949, called the BEVIN-SFORZA Plan for LIBYA, to have LIBYAN territory divided into an Italian-controlled TRIPOLITANIA, a BRITISH-controlled CYRENAICA, and a FRENCH-ruled FEZZAN. This failed because of the crucial single vote of HAITI, which opposed the partition of LIBYA.

(BEVIN–SFORZA PLAN a post–world war II plan to administer former ITALIAN colonies in NORTH AFRICA.

Carlo Sforza, Italian foreign Minister

Ernest Bevin, British foreign Minster 

After World War II, ITALY was forced to relinquish its AFRICAN colonies by the terms of its February 1947 peace treaty with the Allies. LIBYA was made the temporary responsibility of the UNITED NATIONS, although BRITAIN and FRANCE continued to administer it. Partly to protect their interest and partly to avoid SOVIET interference, the BRITISH foreign secretary, ERNEST BEVIN, and the ITALIAN foreign minister, Count CARLO SFORZA, promulgated a joint plan on 10 May 1949, for the UNITED NATIONS to grant trusteeships to BRITAIN in CYRENAICA; ITALY in TRIPOLITANIA; and FRANCE in the FEZZAN, for a ten-year period, after which LIBYA would become independent. The plan, which met massive hostility in LIBYA itself, was rejected by the UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY eight days later.)

FEDERALISM IMPOSED ON LIBYA IN 1951 – A ANGLO-FRENCH TREACHERY

The BRITISH then turned to King IDRIS to softly BALKANISE LIBYA through the establishment of a federal emirate. A National Assembly controlled by King IDRIS and an unelected small circle of LIBYAN chieftains was to be imposed. This type of federalist system was unacceptable to most LIBYANS as it was intended to be a means of sidestepping the will of the LIBYAN people. The elected representatives from the heavily populated region of TRIPOLITANIA would be outweighed by the unelected chieftains from CYRENAICA and FEZZAN.

This did not sit well with many ARAB nationalists. CAIRO was extremely critical of what the US and its allies were trying to do and called it diplomatic deceit. Nevertheless, even with the opposition of most LIBYANS, federalism was imposed on LIBYA in 1951 by IDRIS. LIBYANS popularly viewed this as ANGLO-FRENCH treachery. IDRIS was forced to abolish the federalist system for a unitary system on 27 April 1963.

(SYKES–PICOT AGREEMENT, ANOTHER ANGLO – FRENCH COLONIAL MISHAP WITH ONGOING CONSEQUENCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian Peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.
The current situation in the MIDDLE EAST is the aftermath of this agreement! 



…… more details at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement ) 

UPON THE END OF THE CONFLICT LIBYA WILL, ACCORDING TO THE USA, BE REVERT TO ITS PREVIOUS MONARCHICAL FEDERALIST DIVISIONS HAVE TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS

The imperialist project to divide LIBYA was never abandoned; it was just temporarily shelved by different foreign ministries in the Western bloc and NATO capitals. In March 2011, US Director of National Intelligence JAMES CLAPPER, Jr. testified to the US SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE that at the end of the conflict in LIBYA, the NORTH AFRICAN country would revert to its previous monarchical federalist divisions and that it would have two or three different administrations.

NATO’s Supreme Commander, Admiral STRAVRIDIS, also told the US SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE in the same month that LIBYAN tribal differences would be amplified as the NATO war carried on. There were even multilateral discussions held about dividing the country, but the exact lines were never completely agreed upon and negotiations kept on waxing and waning with the frontlines in the desert and mountains.

