Nog voordat zij strijd moeten leveren, hebben Geert Mak en de Makkianen al gecapituleerd. Collaboratie met de macht is het geconditioneerde reflex van de karakterlozen.
US drone strikes could be classed as war crimes, says Amnesty International.
Joint report with Human Rights Watch judges US attacks in Yemen and Pakistan to have broken international human rights law.
US officials responsible for the secret CIA drone campaign against suspected terrorists in Pakistan may have committed war crimes and should stand trial, a report by a leading human rights group warns. Amnesty International has highlighted the case of a grandmother who was killed while she was picking vegetables and other incidents which could have broken international laws designed to protect civilians…
Amnesty… rejected a 'global war doctrine' that allows the US to attack al-Qaida anywhere in the world.
'To accept such a policy would be to endorse state practices that fundamentally undermine crucial human rights protections that have been painstakingly developed over more than a century of international law-making,' the report said.
Jon Boone. The Guardian. 22 oktober 2013
Door het dagelijks bombardement van triviale nonsens en relevante informatie zonder context, creëren de westerse commerciële massamedia een chaotisch wereldbeeld, waardoor het nagenoeg onmogelijk wordt te bepalen op welk punt de mensheid staat. Desondanks slagen sommige verstandige mensen er nog steeds in om verbanden te leggen tussen sterk uiteenlopende feiten. Zo weet de Britse geleerde John Gray in zijn boek False Dawn. The Delusions of Global Capitalism (2009) de stand van zaken helder te beschrijven:
Like Britain, whose global position became untenable long before it was destroyed in the course of the Second World War, America continues to act as if it can lead the world while its power is inexorably leaking away…
The days of the dollar as the world's reserve currency are numbered. Why should America's creditors continue to lend to a country bent on debauching (verbrassen. svh) its currency and thereby devaluing their investments? […]
The very idea of decline is taboo nowadays — as soon as any warning signs are evident, it is believed, the trend can be reversed. But great powers continue to rise and fall as they have always done, and the impact of the financial crisis extends beyond money and markets. With the unprecedented scale of American indebtedness it is hard to see how the U.S. can continue to project its military power as it did in the post-Cold War period. Will the U.S. be able to afford its faltering Afghan surge without China continuing to buy large quantities of U.S. federal debt? Can the U.S. any longer afford its enormous defense industry? When economic power wanes, military poser normally follows suit…
The collapse that is under way is larger than any in history, and the first to be truly global. It is bound to shake every economy, with results that will include regime change or state failure in a number of countries. China may be the rising power, but is not yet able to exercise anything like global hegemony. The end of the global free market shows no sign of being followed by any new world order. Instead a period of disorderly globalization has begun, in which industrialization will continue against a background of geopolitical conflicts, until it is derailed by a backlash from the planet.
De mens is momenteel getuige van het begin van een serie geopolitieke conflicten die zoals de geschiedenis aantoont in een rampzalige wereldoorlog kan eindigen. De filosoof Immanuel Kant mocht dan wel aan het eind van de achttiende eeuw hebben gedacht dat democratieën niet snel of zelfs nooit een grote oorlog zouden beginnen omdat de consequenties ervan vernietigend waren voor de stemgerechtigde burger zelf, maar in zijn
hypothesis, Kant had overlooked one scenario: what would happen if one found a means to replace citizen-soldiers by other instruments of warfare? This unexpected option entailed preservation by substitution,
aldus de Franse filosoof Grégoire Chamayou in zijn boek Drone Theory (2015). Hij merkt op dat:
It was a solution that had already been attempted, albeit with means still rudimentary, in the late nineteenth century. Hobson, the great defender of British imperialism, explained in 1902 how parliamentary and colonial regimes could, at little cost, rid themselves of 'dilemmas of militarism.' Rather than sacrifice national lives, in order to defend the empire all that was necessary was to expand it, or to use native forces to carry out the dirty work of putting down the rebellions that were beginning to threaten imperial authority. By allowing the 'mild Hindoo' to straighten things out, the lower classes in Britain would be able to avoid conscription. As a result of delegating in this way to the 'lower races' of the empire, the 'new imperialism' effected a class compromise within the metropolis — and this presented the added advantage of mostly averting popular antipathy toward the colonial adventures.
