Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”

Prof, BERNARD LEWIS, jew termed the phrase “Clash of Civilisations” then pushed for the clash with all his might!

Before Israel can rule the World is must destroy the middle east.

Oct 11th 2011

Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”
Introduction by Cynthia McKinney

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Third of Four Installments on Libya: Israel and Libya

Once again, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya peels away the veneer of legitimacy and deception enveloping the U.S./NATO genocide currently taking place in Libya. In his first article, Nazemroaya exposed the mechanism by which the world came to “know” of the need for a humanitarian intervention in the Libyan Arab Jamahirya and U.S./NATO admissions of targeted assassination attempts against the Leader of the 1969 Libyan Revolution, Muammar Qaddafi. In his first of these four installments since his return from Libya, Nazemraoya makes it clear that there never was any evidence given to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court to warrant or justify United Nations Resolutions 1970 and 1973 or current U.S./NATO operations inside Libya.

In his second article detailing this very sad story, Nazemroaya exposes the relationships between the major Libyan protagonists/NATO collaborators and the U.S. Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy. Incredibly, when leading Members of Congress publicly proclaimed repeatedly that they did not know who the Libyan “rebel” NATO collaborators were, select so-called rebel leaders were political intimates with stakeholders at the National Endowment for Democracy. The leaders of the National Transitional Council, contrived to appear highly influential to publics in former colonial capitals, have very little influence or support inside Libya, and can be likened to a Hamid Karzai type of morally bankrupt neo-colonial authority that presides over and gives a fig-leaf of “legitmacy” to those outsiders whose objective is the total destruction of recalcitrant citizens who demand self-determination over their own communities and country. Nazemroaya also exposes that, despite its Global War on Terror, the U.S. government actually financed Libyan terrorists and criminals wanted by INTERPOL.

In this, his third of four installments, Nazemroaya removes the U.S./NATO fig leaf and what he reveals are the abhorrent, obnoxious, inhumane, and cynical machinations of the pro-Israel Lobby that is the only political force that seems to be able to command the mightiest of militaries and the strongest of leaders to act in ways that threaten the peace and tranquility of their own political parties and national security of their own governments. Indeed, by its policy to support Israel, no matter how belligerent its policies, the United States has eroded its own national interest, as warnings from U.S. military leaders continue to point out.

In fact, my own personal experiences with the pro-Israel Lobby inside the United States demonstrate Israel’s intense interest in Africa. I have written about my experience with “the pledge” to support Israel that is forced on every candidate for the U.S. Congress; refusal to sign it, as I did, means not one dollar of the millions expended each election cycle in campaign contributions and can ensure the most vicious media demonization as the major descriptor of the un-cooperating candidate. The demonization of Alabama’s first Black Member of Congress since Reconstruction, Earl Hilliard, in his 2002 re-election campaign, with specific regard to his visits to Libya, immediately come to mind. Weeks later, many of the New York contributors against his re-election, reappeared in my own opponent’s campaign coffers. While I was portrayed in letters to supporters of the pro-Israel Lobby as anti-Israel, I will continue to believe that it was my very real activities in Africa that the pro-Israel Lobby found most threatening. From land reform to blood diamonds to various warnings I sent to certain African oil-producing countries to support for African self-determination and against artificial efforts to create divisions in Cote d’Ivoire, Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Sudan, I found an incredible interest in all things African on the part of the pro-Israel Lobby.

In fact, I was invited to lease my “Black” face to these very interests and get arrested in front of the Sudan Embassy to sow the very “Black versus Arab” narrative being tragically created in Libya which Nazemroaya describes so thoroughly in this current text. I note here that some Blacks inside and outside of the U.S. Congress did choose to accept this particular invitation and get arrested. My representative was present at the meeting where these activities were planned, finance was arranged, and actions put in motion. This was a purposeful manipulation of U.S. policy and more importantly, of the despicable behaviors in Sudan that led to human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. My own legislation to de-list corporations from the U.S. stock exchange that aided or abetted or engaged in any way in human rights abuses in Sudan was deemed by guardians of the pro-Israel agenda inside the Congress to be an unacceptable answer to the very real abuses taking place in that country.