US PLAN WAS TO ENCOURAGE A CONFLICT USING THE COUNTRIES BORDERING LIBYA

US PLANS TO TOPPLE THE LIBYAN GOVERNMENT WERE PUT TOGETHER IN 1982 by the US National Security Council under the REAGAN Administration were also revised or renovated for NATO’s war in 2011. One can clearly see how these plans played out through the dual use of an insurgency and military attack. According to JOSEPH STANIK, the US plans involved simultaneous war and support for CIA-controlled opposition groups that would entail “a number of visible and covert actions designed to bring significant pressure to bear on QADHAFI.” To execute the US plan, WASHINGTON would first have to encourage a conflict using the countries around LIBYA “to seek a casus belli for military action” while they would take care of the logistical needs of CIA-controlled opposition groups that would launch a sabotage campaign against the economy, infrastructure, and government of LIBYA. The code name for these secret plans was “Flower.” In the words of STANIK:

“The NSC restricted access to the top-secret plans to about two-dozen officials. Flower contained two sub components: “Tulip” and “Rose.” Tulip was the code name for the US intelligence services covert operation designed to overthrow QADHAFI by supporting anti-QADHAFI exile groups and countries, such as EGYPT, that wanted QADHAFI removed from power. Rose was the code name for a surprise attack on LIBYA to be carried out by an allied country, most likely EGYPT, and supported by AMERICAN air power. If QADHAFI was killed as a result of Flower, REAGAN said he would take the blame for it.”

Background Information:

SAHEL: NEW SAFE HAVENS FOR TERRORISM AND TRANSNATIONAL CRIME IN THE REGION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A THREAT TO ALL EUROPEAN NATIONAL INTERESTS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/07/eu-involvement-in-mali.html  

INSTABILITY IN THE SAHEL COULD PROMPT INCREASED MIGRATION AND ILLICIT TRAFFICKING WHICH IS BOUND TO SPILL OVER INTO EUROPE.

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2013/11/mali-sahel-and-france.html  

It also just so happened that the OBAMA Administration’s US Secretary of Defense ROBERT GATES, who was the deputy director for intelligence at the time, endorsed ROSE, the military subcomponent of Flower.

“THE END PRODUCT” OF LIBYA: LAWLESSNESS AND SOMALI-STYLE CIVIL WAR

Since NATO toppled the JAMAHIRIYA government, this is exactly what has happened in LIBYA. A free for all has come about, which has spilled over into neighboring states such as NIGER. There are multiple factions and different administrations including the TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL in the District of TRIPOLI, the MISRATA Military Council in the District of MISRATA, several self-styled EMIRATES in CYRENAICA, and JAMAHIRIYA loyalist and tribal governments in the WESTERN MOUNTAINS and FEZZAN. There have even been fusions where JAMAHIRIYA loyalists and anti-JAMAHIRIYA militias have joined to fight all others. The end product has been lawlessness and Somali-style civil war.

THE STATE HAS BASICALLY BEEN “FAILED” BY CERTAIN WESTERN ENTITIES.

Post-JAMAHIRIYA governmental authority is only exercised by those in power inside of their offices and a few spaces. Violent crime has proliferated. TRIPOLI and other major cities are being fought for by different factions and LIBYAN weapons are being smuggled into different countries. Even US officials, which helped midwife the groups running rampant in LIBYA, have not been safe from the turmoil they helped create; the murder of US Ambassador JOHN CHRISTOPHER STEVENS in BENGHAZI on 12 September 2012 is testimony to this.

LIBYA’S NATIONAL ASSETS HAVE BEEN SOLD OFF TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND PRIVATIZED, THUS LIBYA IS NO LONGER A COMPETITIVE ECONOMIC POWER IN AFRICA ANYMORE

 Libya-Gadhafis-influence-on-Africa

Oil and gas production has been stopping. National assets have been sold off to foreign corporations and privatized. LIBYA is no longer a competitive economic power in Africa anymore.

FROM FINANCIAL POWERHOUSE OF AFRICA TO INDEBTED COUNTRY……

Nor is LIBYA a growing financial power. TRIPOLI virtually transformed from a debt less country to an indebted one overnight.

There is also a great irony to all this. The warplanes of the US-supported LIBYAN regime that has replaced the JAMAHIRIYA began bombing LIBYAN citizens in 2014 as battles for control of TRIPOLI raged. The US, EUROPEAN UNION, and NATO have said nothing about this whereas in 2011 they started a bombing campaign and war on the basis of allegedly false accusations the JAMAHIRIYA government was doing exactly this. The deceit of these players is more than evident.

Article has been adapted by  Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring from the original article written by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, via NDM