Dit laatste ontdekte de Amerikaanse elite tot haar eigen schade en schande pas tijdens de Vietnam-oorlog in de jaren zestig en zeventig van de vorige eeuw, toen ook de westerse middenklasse zich tegen het bloedbad van deze voor de VS verloren oorlog keerde. Chamayou:
Hobson warned that all this went hand in hand with a different kind of political danger: 'Through reducing the strain of militarism upon the population at home, it enhances the risks of wars, which become more frequent and more barbarous in proportion as they involve to a less degree the lives of Englishmen. In short, as Lord Salisbury had declared a few years earlier, India could certainly serve Great Britain 'as an English barrack in Oriental seas from which we may draw any number of troops without paying form them. It is bad for England because it is always bad for us not to have that check upon the temptation to engage in little wars which can only be controlled by the necessity of paying for them.'
As soon as the costs of war become an external matter, the very theoretical model that proclaimed the arrival of a democratic pacifism begins to predict the opposite: a democratic militarism. When it came to approving or rejecting going to war, citizens who were now immunized against the vital demands of warfare found themselves in more or less the same position as the shallow sovereign whose irresponsibility Kant deplored. As for their leaders, they at last had a free hand.
When freed from the constraints attached to the mobilization of human combatants, a sovereign could do precisely what Kant wished to avoid: he could 'lead them into war as he would take them on a hunt, and into battles as on a pleasure trip.' Once warfare became ghostly and tele guided, citizens, who no longer risked their lives, would no longer even have a say in it.
Whether the risks of war are transferred to natives or to machines, Hobson's views still hold. The dronization of the armed forces, just like any other procedure that externalizes those risks, alters the conditions of decision making in warfare. Because the threshold of recourse to violence is drastically lowered, violence tends to be seen as the default option for foreign policy,
waarbij het begrip 'default option' concreet betekent: een optie die automatisch de voorkeur geniet bij gebrek aan een alternatief. Zolang de Europese en Amerikaanse burger geen consequenties (blowback) hoefde te vrezen van het westerse geweld en de westerse terreur elders kon het Europa van 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' en de VS van Washington en Wall Street ongestoord hun gang gaan. Dat is de precies de reden waarom de NAVO, in 1949 opgericht om de Sovjet Unie te isoleren, na de val van het communisme niet is opgeheven maar juist is uitgebreid en steeds verder oostwaarts kan oprukken. Dit is allemaal in het geheim voorbereid en niet democratisch beslist via publieke debatten of een serieuze politieke discussie. Het is tevens de reden waarom de schurkenstaat Israel, dat met steun van Brussel en Washington doorgaat met het bezetten en stelen van Palestijns land, nu moeiteloos onderdeel is geworden van de NAVO, terwijl Amnesty International op 27 oktober 2015 voor de zoveelste keer Israel heeft aangeklaagd wegens een 'pattern of unlawful killings,' aangezien:
Israeli forces have carried out a series of unlawful killings of Palestinians using intentional lethal force without justification, said Amnesty International today, based on the findings of an ongoing research trip to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Ondanks de Israelische terreur en de zionistische oorlogsmisdaden weigeren Europa en de VS hiertegen stappen te ondernemen op politiek of militair gebied. Integendeel zelfs de zionistische terreur wordt ieder jaar weer gesteund met tenminste 2 miljard dollar van de VS, terwijl de EU als grootste handelspartner van de 'Joodse staat' haar eigen Associatieverdrag met Israel schendt door de grootschalige Israelische oorlogsmisdaden en schendingen van de mensenrechten niet alleen te accepteren, maar die ook nog eens mogelijk te maken. Bovendien nemen ondermeer de met nucleaire wapens uitgerust Israelische onderzeeboten deel aan NAVO-oefeningen. Het gevolg is dat het imago van het Westen in de rest van de wereld tot een nulpunt is gedaald en 'onze' tegenstanders een tweede front in Europa hebben geopend door daar 'contra-terreur' te plegen, in de verwachting dat de burgerij aldaar begint te beseffen dat zij zich niet langer aan de oorlog kan onttrekken, en haar regering ter verantwoording roept.