Additionally, while I was in prison in Israel, the point of the mostly African female prisoners on my Ramle Prison cell block was that they were adherents of “the wrong religion.” The purging of Christians inside Israel is a fact. The scribblings on the wall of my Israeli holding room in another prison complex before my release made it clear that those Christians being deported were not wanted in Israel and they felt that it was because of their religion. Israel’s recent push, despite its non-Jewish residents, to identify itself as a “Jewish state” is telling.

While in Libya, I met many Africans who said that they chose to live there because of the pan-Africanism of the policies of the Libyan Jamahirya. In fact, while at an “Africans in the Diaspora Conference” there in January/February of 2011, I personally witnessed, along with a delegation of others from the United States, Muammar Qaddafi pledge $90 billion to a “United States of Africa” that would work together to build the Continent and counter the efforts to penetrate and recolonize it. Blacks in the United States who struggled for dignity, self-determination, and against U.S. oppression and imperialism during the 1960s and 1970s have a relationship with Muammar Qaddafi and the Jamahirya government that goes back decades. At the 29-stops of my Libya Truth Tour, I met many U.S. citizens who reminded the audiences of the contributions of Muammar Qaddafi and the Jamahirya government against British imperialism in Northern Ireland. Continental Africans attending these Tour-stops reminded audiences of Muammar Qaddafi’s support for Nelson Mandela and Africans struggling to rid the Continent of Apartheid at a time when Israel shared an alliance with that government. They also noted the Jamahirya government’s current support for many development projects throughout the Continent and for the budget of the African Union, itself. Therefore, many alarmed observers have pointed out that the U.S./NATO attack on Libya is actually an attack on all of Africa. Nazemroaya eloquently makes this point while revealing the underlying motives for the “uber-violence” that we see in Libya and that is opposed by large majorities of voters in NATO member states, if reported polling results can be trusted. What comes to my mind is how anyone who identifies with the peace community could support such an attack on Libya, especially while the people of Libya valiantly resist NATO domination.

Nazemroaya makes the essential point: “An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.” The Voice of America has exposed the psychological aspects of its brutal intervention and hints at the mindset of the U.S./NATO Libyan pawns; several stories suggest that the “new” Libya will turn more toward its Arab identity than its African identity. And U.S./NATO successful imposition of the psychological chains of identity denial are the most longlasting of chains. While in Tunisia, I actually came face to face with the fruits of this project when a taxi driver born in Tunisia told me that he was not African! Muammar Qaddafi drove home to all Libyans that Libya, as its geography dictates, is an African country. It seems ludicrous on its face to have to reiterate such a fact except for the racism, brainwashing, and psychological underpinnings of current U.S./NATO policy and its colonial antecedents that Nazemroaya exposes.

Finally, Walter H. Kansteiner has moved in and out of various positions within the foreign policy apparatus of the United States government and has been the voice for exactly the policies described by Nazemroaya. Among Kansteiner’s positions are stints as Africa Director at the State Department and National Security Council Director for African Affairs during the Presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Presidency of George W. Bush. During these stints, Mr. Kansteiner was in a position to initiate the balkanization of Africa that we now see reaching fruition on the Continent. I was forced to write a letter to President Bush in 2001 expressing my alarm at his suggestions for Democratic Republic of Congo. In my opinion, Laurent Kabila was murdered because he refused to balkanize Congo. (He personally related his last conversation with a certain U.S. representative who encouraged him to betray Congo. In his last words to me, “I will never betray Congo.”)

Cynthia McKinney, 10 October 2011.

Cynthia McKinney is a former U.S. Congresswoman who served in two different Georgia federal districts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007 as a member of the U.S. Democratic Party. She was also the U.S. Green Party presidential candidate in 2008. While in the U.S. Congress she served on the U.S. Banking and Finance Committee, the U.S. National Security Committee (later renamed the U.S. Armed Services Committee), and the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee (later renamed the U.S. International Relations Committee). She also served on the U.S. International Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. McKinney has conducted two fact-finding missions to Libya and also recently finished a nationwide speaking tour in the United States sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition regarding the NATO bombing campaign on Libya.

