Commentary by Joel Skousen

World Affairs Brief, November 30, 2001 Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.joelskousen.com).

---

The Bush administration is hell-bent on forcing Israel into another version of the same old "peace process," whose intermediate goal has always been to undermine Israeli security prior to a future Middle East war. The ultimate objective is to create war conditions that will justify a permanent UN governing presence in Israel. The current objective of the Israeli-US summit, to be held in Washington between President Bush and Israeli PM Sharon, is to secure agreement on a viable Palestinian state for terrorist Yasser Arafat. "Viable" is a code word referring to a state of sufficient size and power as to be beyond threat from Israel--in short, a true safe-haven from Israeli security interests.

The public premise for this dangerous compromise of Israel’s security is that Arab hostilities toward America will be reduced and Arab cooperation in the war on terrorism secured if the US brings Israel to the peace table. But this premise is less than honest. First, the Bush administration’s real purpose in this offensive is not to fight terrorism, but to use terrorism as an excuse to execute its globalist interventionist agenda. At best, it is a selective war against terrorism that Bush is waging. The IRA and Palestinian terrorists continue to receive cover and protection by the CIA and the US State Department. Second, Arab hostilities toward America will never be reduced unless America steps aside and allows for the complete annihilation of Israel as a state--which it cannot do morally or politically, even though much of the global leadership in America would like to see Israeli sovereignty eliminated and the state of Israel reduced to a mere protectorate of the UN. Indeed, there is much anguish being felt in Israel as these talks begin. Central to the issue of Israeli security is the denial of a safe haven for terrorism within the boundaries of Israel. The Israeli right correctly fears a coming sellout on this issue, leading to the creation of an autonomous Palestinian mini-state.

Though Israeli PM Ariel Sharon is portrayed as a militaristic right-winger, he is no true rightist. He plays to the right, but his best friends are on the left and he remains a loyal colleague of the powerful Kissinger-CFR team--with whom he meets before engaging in any formal negotiations at the White House. In addition, the Sharon government is a "unity government"--a compromise government composed of both left and right. Historically, such "unity" governments are always represented by token elements of the right, but dominated by the left. As a case in point, Sharon’s Foreign Minister is none other than Israel’s perennial peacenik Shimon Peres, who continues to act as if negotiations with Arafat are within his exclusive domain. I believe that Sharon will ultimately do what the CFR insiders ask him to do--even if it is against the best interests of Israel.

As the summit progresses, keep in mind the campaign promises that got Sharon elected by the largest margin in recent Israeli history: 1) To prevent the creation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan; 2) To refuse to give up any existing Jewish settlements in the West bank or Gaza; 3) To fight Palestinian terrorism without compromise and not negotiate with Arafat while Israel is under fire; and 4) To free Israel from the Oslo "peace process" that has resulted in Arafat amassing millions in funding and stockpiling tons of illegal weapons that have contributed to the current wave of terror and violence.

Even as Sharon was preparing to leave for Washington, he was waffling on his promises and playing to both sides. On one hand, he assured the right that he would hold firm on his commitment to require 7 days of quiet (cessation of all Palestinian violence and terrorist acts) before engaging in negotiations with Arafat. However, this promise has already been broken many times in the past as various negotiations have gone on via semi-official and official channels for months--often with intermediaries--without a single day of quiet. I do hope Sharon holds to this flimsy and easy-to-comply with requirement. It alone has saved Israel from having to comply with numerous other US-enforced compromises. It seems that while the Israeli government seems willing enough to commit military suicide at the behest of its US "ally," the God of Israel keeps intervening on Israel’s behalf by influencing or destabilizing the only party to the conflict who is not (presently) cooperating with the globalist agenda: Yasser Arafat

Although giving Arafat the cold shoulder diplomatically, the US is already engaging in direct talks with Arafat through the new US envoy, former Marine General Anthony Zinni. Zinni’s purpose is to determine Arafat’s parameters of compromise so Bush will know how far he has to push Sharon in the upcoming Summit. Anthony Zinni is a predictable establishment yes-man and reliable trouble-shooter for globalist intervention. He was a former commander of the US Central Command (the major US military command dealing with global intervention). He was in charge during Operation Desert Fox in 1998--Clinton’s "wag the dog" distraction to focus public scrutiny away from his many scandals. Zinni has served in Turkey, northern Iraq, Russia and Kenya--all international billets reserved for Marine or Army officers who show "promise" in the global arena. In 1995, he supervised the withdrawal of US forces from ignoble defeat in Somalia where rebel forces surrounded US soldiers in a botched "peacekeeping" operation mandated by Clinton. When he retired in 2000, he was placed in a predictable "revolving door" position at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, at a six figure salary, awaiting further usefulness to the global agenda.