Twee maanden nadat op 18 augustus 2015 bekend werd dat 'The Department of Defense is planning to significantly grow the United States’ notorious drone assassination and surveillance program over the next four years,' lekte uit dat tenminste negentig procent van de doden van Amerikaanse drone-aanvallen onschuldige burgers betreft. Hoewel de NAVO en de westerse mainstream-pers deze doden afschrijven als 'bijkomende schade' zijn zij in werkelijkheid slachtoffer van westers terrorisme. Maar die logica geldt voor 'onze' politici en opiniemakers slechts wanneer het gaat om slachtoffers van terreur-aanvallen in het Westen. Daarom wordt de Israelische terreur door het racistische Westen gefinancierd en gedoogd, zoals altijd in de geschiedenis zodra het bondgenoten betreft. Israel is een schurkenstaat die het vuile werk voor het christelijke Westen verricht en daar goed voor wordt betaald. Jonge Joodse soldaten kunnen binnen een dag worden ingezet om de belangen van de westerse elite te dienen. Bovendien zorgt de zionistische terreur voor een permanente spanning in het Midden-Oosten, waardoor het westers militair-industrieel complex miljarden aan wapens kan blijven leveren. Overal in de wereld waar de bevolking geterroriseerd moet worden, van Latijns-Amerika tot Afrika en de Arabische wereld, zijn Israelische militaire instructeurs actief. Zo berichtte op 10 juli 2010 Radio Havana:
During the years of the 'hot war' in Latin America, Israel had a notorious lethal presence in the region. They sent mercenaries, intelligence advisors, torture instructors, and people versed in other savage interrogation methods and selective killings. Israel also sent thousands of tons of weaponry.
In Guatemala, for instance, of the almost 200,000 victims, two-thirds died under fire from Galil rifles or Uzi machineguns; or by bombs dropped by Araba or Pilatus airplanes. Isreali experts also helped set up the telecommunications system of the Guatemalan army. And Israel brought the technology to assemble the Cusuco semi-armored vehicle for troop transport.
The long arm of Israel was felt throughout the rest of Latin America. They teamed up with extreme right military leaders in their effort to wipe out all progressive elements of society, killing thousands of young people in the name of anti-communism.
As of the 1980s, the Israeli presence in Latin America was so disguised that it was one of the best kept secrets, although not all traces had been erased.
Many Latin American countries are still a major market for Israel’s military industry. Throughout the region, there is a proliferation of private security companies which are rooted in Israel, like Global CST, part of the Mikal Group and rated as the second largest arms manufacturer in Israel. Global CST has signed a 10 million dollar agreement to train the Peruvian army; and it claimed responsibility for the rescue operation of former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt.
De Israelische strijdkrachten zijn dermate bruikbaar voor het Westen dat ze stilzwijgend steeds meer geïntegreerd worden in de NAVO-strategie. De journalist Rick Rozoff uit Chicago, directeur van Stop NATO international, berichtte daarover op 17 januari 2010 op de goed geïnformeerde Amerikaanse website GlobalResearch het volgende:
Israel: Global NATO’s 29th Member
As the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is pressuring its 28 member states and dozens of partnership affiliates on five continents to contribute more troops for the war in Afghanistan, the Jerusalem Post reported on January 13 that 'Israel is launching a diplomatic initiative in an effort to influence the outcome of NATO’s new Strategic Concept which is currently under review by a team of experts led by former United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.'