——————————————————————————–
America’s Conquest of Africa: The Roles of France and Israel
– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Julien Teil – 2011-10-06
Terrorists not only fight for Washington on the ground, they also act as frontmen for regime change through so-called human rights organizations that promote democracy. Introduction by Cynthia McKinney

Libya and the Big Lie: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars
– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-09-29
The war against Libya is built on fraud. The UN Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims that Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi…

——————————————————————————–

ISRAEL AND LIBYA: PREPARING AFRICA FOR THE “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS”

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Under the Obama Administration the United States has expanded the “long war” into Africa. Barack Hussein Obama, the so-called “Son of Africa” has actually become one of Africa’s worst enemies. Aside from his continued support of dictators in Africa, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) was unhinged under his watch. The division of Sudan was publicly endorsed by the White House before the referendum, Somalia has been further destabilized, Libya has been viciously attacked by NATO, and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is going into full swing.
The war in Libya is just the start of a new cycle of external military adventurism inside Africa. The U.S. now wants more military bases inside Africa. France has also announced that it has the right to militarily intervene anywhere in Africa where there are French citizens and its interests are at risk. NATO is also fortifying its positions in the Red Sea and off the coast of Somalia.

As disarray and turmoil are once again uprooting Africa with external intervention, Israel sits silently in the background. Tel Aviv has actually been deeply involved in the new cycle of turmoil, which is tied to its Yinon Plan to reconfigure its strategic surrounding. This reconfiguration process is based on a well established technique of creating sectarian divisions which eventually will effectively neutralize target states or result in their dissolution.

Many of the problems afflicting the contemporary areas of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Latin America are actually the result of the deliberate triggering of regional tensions by external powers. Sectarian division, ethno-linguistic tension, religious differences, and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States, Britain, and France in various parts of the globe. Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia are merely a few recent examples of this strategy of “divide and conquer” being used to bring nations to their knees.

The Upheavals of Central-Eastern Europe and the Project for a “New Middle East”

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up to the First World War. In the wake of the First World War, the borders of the multi-ethnic states in the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn and reconfigured by external powers, in alliance with local opposition forces. Since the First World War until the post-Cold War period the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe have continued to experience a period of upheaval, violence and conflict that has continously divided the region.

For years, there have been advocates calling for a “New Middle East” with redrawn boundaries in this region of the world where Europe, Southwest Asia, and North Africa meet. These advocates mostly sit in the capitals of Washington, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. They envisage a region shaped around homogenous ethno-religious states. The formation of these states would signify the destruction of the larger existing countries of the region. The transition would be towards the formation of smaller Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like states, which could easily be managed and manipulated by the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and their allies.

The Manipulation of the First “Arab Spring” during World War I

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.

In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

The Yinon Plan

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

——————————————————————————–

Note: The following map was drawn by Holly Lindem for an article by Jeffery Goldberg. It was published in The Atlantic in January/February 2008.
Map Copyright: The Atlantic, 2008.

Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters.
It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy.
Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006.

——————————————————————————–

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means to balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It is now being reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region so as to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations. This falls into accordance with the Yinon Plan.

Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets:

(1) ethno-linguistics;
(2) skin-colour;
(3) religion.

It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Israel and the African Continent

The Israelis have been quietly involved on the African continent for years. In Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, the Israelis helped build a separation security wall like the one in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. In Sudan, Tel Aviv has armed separatist movements and insurgents. In South Africa, the Israelis supported the Apartheid regime and its occupation of Namibia. In 2009, the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlined that Africa would be the renewed focus of Tel Aviv.

Israel’s two main objectives in Africa are to impose the Yinon Plan, in league with its own interests, and to assist Washington in becoming the hegemon of Africa. In this regard, the Israelis also pushed for the creation of AFRICOM in this regard. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) is one example.

Washington has outsourced intelligence work in Africa to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is effectively involved as one of the parties in a broader war not just “inside” Africa, but “over” Africa. In this war, Tel Aviv is working alongside Washington and the E.U. against China and its allies, which includes Iran.

Tehran is working alongside Beijing in a similar manner as Tel Aviv is with Washington. Iran is helping the Chinese in Africa through Iranian connections and ties. These ties also include Tehran’s ties to private Lebanese and Syrian business interests in Africa. Thus, within the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing, an Israeli-Iranian rivalry has also unfolded within Africa. [1] Sudan is Africa’s third largest weapons producer, as a result of Iranian support in weapons manufacturing. Meanwhile, while Iran provides military assistance to Khartoum, which includes several military cooperation agreements, Israel is involved in various actions directed against the Sudanese. [2]

Israel and Libya

Libya had been considered as “a spoiler” which undermined the interests of the former colonial powers in Africa. In this regard, Libya had taken on some hefty pan-African development plans intended to industrialize Africa and transform Africa into an integrated and assertive political entity. These initiatives conflicted with the interests of the external powers competing with one another in Africa, but it was especially unacceptable to Washington and the major E.U. countries. In this regard, Libya had to be crippled and neutralized as an entity supportive of African progress and pan-African unity.