Sharon knows he will be expected to accede to the main US demand--a Palestinian State--which is also required by his coalition partners on the left in Israel. Despite his campaign promises to the contrary, he says he stands ready to grant Arafat his Palestinian state, albeit a "demilitarized one"--an important qualification, to be sure, but a hollow one. Arafat can rearm with impunity once he gets sovereign status, guaranteed by the international powers. Any subsequent intrusions by Arafat’s terrorists into Israel will have immunity from direct Israeli retaliation. The dreaded safe haven will stand as a permanent bulwark against real peace--as it is intended, I believe.

To give you a clear picture of Sharon’s double-minded posture, notice in the following quote from Arutz-7 how Sharon is preparing his right wing constituency for the "painful concessions" of peace. He is subtly forewarning them that he is about to engage in a sellout. "The Palestinians are, in my opinion, wasting a precious opportunity [with Sharon as Prime Minister]. For to make peace is almost as painful as war, because it will require very painful concessions. It won't be easy for a leader to get up and tell the people what they will have to give up. [This is the sole purpose why the establishment promotes the election of phony conservative leaders--to convince their own constituency what they must "give up" under a crisis created for that purpose--something a left-wing leader could not do as well], but I think I can do it. It will require a national-unity government, of course; otherwise it will be very hard. [The fact that Sharon never tried to form a government exclusively on the right tells us that he wanted a leftist coalition in order to be "forced" to concede, in the name of compromise, to things he could not justify on his own.] At the end of the process, after we pass through this period of no terrorism and quiet and co-existence and cooperation in various areas, at the end we will reach a solution that has a Palestinian state - but it has to be by agreement, and it has to be demilitarized, and it has to have other aspects that we require in order for us to exist." [These presumed conditions just mentioned are always added to help assuage the Israeli right that their security will be assured later on. Sadly this never happens, but then it’s too late to go back and undo the bad agreement. That is exactly what happened with the Oslo accords.]

Let’s look at another example--a Sharon spokesman waffling on the settlements issue. Arutz-7's Haggai Segal spoke with Cabinet Secretary Gideon Sa'ar, who is accompanying Sharon to the US:

Sa'ar: "Look, the Americans have an idea of what the Prime Minister sees for a long-term interim agreement in which Israel retains the security zones, Jerusalem, the settlements."

A-7: "All the settlements?"

Sa'ar: [Watch him waffle] "Uh, yes, uh, we are not, uh, talking about, uh, about settlements which, as is known, is a topic for the final-status agreement [meaning that the settlements are up for grabs in the next round of negotiations]."

A-7: "I remember Sharon saying clearly before the election that not one settlement would be evacuated, but since he took office, I don't recall him repeating that promise." [This interviewer isn’t going to let Sa’ar off the hook]

Sa'ar: "The entire subject of Yesha communities and their final status is a topic for the final-status talks." [Like a good diplomat, Sa’ar knows how to evade the crucial answer--he repeats the put-off.]

Bush and Sharon are also likely to talk about possible US attacks on Iraq or occupied Lebanon, the next targets in the presumed "war on terrorism," and how Israel should respond. Keep in mind that during the Gulf War, Israel was specifically told to stay out of the war, and was even pressured by the US not to retaliate when Iraq dropped 35 scud missiles on Tel Aviv. The US may need Israel’s active participation in this next round since none of the Arab states are willing to allow the US to use their territory as a base to attack other Arab states. Syria and Saudi Arabia have specifically warned the US about bombing any cities in Iraq. It has not been lost on the Arab states that the US promised President Musharraf of Pakistan that the US military would only bomb Taliban positions outside cities, and then bombed the cities anyway. Any attack on Iraqi cities will undo all of this presumed coalition building with the Arabs that is the stated basis for the current summit.

EGYPT ACQUIRING MORE MISSILES

While Egypt is continuing to buy more Russian arms in anticipation of the coming Middle East war (which will put Egypt at odds with the US), Russia does not want to be seen providing missiles to Egypt or other Arab nations, preferring to use China and North Korea as intermediaries. After all, Russia claims to be part of the US war against terrorism and is a nominal member of the non-proliferation club--I say "nominal" because Russia is the most egregious violator of its principles, followed by China. US intelligence claimed to be shocked to find out (via the French and South Koreans) that a secret deal has been consummated between Egypt and North Korea to provide Egypt with a new range of medium range Rodong ballistic missiles. Actually, Israeli intelligence already knew and alerted the US first. The Rodong has a range of 600 miles which allows it to target all of Israel. How many more violations of North Korea’s agreement with Clinton has to occur before the US engages in serious sanctions? The US will, of course, protest verbally, but there will be no sanctions on North Korea, and Egypt will still get its annual $1.3 billion in US military aid.

ANTHRAX AN INSIDE JOB?

Reuters of Germany posted the following: "The anthrax attacks in the United States were probably the work of a member of a US biological warfare program, the magazine of environment pressure group Greenpeace Germany reported Wednesday. The magazine said its article was based on information from a US delegation source at the UN biological weapons conference in Geneva that began last week. ‘The US delegation believe it is an inside job. Their members also have more information than has been made public,’ Kirsten Brodde, a reporter for the magazine, told Reuters. The magazine said: ‘It seems the attacker ... wanted to force through an increase in the budget for US research on biological weapons.’"