NATO is crafting its updated Strategic Concept to replace that last formulated in 1999, the year of the military bloc’s expansion into Eastern Europe and its first full-fledged war, the 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.
Madeleine Albright, arguably the individual most publicly identified with orchestrating both NATO’s absorption of three former Warsaw Pact members, including her native Czech Republic, and in launching Operation Allied Force, co-chairs NATO’s Group of Experts with Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell until June of 2009.
In addition, 'To ensure close coordination between the Group of Experts and NATO Headquarters, the Secretary General has designated a small NATO team lead by Dr. Jamie Shea, head of Policy Planning Unit, to function as a secretariat and staff support.' Shea was NATO spokesman in 1999 and is now Director of Policy Planning in the Private Office of the Secretary General at NATO Headquarters.
Last October 1 NATO and Lloyd’s of London ('the world’s leading insurance market' in its own words) co-organized a conference in London to unveil and promote the new Strategic Concept. Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of NATO and Lloyd’s chairman Lord Peter Levene (als joodse Brit een invloedrijke zionist. svh) delivered the major addresses.
Host Levene conjured up 'a myriad of determined and deadly threats' that required NATO intervention worldwide and Rasmussen itemized no fewer than eighteen of those –- none remotely resembling a military attack on or challenge to a single member state.
Recently Madeleine Albright (als joods Amerikaanse een invloedrijke zionist. svh) has been traveling to several European capitals to preside over a series of seminars on the updated Strategic Concept and the latest of those, in Oslo, Norway on January 13, was attended by officials from the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
In preparation for the above meeting 'Several weeks ago, a former senior Israeli diplomat met privately with Albright to discuss Israeli interests in the concept that is under review.'
The same source added the following background information:
'Israeli-NATO ties have increased dramatically in recent years. Chairman of the Military Committee, Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola visited Israel in November, and the Israeli Navy has announced plans to deploy a missile ship with Active Endeavour, a NATO mission to patrol the Mediterranean Sea…
'Israel is also seeking to receive an upgraded status following the conclusion of the Strategic Concept review that will enable Israeli officials to participate in top NATO forums… Israel is a member of the Mediterranean Dialogue, which was created in 1994 to foster ties with Middle Eastern countries like Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Morocco.'
By 2000 NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue had expanded to include seven nations in the Middle East and Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.
1994 was the same year that the North Atlantic bloc launched the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. Both partnerships were inaugurated only three years after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the breakup of the Soviet Union left not only Eastern Europe but the Middle East, Africa and Asia open to Western military penetration and expansion.
The Partnership for Peace has included all fifteen former Soviet and all six former Yugoslav federal republics as well as all non-Soviet Warsaw Pact members. Twelve of those – Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia – became full NATO members in the decade ending last year after passing through the PfP.
In addition, the program takes in all former neutral, non-aligned states in Europe except for Cyprus: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and Switzerland. Malta withdrew from the PfP in 1996 but was reabsorbed in 2008. Pro-U.S. parties in the Cypriot parliament are waging an all-out campaign to drag their nation into the program.
Except for Malta, only recently reentering the PfP, the six nations listed above have sent troop contingents of varying sizes to Afghanistan to serve under NATO command. The only countries in all of Europe (excluding the microstates of Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City), including the Caucasus, that have not offered troops for the Afghan war front to date are Russia, Belarus, Serbia, Malta, Moldova and Cyprus.
At its 2004 summit in Istanbul, Turkey the largest single expansion of NATO in its history occurred as seven states were brought in as full members, all in Eastern Europe and including the first former Soviet and former Yugoslav republics recruited as full members of the Alliance.
The Istanbul summit also lent itself to another, similarly ambitious, project: The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI). The ICI purposed to elevate the seven Mediterranean Dialogue partners to a status analogous to that of the Partnership for Peace and to consolidate military ties with the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (op Bahrain na, alle oliestaten. svh).