The role of Israel and the Israeli lobby was fundamental in opening the door to NATO’s military intervention in Libya. According to Israeli sources, it was U.N. Watch that actually orchestrated the events in Geneva to remove Libya from the U.N. Human Rights Council and to ask the U.N. Security Council to intervene. [3] U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has influence in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and is part of the Israeli lobby in the United States. The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which helped launch the unverified claims about 6,000 people being slaughtered by Qaddafi, is also tied to the Israeli lobby in France.

Tel Aviv had been in contact simultaneously with both the Transitional Council and the Libyan government in Tripoli. Mossad agents were also in Tripoli, one of which was a former station manager. At about the same time, French members of the Israeli lobby were visiting Benghazi. In a case of irony, the Transitional Council would claim that Colonel Qaddafi was working with Israel, while it made pledges to recognize Israel to president Sarkozy’s special envoy Bernard-Henri Lévy who would then convey the message to Israeli leaders [4]. A similar pattern (to that of Israel’s links to the Transitional Council) had also developed at an earlier stage in South Sudan, which was armed by Israel.

Despite the Transitional Council’s position on Israel, its followers still tried to demonize Qaddafi by claiming he was secretly Jewish. Not only was this untrue, but it was also bigoted. These accusations were intended to be a form of character assassination that equated being a Jew as something negative.

In reality, Israel and NATO are in the same camp. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Had Qaddafi been conniving with Israel while the Transitional Council was working with NATO, this would mean that both sides were actually being played as fools against one another.

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.

The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.

The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa”.

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies.[5]

Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multi-culturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the ‘Global War on Terror’].” [6]

Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” [7]

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist design of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

——————————————————————————–
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is a program based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on KPFK, Los Angeles, California.

——————————————————————————–

NOTES

[1] The Economist, “Israel and Iran in Africa: A search for allies in a hostile world,” February 4, 2011.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Tova Lazaroff, “70 rights groups call on UN to condemn Tripoli,” Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2011.

[4] Radio France Internationale, “Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu,” June 2, 2011.

[5] Robert Marquand,”Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.

[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211

[7] Ibid.

——————————————————————————–
ANNEX I: MAP OF WORLD CIVILIZATIONS

——————————————————————————–
ANNEX II: AND MODEL OF SAMUEL HUNTINGTON’S “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS”

Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

maps in link…

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27029

There was a time that i believed the BS that WW1 and WW2 were “JUST WARS” thats all it was 100% BS!

5 responses to “Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”

  1. BERNARD LEWISH – FORGETS TO SAY IT WAS JEWISH GROUP THATS PROMOTED MASS IMMIGRATION INTO AMERIKA AND EUROPE!
    HE THEN SITS BACK AND STIRS THE POT- GENTILES FIGHT EACH OTHER- ISRAEL BENEFITS– TALUMDICS GET THEIR WISH!

    SURVIVAL OF OUR CIVILISATION- DON’T MAKE ME LAUGH- ISRAELI WARS ARE WRECKING CIVILISATION NOT MUSLIMS- WHO YOU PROMOTE THE BOMBING OF………

  2. HE NEVER QUITS- BANGING THE DRUM FOR WAR- REMINDS ME DOUGLAS REEDS WORDS BEFORE WW2…BULLITS HANDED OVER FOR OTHERS TO FIRE!

    polka23dot on 9 Apr 2008

    Princeton scholar and best-selling author Bernard Lewis is considered by many to be the foremost authority on Islam in the world. While he was in Jerusalem recently, Lewis gave an exclusive interview to CBN News Bureau Chief Chris Mitchell.

    THE HIDDEN HAND!!