Some of the anthrax cases do show evidence of being planted by government: 1) Congress was targeted specifically at times when it was considering legislation on terrorism (giving government new and draconian powers to invade anyone’s privacy without a warrant). Until the anthrax episodes, and there had been no legitimate terrorism as a follow-up to the 9/11 attacks to induce Congress to pass such an egregious attack on constitutional rights. 2) Government agents have the easiest access to this type of military-produced, inhalatory anthrax. 3) The contaminated letter received at the Brentwood facility in Washington DC was covered with powder on the outside of the envelop and yet there was no trail of anthrax illness or death along the supposed chain of transmission. Surely the postal workers who collected the letter at the point of mailing as well as those who trucked it to Washington would have been exposed. Absence of any contamination trail outside Brentwood is good evidence the letter was planted directly inside Brentwood by a government insider. 4) If the anthrax attack was carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists, why target liberal Congressmen and two liberal news anchors who are pro-Palestinian? Real terrorists would have been much more likely to have dropped anthrax letters indiscriminately around the nation to initiate much more panic and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

I do not buy the argument planted by the US bio-weapons delegation in Geneva and promulgated by Greenpeace Germany--that some government employee wanted to induce more research money for biological weapons research. These secret government operations have nearly unlimited secret budgets anyway. Open budget allocations wouldn’t affect any particular employee’s salary one way or the other. A loyal employee isn’t going to risk killing hundreds of people over something that won’t even benefit him--unless he is ordered to do so by higher authority. This is typical of the way of thinking in leftist organizations like Greenpeace--that all things evil in Capitalism or in American government center around money (which is only partly true).

If the anthrax scare is a government induced panic, it would more likely be geared towards inducing support for more government power--which has certainly been the primary result. Indeed, there may be more plantings of biological agents (smallpox, etc.) because whoever benefits isn’t through with increasing government power. The upcoming bill on the National Health Act promises to be much worse--including power to quarantine, sanction or otherwise coerce people into a forced vaccination program against their will. Vaccines are not only very dangerous to the immune system, but they are a huge money-maker for insider-connected drug companies who are granted complete immunity by government from repercussions over any adverse reactions experienced by the consumer. Not only does government suppress knowledge of adverse reactions, but no one affected is allowed to sue the government or the manufacturer for death and injurious effects.

Beware also of running out and loading up on Cipro as an antibiotic preventative against anthrax. This broad based anti-biotic has a long history of serious and damaging side-effects, including chronic neural disorders. Never take antibiotics as a preventative. Load up instead on natural immune system boosters such as Vitamin C, garlic, and certain herbal formulas. Of course, for these to be effective you must also eat moderately, and cut out all junk food and drink (which you should do anyway).

RUSSIANS MOVE BACK INTO KABUL

This week, without UN permission (but with silent US cooperation), the first contingent of Russian military officers from the Russian Ministry for Emergency Situations (sounds like a military version of FEMA) moved back into Kabul, Afghanistan on a piece of ground near the Bulgarian Embassy. How ironic: after US and Pakistani-backed Mujahedeen guerrillas drove the Russians out of Afghanistan 12 years ago, the US has paved the way for a Russian return. A Russian spokesman said they were invited back by the Northern Alliance. Who’s kidding whom? Russia controls the Northern Alliance and is their primary backer. I’m sure no invitation was necessary. Russia claims that its mission is to provide humanitarian aid, but this is just a cover. Most observers don’t expect Russia to ever leave, even when the humanitarian mission is over. The pattern is the same as in Kosovo: Russia joins the international coalition to cover for its hegemonic intentions, moves in without permission and then never leaves. International authorities wring their hands and finally resign themselves to accommodate the new "reality on the ground."

According to reports, the Russian presence drew a lot of crowds, none of whom were happy to see the old enemy setting up camp again. According to one reporter, "For Russians and Afghans, the arrival of forces sent by Moscow evoked painful memories. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to ensure a friendly communist regime on its southern border [true then and still true today], but found itself mired in a devastating war that cost it 15,000 military casualties. The last Soviet troops withdrew in disgrace in 1989, leaving behind a chaotic political situation and a civil war that rages to this day. But both sides insisted the world is different now. ‘From that time, the government has changed, the ideology has changed, even the purpose of coming has changed,’ said a Russian officer who identified himself as the group leader here in Kabul and gave only his first name, Vyacheslav. ‘We have already forgotten what happened then.’" [Don’t count on it]
 
 

(Ed. Note: We thank Joel Skousen for allowing his insights to be reprinted in part at Web Today. For access to his complete weekly columns, available by subscription, we refer you to his homepage http://www.joelskousen.com)

WebToday columnists are available for talk show interviews.
Please contact Special Guests for availability