Since Algeria joined the Mediterranean Dialogue in 2000, Montenegro became an independent state in 2006 and joined the Partnership for Peace the same year, and Malta rejoined the latter two years later, every Mediterranean littoral and island nation except –- for the moment –- Cyprus, Lebanon, Libya and Syria is either a NATO member or partner. The Mediterranean Dialogue also allows NATO to stretch down the Atlantic Coast of Africa to Morocco and Mauritania.
If the accession of new members and the Partnership for Peace provided NATO with outposts on Russia’s borders (Azerbaijan, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine) and on China’s (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative has allowed for the further encirclement of Iran by moving Alliance influence and military presence into the Persian Gulf.
Of the thirteen Middle Eastern and African nations targeted by it, Israel is the one that most immediately and substantively seized on the opportunity the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative offered.
Israelische Oorlogsmisdaden. http://www.daysofpalestine.com/news/forget-israeli-war-crimes-gaza/
The enhanced status of the Mediterranean Dialogue led within months of the Istanbul NATO summit to Israel engaging in Alliance activities for the first time.
On February 24, 2005 Jaap de Hoop Scheffer became the first NATO secretary general to visit Israel and the next month 'Israel and NATO conducted their first ever joint naval exercise in the Red Sea, signalling a strengthening of relations.' An Alliance naval group visited the Israeli Red Sea port of Eilat for a week-long visit, 'which included a joint exercise with the Israel Navy.'
As Britain’s Jane’s Defence Weekly reported, 'The novelty in the exercise was the fact it was conducted with NATO ships, which operate regularly in the Mediterranean, but rarely visit the Red Sea.'
In May of the same year it was announced that 'Israel plans to stage three military exercises with NATO during 2005. Israeli officials said the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has submitted a plan to NATO that would include the staging of three exercises with Israel’s military over the next 10 months. They said the exercises would take place at NATO headquarters in Brussels…'
An Israeli official was cited as saying, 'We have no doubt that Israel will gain immensely from closer ties with NATO, and we also believe that Israel has much to offer NATO in return.'
In the same month a planning conference for 'NATO-led military exercises in the framework of the Partnership for Peace' program was held in Macedonia and was 'attended by representatives of over 20 countries, including, for the first time, two countries from the so-called Mediterranean Dialogue – Israel and Jordan.'
Jane’s again: 'Whereas Israel’s geopolitical location could offer an "external base" for the defence of the West, NATO’s military and economic status could provide added security and economic benefits for the host state. In a rapidly changing strategic environment, Israeli policy makers are recognising definite advantages, especially in security affairs, in developing closer ties with NATO. The present Israeli government’s enthusiasm for this project can be seen in an ambitious set of proposals submitted to the Alliance,' which included ''joint military training [and] future joint development of weapons systems.''
In June 'The Israeli navy participated for the first time in a NATO submarine exercise in the Gulf of Taranto off the Italian coast,' Sorbet Royal 2005. 'Israel was seeking to extend its strategic alliance with NATO beyond what is offered to its Mediterranean cooperation group, even up to full membership of NATO.'
According to an Israeli account before the war games began, '14 nations and about 2,000 forces are to spend the next three weeks hunting for four submarines resting on the ocean floor…'
In July of 2005 Israeli ground troops participated in a NATO military exercise for the first time, a 22-nation training mission in Ukraine that lasted for two and a half weeks. 'The drill dealt mainly with antiterrorism combat and low-intensity conflict, but it also symbolized an increasing participation of Israeli forces in NATO.'
Israeli Colonel Alon Friedman said on the occasion that 'There have been senior commanders who have gone to NATO events as well as consultants, but never combatants like this.' The Jerusalem Post reported that 'Friedman said he was not privy to the diplomatic moves to get the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] more involved in NATO, but he understood the initiative came from NATO.'