  3. AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A JEW BERNARD- DO TELL?

    http://www.controversyofzion.info/Three_Models_of_the_Jewish_Problem.htm
    and it was the viewpoint of former Times correspondent and author, Douglas Reed before him, as expressed in his most famous book, The Controversy of Zion – a book, I have placed on the internet, and if I have done nothing else of value, I consider this one simple action to be very important and valuable, and I hope Douglas Reed is pleased with it, wherever he might be in the universe today. I subscribe to the viewpoint just mentioned, that we are all responsible, and therefore value very much individuals, such as Douglas Reed and Ivor Benson, and now also David Duke, who want to awaken Western man to his own responsibility in the matter, while describing and drawing attention to the Jewish and Zionist factor, and therefore I also value this important organization, National Alliance, with its leaders and members, because it wants to do the same.

    It is not fair – also not workable – to put all the blame on Jews, for a “Jewish problem”, for that is not correct, since the problem had not grown to such proportions if we had been awake and aware, and just as importantly: that explanation does not empower ourselves. We Westerners need to wake up and become empowered. To take responsibility for our own past, present and future. And in so far as a specific Jewish blame or role is isolated and postulated by me, I want to make it very clear right now, that I do not blame all Jews for the state of the affair. “Let the chips fall where they may”, is the principle I follow here, quoting David Duke, who’s definition of “Jewish Supremacists” I will be referring to, when I say “Jews”.

    An analysis will give better understanding, if it is at all an analysis worthy of that name, and if it is a good one, it is likely to bring action as well, because it unblocks the – sometimes hidden – reasons for inaction.

    I will take a closer look at what could be called three different models or explanations of the Jewish problem – or Jewish question, as seen from our side, the people of the West, who have had to live with it for so many centuries.

    I will discuss the models, their value as an explanation of “The Jewish Problem”, and compare them with a view also to how they might point in the direction of a workable solution. Whether the Jews are considered a nation, a people, a race or just individuals adhering to a religion, Judaism, I think it is permissible and sufficient for the purpose of this discussion to view them as a group, with a core of persons, devoted to a cause, to some rituals and to fellow-Jews, and an outer group with varying lesser degrees of attachment to the cause, the fellow-Jews and the rituals and philosophy of Judaism.

    1) The first model is The Jewish Conspiracy to rule and enslave the world.

    2) The second model is The survival method of a minority Jewish community amongst non-Jewish societies.

    3) The third model is Mental states and shortcomings in Jews and non-Jews which need to be understood and improved, whether they are genetically based or not.

    For short let me call them

    “Conspiracy to Enslave”,
    “Survival of the Fittest” and
    “Mental Illness”.
    Authors, who have dealt with the question through the last hundred years usually touch on all three models, maybe without stating them as such, but then choose one of them as the best. Over time one may revise his viewpoint on the problem, but it probably remains within this framework

    I let the three models be represented or personified by three men whose lectures I have listened to or read a lot. Maybe the three men, if brought together, would not themselves agree that they could be compared, especially in this matter, but for my purpose of comparing the three models of ”The Jewish Problem”, I find it relevant to do so.

    The first person (representing or personifying the ”Jewish Conspiracy Model”), is Douglas Reed, the former British foreign correspondent of The London Times and author of – among several other books – the now famous book The Controversy of Zion. He saw himself as a traveler and discoverer in the political realm.

    The second person is David Duke (representing or personifying the ”Survival Method Model”). He is well known as a politician, world famous activist for rights of European mankind, and author of My Awakening and Jewish Supremacism. He sees himself mainly as a discoverer and missionary in the social and racial realm.

    The third person, (representing or personifying the ”Mental State Model”) will be less obvious. It is L. Ron Hubbard. He saw himself as an explorer of the mind and soul of man. He was the founder of the Scientology movement and author of many books on mental states and mental self-improvement.

    You, sitting here, may also think that those three persons are a strange mix, but let us have a closer look at them, at what they each say or said. Of course Reed and Hubbard are no longer with us. Reed died in 1976, Hubbard in 1986, and David Duke is very much alive. Ron Hubbard also, by the way, never mentioned Jews and a Jewish problem as such – but I see his philosophy and mental techniques as very relevant to the problem. Deception and hidden hostility are central Jewish Supremacist traits and also something, Hubbard had many observations and techniques about. These traits were central characteristics of, for instance, the secret Jews, “marranos” of Middle Age Spain, where the Inquisition was the direct reaction, also the central characteristics of the personalities, techniques and activities of Jewish Communism, where the Second World War was the reaction, and particularly the Jewish holocaust. Hubbard, most importantly, explored techniques for making ordinary people more aware, self-determined and happy, which is something pertinent to this discussion, and he had very interesting observations about psychopathic behavior and its effect on other people.

    Actually it might seem very appropriate, right here, to turn the tables on the Supremacist Jews and ask: If Jewish leaders and intellectuals dare to define “The Jewish Problem” as an irrational hate or dislike of Jews, or as a peculiar mental illness in Gentiles, would it not be much more to the point for Gentile critics of Jews to define classical Jewish behavior, as they see it, in this way, that is: As mental illness.

    How could they better characterize behavior such as committing treason again and again, lying and cheating routinely, leading on in crimes and depraving and destructive activities, creating communism and other corrupt social philosophies with hundreds of millions of victims, spying and warring on friendly host-societies, setting peoples of the world against each other for major wars, stealing a country and killing off its inhabitants, and all the time believing themselves to be a people, chosen by no less than God above all others with a divine right to do all these things.

    But I will get back to that in discussing the third model, and take the other two models first:

    The first model – Conspiracy to Enslave

    The first model – the Jewish conspiracy to rule and enslave the world, has been a classic model, based as it is in the ancient text of the Torah. But it was brought to the forefront and reinforced in more modern times with the enormous growth and spread of Jewish financial power and Jewish Communism in the 19th Century, and the phenomenal popularity of the text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion from around 1900. It gained strength from disclosures of various secret societies, such as the Illuminati, with their secret papers, in the late 18th Century, and the revolutions of the 19th Century, where, as the baptized Jew and British prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, said: “at the front of every one of these revolutionary movements for the destruction of authority, nationhood and religion, you find a Jew”. Douglas Reed writes in The Controversy of Zion, that it seems, that the World Revolution movement had been taken over by Jews from around the middle of the 19th Century. Communism, which was to conquer the world, was created by the Jew Marx, and the Revolutionary, destructive, movement broke out into the open, dramatically, with the so-called Russian Revolution, totally dominated by Jews.

    But also international high finance, had by this time become a mainly Jewish affair, as personified in the 19th Century by the Rothschild family, who were known or believed by many well-informed people to be the real powers behind the rulers of Europe.

    The secrecy of the revolutionary movements and of international finance, plus the knowledge, that very few – Jewish – persons ruled the revolutionary masses through terror in Russia – and also commanded the vast sums of money in international finance, made the conclusion obvious, that there was such a conspiracy in the world.

    Later research led to knowledge of such groups as The Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission and other power groups, with heavy Jewish participation. They also involved a non-Jewish elite, but this did not diminish the impression of finance and revolution working together behind the scenes, in Jewish hands.

    With the advent of the mass media in the 20th Century, their control of public opinion, and above all, the total dominance by Jews in Hollywood, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, and now also the internet, it is no wonder, that the image of a conspiracy by super-rich Jews has remained with us.

    A conspiracy – that is: a design of (secret) co-operation for a wrongful act between two or more persons – is not invalidated by the fact, that many know or suspect one to exist. It is not even invalidated by the fact that many, unwittingly or knowingly, take part in its plans, such as the creation of a world government, and admit so openly and maybe even believe it to be their own idea, and no secret at all. The power behind, wielding the money and the brainwashing machine, does not inform us of their machinations. And they always need the useful idiots to assist.

    For instance, it is beyond discussion that communism in Russia was Jewish in its origin, and dominated by Jews to the extent, that it had to be made punishable by death by the Jewish revolutionary masters to mention and react negatively on it. It is also clear that the Jewish masters used a lot of secrecy, such as changing names and using cloudy class-war language and semi-secret Yiddish and Hebrew, apart from more conventional secrecy in plans and financing etc. And the mainly Jewish leaders of the early days of the revolution were quite few, compared to the masses, they terrorized, thus being a conspiracy by definition.

    Finally it is clear that later expansion of communism in Russia and around the world had to comprise many non-Jews as well, but this happened without the Jewish grip being loosened much in the Soviet and Eastern European countries, where they long dominated in the Secret Police terrorizing apparatus, the leadership of the Gulags and the propaganda apparatus, and where they finally came out on the top of the Russian society in our own time, when communism had to be abandoned, stealing most of Russia, as so-called oligarchs, through international financial cooperation and various criminal schemes. Also, it must be remembered, that today, in the confusing sea of news and entertainment, most people are overwhelmed by conflicting and superfluous information anyway, and unable to piece conclusions together, much less make it into a well-founded whole, that gives them reason to speak and act. A conspiracy does not need to be totally secret under such conditions.

    I got into this line of thinking from being in the Scientology movement in the late sixties and through the 70’es. The movement was heavily attacked from the beginning, whether deserved or not, particularly from the psychiatrists, and besides studying the self-betterment techniques of the group over many years, I worked for a while in the intelligence section of the movement’s so called “Guardians Office”, where we got trained to find out about and counter the attackers of the movement. The American section of the office later got into legal trouble because its operatives broke into government offices in the now scandalized “Operation Snow White”, but when I was in the European section, we didn’t do such things, and my colleagues and I didn’t get into such trouble.

    From this line of training I learned about the secret world behind politics and also such conspiracy literature as Gary Allen’s None Dare Call it Conspiracy, and we researched, in particular, the wing of the conspiracy that dealt with psychological control of rulers and pervasive control of masses through community psychiatry. We found, that it was leading figures in the international World Federation of Mental Health, with its national chapters, which was at the center of the attacks on the movement.

    Political psychiatrist were part of somebody’s conspiracy to rule, we also found, and their plan was to be able to know all about the world’s leaders and influence them in their capacity of mental health experts. This was said in their “Mental Health”-literature, sometimes bluntly, sometimes in convoluted language. Programs to quash political psychiatry were initiated by us and carried out.

    The founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, once – in 1967 – stated in a taped speech, Ron’s Journal ‘67, that the world was – for all practical purposes – governed by a handful of super-rich people. The political psychiatrists, mostly Marxist in their worldview, were just the section of the conspiracy, which quite naturally dealt with Scientology. Scientology was a perceived threat to them for more than financial reasons, it was thought.

    We were not focused on Jews at all then, I don’t think they were ever mentioned, and I certainly did not suspect then, that they had much to do with the problem of world unrest. I remember now, however, that there were many Jewish-sounding names in the political psychiatry organizations, such as “The National Association for Mental Health” and others. Checking up on it today I find, that Jewish names dominate the entire fields of psychiatry and psychology. I can see today also, that quite a few Jewish names were in prominent positions in even the Scientology organization already then. (Geoffrey C. Filbert in 1982 mentions many Jews on staff in Scientology in his two-volume book Excalibur Revisited, vol. II, 468

  4. IN THE GENTILE WORLD BERNARD HUNGARY FOR INSTANCE THEY HAD A JEWISH GOVERNMENT HENCE WE HAD THE 1956 REVOLUTION……………….TELL US YOUR OWN PAST NOT ISLAMS!

  5. MOSSAD INVOLVED IN 9-11 BERNIE- JEWS INVOLVED IN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE!

    Bernard Lewis was born to middle-class Jewish parents in Stoke Newington, London. He became interested in languages and history while preparing for his bar mitzvah.[7]

    Lewis graduated in 1936 from the School of Oriental Studies (now SOAS, School of Oriental and African Studies) at the University of London with a B.A. in History with special reference to the Near and Middle East, and obtaining his Ph.D. three years later, also from SOAS, specializing in the History of Islam.[8] Lewis also studied law, going part of the way toward becoming a solicitor, but returned to study Middle Eastern history. He undertook post-graduate studies at the University of Paris, where he studied with the orientalist Louis Massignon and earned the “Diplôme des Études Sémitiques” in 1937.[1] He returned to SOAS in 1938 as an assistant lecturer in Islamic History.

    During the Second World War, Lewis served in the British Army in the Royal Armoured Corps and Intelligence Corps in 1940–41, before being seconded to the Foreign Office. After the war, he returned to SOAS, and in 1949, at the age of 33, he was appointed to the new chair in Near and Middle Eastern History.[9]

    In 1974, aged 57, Lewis accepted a joint position at Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study, also located in Princeton, New Jersey. The terms of his appointment were such that Lewis taught only one semester per year, and being free from administrative responsibilities, he could devote more time to research than previously. Consequently, Lewis’s arrival at Princeton marked the beginning of the most prolific period in his research career during which he published numerous books and articles based on the previously accumulated materials.[10] In addition, it was in the U.S. that Lewis became a public intellectual. Upon his retirement from Princeton in 1986, Lewis served at Cornell University until 1990.[1]

    Lewis has been a naturalized citizen of the United States since 1982. He married Ruth Hélène Oppenhejm in 1947 with whom he had a daughter and a son before the marriage was dissolved in 1974.[1]

    In 1966, Lewis was a founding member of the learned society, Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), but in 2007, he broke away and founded Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) to challenge MESA, which the New York Sun noted as “dominated by academics who have been critical of Israel and of America’s role in the Middle East.”[11] The organization was formed as an academic society dedicated to promoting the highest standards of research and teaching in Middle Eastern and African studies, and related fields,[12] with Lewis as Chairman of its academic council.

    In 1990 the National Endowment for the Humanities selected Lewis for the Jefferson Lecture, the U.S. federal government’s highest honor for achievement in the humanities. His lecture, entitled “Western Civilization: A View from the East,”[13] was revised and reprinted in The Atlantic Monthly under the title “The Roots of Muslim Rage.”[14] His 2007 Irving Kristol Lecture, given to the American Enterprise Institute, was published as Europe and Islam.

    [edit] ResearchLewis’ influence extends beyond the academe to the general public. He is a pioneer of the social and economic history of the Middle East and is famous for his extensive research of the Ottoman archives.[1] He began his research career with the study of medieval Arab, especially Syrian, history.[1] His first article, dedicated to professional guilds of medieval Islam, had been widely regarded as the most authoritative work on the subject for about thirty years.[15] However, after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, scholars of Jewish origin found it more and more difficult to conduct archival and field research in the Arab countries, where they were suspected of espionage. Therefore, Lewis switched to the study of the Ottoman Empire, while continuing to research Arab history through the Ottoman archives,[1] which had only recently been opened to Western researchers. A series of articles that Lewis published over the next several years revolutionized the history of the Middle East by giving a broad picture of Islamic society, including its government, economy, and demographics.[15]

    Lewis argues that the Middle East is currently backward and its decline was a largely self-inflicted condition resulting from both culture and religion, as opposed to the post-colonialist view which posits the problems of the region as economic and political maldevelopment mainly due to the 19th century European colonization.[citation needed] In his 1982 work Muslim Discovery of Europe, Lewis argues that Muslim societies could not keep pace with the West and that “Crusader successes were due in no small part to Muslim weakness.”[16] Further, he suggested that as early as the 11th century Islamic societies were decaying, primarily the byproduct of internal problems like “cultural arrogance,” which was a barrier to creative borrowing, rather than external pressures like the Crusades.[1]

    In the wake of Soviet and Arab attempts to delegitimize Israel as a racist country, Lewis wrote a study of anti-Semitism, Semites and Anti-Semites (1986).[1] In other works he argued Arab rage against Israel was disproportionate to other tragedies or injustices in the Muslim world: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and control of Muslim-majority land in Central Asia, the bloody and destructive fighting during the Hama uprising in Syria (1982), the Algerian civil war (1992–98), and the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88).[17]

    In addition to his scholarly works, Lewis wrote several influential books accessible to the general public: The Arabs in History (1950), The Middle East and the West (1964), and The Middle East (1995).[1] In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the interest in Lewis’s work surged, especially his 1990 essay The Roots of Muslim Rage. Three of his books were published after 9/11: What Went Wrong? (written before the attacks), which explored the reasons of the Muslim world’s apprehension (and sometimes outright hostility) to the modernization, and The Crisis of Islam, and Islam: The Religion and the People (published in 2009).

    [edit] Armenian GenocideThe first two editions of Lewis’ The Emergence of Modern Turkey (1961 and 1968) describe the Armenian massacres of World War I as “the terrible holocaust of 1915, when a million and a half Armenians perished”.[18] In later editions, this text is altered to: “the terrible slaughter of 1915, when, according to estimates, more than a million Armenians perished, as well as an unknown number of Turks.”[19] Lewis was later one of 69 scholars to co-sign a 1985 petition asking the US Congress to avoid a resolution condemning the events as “genocide”.

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

    HENCE GENOCIDE- CAN’T BE CALLED WHAT IT WAS, EH BERNARD?
    AKIN TO RUSSIAN REVOLUTION WHEN IT WAS A JUDEAN BOLSHAVIK REVOLUTION!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s