Tuesday, 8 June 2010

The US Foreign Policy: Disarm the Muslim World and Arm the Israelis

By disarming the Muslim countries one by one, the neo-conservative US policy serves the Israeli objective of ‘securing’ its expanding borders, which at present is confined to building settlements (land theft) in the occupied territories. When this episode is forgotten, Israel will try to occupy another piece of land using the pretext of security, no doubt the world will be told, Israel was compelled to act in self-defence; thus, creeping towards its ultimate dream of creating Eretz (greater) Israel that runs from the Nile, to the Euphrates. The latest attempts to intimidate nuclear-free Iran by nuclear Israel, reflects that long term Israeli ambition.

Here are the facts:

  • Iran has not attacked any of its neighbours over the last 60 years, unlike belligerent Israel.
  • Iran is a signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) treaty, and has no nuclear weapons.
  • With the direct help of the US, Israel has been armed with nuclear weapons, and the power of its conventional forces continues to increase in relation to the surrounding countries.
  • Israel continues to build more settlement in the occupied territories, openly violating the UN resolutions in place.
  • In direct contravention of International Law, Israel denies the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and concurrently permits any Jews to come and settle in occupied Palestine.
  • In addition to state terrorism, the inhumane and illegal blockade of Gaza has turned it into an open concentration camp, and corroborates Israel’s brutal policy of ethnic cleansing.
  • Israel refuses to become a signatory of the NPT, and denies the international inspection of its nuclear weapons.
  • Recently, United Nations ratified a resolution aimed at creating a Middle East without any nuclear weapons, which is casually ignored by Israel.
  • All the 189 signatories to the NPT agreed for the establishment of a Middle East without nuclear weapons. For this purpose, they have called on all Middle East nations to attend a conference to be held in 2012. Israel has confirmed they will not participate in this collective peace process.
  • The agreement also, stressed "the importance of Israel's accession to the treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards." Israel will not sign the NPT treaty.

Israel and the US oppose this unified move from the International community, the same old excuse of Israel’s security, and it rants about the ‘threat’ from nuclear-free Iran. Over the years, the numerous military adventures undertaken by Israel have proven that its conventional force provides adequate security, not to mention, the mighty US is always ready to help should Israel need it.

Therefore, what does Israel do? It sends two of its submarine equipped with nuclear weapons to the coast of Iran. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons with its record of disproportionately killing Arab civilians is not a problem for the US. Why should it be? The US has excelled in that arena. As for Israel, it continues to commit state-terrorism, assassination, and now piracy in international waters; from Ban Ki Moon to Obama and every other western leader looks on with regret after regret, whilst privileged Israel continues to ignore and plead the usual ‘argument’ of: we are victims acting in self-defence.

After disarming Iraq, the first step towards disarming Iran is to ensure that it remains nuclear-free, whilst helping Israel to increase its strength. Power in international arena is always relative. That would leave Turkey as the only other Muslim country in the region. Perhaps, Turkey has spotted that, even as a NATO ally it too will be subjected to the same US-Israeli policy eventually and the noise is being made about saving the Armenians are ominous. This may partly explain why nationalist Turkey has have started to take a radically different stance on its relationship with Israel and the Arab countries, in recent times.

Yamin Zakaria
Published on 08/06/2010
London, UK


  1. very well written piece on israeli occupation.
    iqbal soofi

  2. Ominous indeed.

    In spite of the Turks being seemingly very secularised, the Europeans and North Americans still remember the Turks (and indeed Ummah) for what it was. That bogeyman outside our gates. The ‘friendship’ offered to the Turks is a feigned one. Once the conflict against Iran is opened and Pakistan destabilised from within and outside, this leaves Turkey.

    Other ominous signs are that the collapse of Muslim power was always when Muslims fought each other. Similar to the example of when the Children of Israel fought each other and then terrible foes in the form of Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans invaded and humiliated them at different times.

    One wonders if the Muslims take note of how the Turkish army has repressed Kurds? Whilst Kurds took up arms in 1991, these Kurdish groups then turned to civil war against each other. Muslim Turkey invaded Muslim Iraq (autonomous region of Kurdistan). Turkey and Syria came at loggerheads against each other. Iraq invaded Iran and precipitated 8 years of futile conflict. The U.S policy makers were delighted and hoped both sides would continue to kill each other whilst arming both belligerents. Eventually events caught up with the Muslims and matters got from bad to worse post 1990.

    Syria and Jordan at one time even had armies facing each other after Jordan’s truce with Israel. Hence one by one Muslim states faced defeat. The debacle in Lebanon and expulsion of the PLO and hostility of the Maronites only added to the calamity. Syria recently was attacked by missiles and threatened by the N.A.T.O states. Pakistan is a powerful state and yet even this country is not immune from N.A.T.O threats. So why should Turkey be any different? A leaked map show how Turkey’s borders would probably be rearranged.

    As for the Armenians, well like the Bulgarians and Greeks, they were caught up in the sub-plots of Tsarist Russia and British designs in the Balkans and Caucasus. Russia sponsored some Armenian groups in fighting the Ottomans. Austria-Hungary was trying to expand its influence in the Balkans, following defeat to Italian nationalists. Serbia was a new challenge to Austrian authority (ironically the Austrians supported Serbian independence from the Ottomans). Hence, the Austrians faced their ultimate demise due to sponsoring Serbia initially. The belligerency in Britain was ‘baiting the Turk’ following the crimes in Bulgaria and Armenia. Orthodox Russia (defender of Orthodox peoples) had an eye on the Mediterranean to keep British designs in check. Germany was worried about the Balkans turning into a powder keg and ruining the alliance of Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary. Britain was eager to finally destroy what little remained of the Caliphate, and get Persian/Mesopotamian oil.

    Then the powder keg all blew up …