By the following year the level of collaboration between the world’s sole military bloc and Israel had increased further. A column appeared at an Israeli news site on February 1 called 'Is Israel headed for NATO?' authored by Uzi Arad. Arad established the Atlantic Forum of Israel in 2004 and still chairs the organization. The Atlantic Forum is the main vehicle for promoting NATO-Israel integration on the Israeli side. It’s website, currently under construction, features a Star of David side-by-side with the NATO symbol.
Uzi Arad has an interesting biography, both before and after the founding of the Atlantic Forum. He was the Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from 1997-1999 'on secondment from the Mossad, in which he served for more than two decades, culminating in his tenure as Director of Research (Intelligence).' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi_Arad. svh) He has also been Advisor to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
Complications developed last year when was 'designated to become chairman of the National Security Council under Netanyahu,' but 'The press in Washington… reported that Arad had been refused permission to enter the country' because of 'his alleged contacts with Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, who has been convicted of passing information to Israel.' By the end of last March the Obama administration nevertheless approved his visa application for discussions in Washington on Iran.
An Israeli newspaper described his major project: 'Working closely with NATO, the Atlantic Forum of Israel seeks to promote and enhance Israel’s relations and standing with the Atlantic Alliance and has played an important role in advancing this relationship.'
In the aforementioned article of Arad’s in February of 2006 he wrote 'For the past two years, cooperation between Israel and NATO has become closer, to a certain degree –- both on a multilateral level, within the Mediterranean Dialogue, and on a bilateral level, directly with NATO.'
He added that 'Last year, Israeli Ambassador [to the European Union in Brussels and envoy to NATO] Oded Eran submitted an official proposal for increasing cooperation, and since the visit of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to Israel last June, NATO and Israel have been negotiating over completing the multilateral cooperation plan. Israel consented, and announced its willingness to participate in Operation Active Endeavor, which is being conducted in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the alliance’s counter-terrorism effort. It also took part in three military exercises and hosted a conference of air force commanders from NATO and its partners.'
A feature in the Wall Street Journal a few days after Arad’s article appeared, 'NATO, Israel Draw Closer,' quoted Arad as asserting: 'The only thing worse than Israel being a member of NATO may be Israel not being a member of NATO.' It also mentioned another prime mover in fostering the Israel-NATO nexus, one on the U.S. (and European) end. 'Ronald Asmus, a senior State Department official during the Clinton administration who is credited by Mr. Arad with being an "intellectual godfather" of closer NATO-Israel links, says arguments against membership remind him of the initial opposition to NATO enlargement to former Soviet bloc states or the alliance assuming its first missions beyond Europe.'
In verband met de lengte stop ik hier. Volgende keer meer over de nauwe samenwerking tussen de NAVO en Israel, de zionistische staat die weigert het internationaal recht te respecteren en doorgaat met de terreur tegen de Palestijnse bevolking. De NAVO, die zichzelf prijst vanwege 'humanitair ingrijpen' en 'responsibility to protect' steunt in werkelijkheid de Israelische politiek van de langdurige bezetting en zelfs de roof van Palestijns land, door de zionistische extremisten in staat te stellen 'to participate in Operation Active Endeavor, which is being conducted in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the alliance’s counter-terrorism effort.' Met andere woorden de terreurstaat mag deelnemen aan NAVO-oefeningen, die, let op, gericht zijn tegen 'terrorisme.' Geen ander voorbeeld maakt duidelijker waar het de NAVO werkelijk om gaat. Het doel van het militair bondgenootschap is geenszins het bestrijden van terrorisme, maar het beschermen van de belangen van de neoliberale elite. En daarom mag de terroristische huurlingenstaat Israel meedoen, zonder dat één van de westerse politici hier in het openbaar actie tegen onderneemt. De neoliberale 'democratie' weet precies waar haar grenzen liggen. En dit is precies de reden waarom er in de toekomst meer aanslagen in het Westen zullen worden gepleegd. De westerling kan niet ongestraft terrorisme blijven steunen en op hetzelfde moment pretenderen dat hij terrorisme afwijst. Zo simpel ligt het.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten