#EndlessWar #ArmsTrade: The #Neocon #WarOnTerror cannot be Understood without #Israel

THE NEOCON WAR ON TERROR CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT ISRAEL | coolnessofhind | 23  

The recent events in Palestine have brought attention to the brutal actions of Zionist entity against both the people in the form of ethnic cleansing and bombardment, and their religious sanctity through the violent incursions against Masjid Al-Aqsa.

These events represent an epicentre for broader reverberations across the Islamic world, but not in the most apparent sense.

Of course, the situation in Palestine continues to cause much pain to Muslims globally despite the treacherous schemes of the likes of Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ) and Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS). In contrast to the aims of their repressive agenda, these events have rekindled the fire in the hearts of Muslims for Al-Aqsa and Palestine, both young and old.

However, the connected reverberations we are referring to, and upon which we wish to shed light upon, are ones which have been continually felt over the course of the past two decades through the War on Terror.

From extensive, repressive counterterrorism and counter-extremism frameworks to the destructive interventions in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, the War on Terror’s engagement with Muslims and the Islamic world has been marked by a spectrum of violent modes.

The US is often seen as the initiator of this volatile shift in international relations. However, this is only a part of a complex picture that is intertwined with Muslims in more ways than one. And Israel’s role duly facilitated by neoconservatives, and consequently the Al-Quds Al-Sharif factor, are crucial.

“A Clean Break” from Sanity

To understand this picture, one needs to understand that the neoconservatives are staunchly pro-Israeli and have worked ardently to protect and project Zionist interests.

In 1996, a group of prominent neoconservatives led by Richard Perle (who was caught by the FBI disclosing classified information to Israeli officials in October 1970) produced the policy paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” for the attention of then Israeli Likud party PM Benjamin Netanyahu. This document, as well as influencing the removal of Saddam Hussein, outlined the way in which the areas of Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria could be “remade” by specifically highlighting their “weapons of mass destruction”.

In 1998, pressure was also put on the Clinton administration by neocons like Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, to oust Saddam Hussein. Many of these neocons had “close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security of America] or WINEP [The Washington Near East Policy – set up with support from AIPAC]”. [1]

JINSA has included neocons such as Perle, Michael Ledeen, Muravchik, James Woolsey, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Douglas Feith. On elaborating upon the Zionist/neoconservative roots, Ryan notes, [2]

“JINSA had been established “as a result of the lessons learned from the 1973 Yom Kippur War” in order to communicate with the national security establishment and the general public “to explain the role Israel can and does play in bolstering American interests, as well as the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel.” Here the cross-think-tank links and the key activists were particularly clear, with Cheney, Bolton, Feith, Ledeen, Muravchik, Woolsey, and Perle all affiliated to the organization. At age 23, Feith had helped draft JINSA’s charter in 1973.”

WINEP was similarly born from pro-Israel interests facilitated by neoconservatives:

“WINEP was established in 1985 by Martin Indyk, previously the Research Director at the leading pro-Israel lobby, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Barbi Weinberg, a former Vice President of AIPAC, and was closely aligned with AIPAC from its inception. (As of 2006, fourteen members of the 100-plus Board of Trustees had served on the AIPAC executive board and some were founders or Directors of pro-Israel Political Action Committees.) …

“WINEP’s advisory board and list of scholars also included some neoconservatives… Woolsey, Perle, and Wolfowitz were all on the WINEP board. Muravchik and Pipes both served as Adjunct Scholars. Rubin became a WINEP Adjunct Scholar in 1999. (WINEP also included three others on the MEF [the Middle East Forum – a neoconservative group headed by Daniel Pipes]

advisory board: Robert Satloff, Patrick Clawson, and Jonathan Schanzer)… WINEP was one of the first think tanks to call for regime change in Iraq in a 1996 report by a study group that included Bolton, Rodman, Dobriansky, Feith, and Zalamy Khalilzad.” [3]

When the US had what the Project for New American Century (PNAC) neoconservatives would call a “new Pearl Harbor” in the form of 9/11, the picture presented of the Middle East to the US was an Israeli one. Israeli-US intelligence cooperation was at unprecedented levels. According to one Israeli general, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non‐conventional capabilities.” [4]

The USA Todayreported in late 2002 that Israel was “secretly playing a key role in U.S. preparations for possible war with Iraq, helping to train soldiers and Marines for urban warfare, conducting clandestine surveillance missions in the western Iraqi desert and allowing the United States to place combat supplies in Israel”.

Meanwhile, American neoconservatives were in full force to push the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq.  Indeed, within the US, “a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party” were the “driving force” behind the Iraq war. This band of pro-Israeli neoconservatives included Scooter Libby, Bernard Lewis, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz who is “committed to Israel”, was described during the Bush era as the “the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the Administration”. [5] He had been an advocate of the Iraq war for decades. The Wolfowitz Doctrine was the informal name of the 1990s policy devised under then US Defense Secretary Wolfowitz by his deputy Libby, his aid Zalmay Khalilzad and with consultation with Perle, among others. The policy articulated an American imperialist unipolarity, and the doctrine of pre-emption, where threats are taken out before they emerge.

Pre-emption

With Wolfowitz taking up a key position in Bush administration, his doctrine became the Bush doctrine.

The doctrine of pre-emption undergirded both the invasion of Iraq and the counter-terror policies that were being architected in parallel. And the engine driving the terrorism smokescreen, however tenuous, was fuelled by neoconservative Israel-cheerleaders right from the inceptive period:

“On September 20, a group of prominent neoconservatives and their allies published another open letter, telling the President that “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9/11] attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.The letter also reminded Bush that, “Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism.”” [6]

This threat of terrorism was hyped up at the expense of more cataclysmic threats.

In 2004, a secret report produced by the Pentagon concluded that the “threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism”. This report was suppressed by US defence chiefs amongst whom at that time was the notorious neocon and advocate of the doctrine of pre-emption in the terrorism sphere, Paul Wolfowitz. Also present during that period was the US vice president and CEO of oil field services corporation Halliburton, Dick Cheney. He lobbied for the US to leave the Kyoto protocol, an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.

Despite these machinations becoming increasingly public from the very beginning of the War on Terror, the neoconservatives have continued to operate in the realm of “security”. In recent years, this has meant lobbying by neoconservative in a political landscape that has shifted, aligning Israel with the UAE.

The “Arab Neocons”, Israel and counter-extremism

In 2017, hacked emails showed that UAE was growing its relationship with the pro-Israel, neoconservative think tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). FDD’s positions have followed those of the Likud party and its former leader, Netanyahu, “not just on the Iran deal, but on the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the desirability of a two-state solution.” This is hardly surprising given the think-tank “arose out of an organization committed to burnishing Israel’s reputation in the United States” and was originally set up in April 2001 by three major pro-Israel donors under the name EMET (Hebrew for “truth”).

The FDD has been important in facilitating the neoconservative worldview in the Middle East through the “Arab neocon” MBZ.  In 2017, hacked emails showed scheduled meetings between the FDD and UAE officials, including MBZ, to discuss UAE policies on Iran and associated policies including, “political, economic, military, intelligence, and cyber tools.”

In the same, year, London-based Centre for Public Affairs revealed that the UAE spent around $5.3 million funding an anti-Qatar “UAE-AIPAC Conference” that aimed to prove “Qatar’s sponsorship of terrorism groups”. In addition to three pro-Israeli politicians, on the panel was Founder and Executive Director of the pro-Israeli neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (HJS – discussed further below), Alan Mendoza.

MBZ has since forged the path for the signing of the Abraham Accords: Arab “normalisation” of relations with Israel at the expense of Al-Quds and the Al-Aqsa Masjid. This was publicly acknowledged as an achievement for Israel by Netanyahu, much to the disgrace of Arab leaders:

“[The] Abraham Accords enabled us to get out of the equation of land for peace to peace for peace, and we did not give up a span.”

The alignment between UAE and Israel, and neoconservatives extends to the policy of repression of any Islamic expression that professes a political slant.

In 2014, it was reported that the UAE was enlisting the services of an American consulting firm, Camstoll Group, to attack Qatar for its support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Camstoll Group consisted of neoconservatives, including notorious pro-Israeli neocon Islamophobe Steve Emerson, who used their contacts to pump anti-Qatar propaganda:

“Their strategy was clear: target neocon/pro-Israel writers such as the Daily Beast‘s Eli Lake, Free Beacon‘s Alana Goodman, Iran-contra convict Elliott Abrams, The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin, and American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin – all eager to promote the Qatar-funds-terrorists line being pushed by Israel.”

The focus of this attack has been ideological suppression through the counter-terror lingua franca.

Indeed, the UAE has been at the forefront, alongside the UK, in globally promoting the ideology-centred Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda through the Global Counterterrorism Forum on Countering Violent Extremism, Hedayah Center for CVE and the Sawab Centre. These hubs have been in turn influenced by the London-based, pro-Israeli, neoconservative Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD – we return to ISD further below).

In 2016, the UAE endorsed the highly questionable UN Resolution to Prevent Violent Extremism. Again, focussing on ideology, Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE’s permanent representative to the UN, said that the initiative should be a blueprint for coordinating efforts to “combat extremism”.

This was in synchrony with Israel’s more emphatic statements on the UN Resolution which, as we shall see further below, have been longstanding since the very inception of the War on Terror. Welcoming the UN Plan of Action, the Zionist entity stated:

“…we must be clear – the real and most basic threat we face is the extremist ideology itself. Thus, if we truly want to defeat violent extremism and terrorism, we must attack radical extremist ideology at its source.”

This was followed a year later by MBZ’s protégé in Saudi, MBS. In line with his Vision 2030 project to promote “moderate Islam”, MBS inaugurated The Global Center for Combatting Extremist Ideology (Etidal) in Riyadh alongside then US President Donald Trump, and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.

The project was picked up by the HJS, with its researcher Najah Al-Otaibi, praising the Vision 2030 initiative as “important”, and calling on the UK to “deepen its ties” with the Saudis and Gulf state into civil society:

“The Crown Prince’s ‘Vision 2030’ project is an important one for encouraging the development of a moderate Islamic narrative which integrates liberal values, challenging the origins of extremism in the region and removing the sources of its funding worldwide… If we are truly to counter extremism at its source, the UK should now increase its anti-terrorism co-operation with the Saudis and the GCC, going beyond intelligence sharing to creating joint initiatives with civil society and working with tech companies to counter jihadi recruitment online.”

The “moderate Islam”/bad Islam dichotomy is a narrative that allows for invasive, precriminal state intervention whilst eschewing scrutiny of state actions and political factors in the assessment of political violence. This is, of course, convenient for the likes of MBS, MBZ, the US and Israel. Making Islam the problem shifts the attention away from tyranny, repression and occupation.

Pertinently it is a view that has been floated by Israel from the very inception of the War on Terror.

Precrime: the Israeli view through Neocons

The precrime counter-terrorism approach which emerged in the wake of 9/11 rooted itself in a Clash of Civilisations thesis, de-emphasising political factors and focusing on ideology. This strategy was concordant with Israel’s “Huntingtonian” view of Muslims. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, former director general of the Mossad Shabtai Shavit, for example, said:

“This is war, war against the Free World. For years we issued warnings and the Western states shrugged their shoulders. But what we always said about extremist Islam and the struggle against it has now been proved.” [7]

What should be noted, however, is that before 9/11, the world was forcefully reacting to the IDF’s ethnic cleansing and brutal suppression of Palestinian protests in response to Ariel Sharon’s storming of Masjid al-Aqsa with more than 1,000 heavily armed police and soldiers in the year 2000. 9/11 provided the catalyst to divert attention from political injustice and concretise the “extremist Islam is the problem” narrative.

It is not surprising to find, therefore, that those passionately advocating for pre-emptive, ideology-focused counter-terrorism policies in the UK have been, and continue to be, pro-Israeli neoconservatives.

From the earlies period of the War on Terror, neoconservative think-tanks focused their resources on propounding this view.

The Quilliam Foundation telos has been to downplay the Iraq war and focus on what was for them, “the politicization of Islam”. [8] The prominent British neoconservative and outspoken Zionist, Michael Gove, was a board member of the organisation, which disbanded earlier this year.

Gove is a useful entry-point into the heavily interconnected neocon/pro-Israel world.

The late George Weidenfeld is cited as the “inspiration” and idea for Gove’s book, Celsius 7/7, which regurgitates the Machinean Israeli worldview. Gove has called Weidenfeld a “man of great wisdom and humanity” who he is proud to call “a friend.”

Weidenfeld had been the president of the Board of Trustees for the ISD, which promotes CVE. He also happened to be a Zionist who co-signed, alongside hard-line neocons, a petition which states that, “Israeli land concessions, will never bring peace”. The petition, published by the rabidly bigoted, anti-Muslim Gatestone Institute run by the chief financier of transatlantic Muslim-hate, Nina Rosenwald, also postures a supremacist assumption, stating that “only a cultural revolution in the Arab world can achieve [peace].”

Amongst the list of editors Gove thanks “in particular”, is Daniel Finkelstein. Finkelstein is a senior Conservative peer who was the editor of the Times, as well as chairman of the right-wing, neoconservative London think-tank, Policy Exchange.

Gove founded Policy Exchange in 2002 and has postured a securitised view of Islam and Muslims since.

The think-tank is notorious for fabricating receipts to prove “extremist” material was being sold in masajid. The report, which used these fabricated receipts, was authored by anti-Islam Denis MacEoin who has been on record to state that he has very “negative feelings” about Islam.

In 2008, the then chairman of Policy Exchange mooted the idea of a blacklist of Muslim organisations deemed extremist as a “possible approach to the question of Islam in Britain”.

Pertinently, the think-tank, through its former research director Dean Godson, was strongly influential in the development of the PREVENT counter-extremism strategy. Godson is a neoconservative who called for the revival of Cold War era techniques in the War on Terror. [9]

The transatlantic, neocon/pro-Israeli War on Terror network

The American neoconservative influences and connections are also present in the Policy Exchange.  

During the 1980s Godson served as a Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman. Lehman would go onto to become a signatory for the war-mongering neoconservative think-tank founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC.

The American neocon and war-advocate David Frum has called Godson his “friend”. Frum is also the Chairman of the board of trustees for Policy Exchange. He was the speechwriter for Bush, the author of the infamous “Axis of Evil” claim in Bush’s 2002 State of Union address and co-author of the book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Frum wrote this book with fellow neocon Perle.

Many of the names of these American neoconservatives are also relevant to the HJS, a leading exponent of repressive War on Terror policies in the UK. Its international patrons include Kagan, Kristol, Muravchik, Perle, and Woolsey.

According to a 2015 report by Spinwatch,

“there has been a large overlap between funders of the HJS and other pro-Israel causes… [the] donors shared by the [HJS] and a number of prominent pro-Israel groups… includes all of HJS’s thirteen largest identified donors except for the City of London… All of these donors except for the Eranda Foundation contributed to the United Jewish Israel Appeal. All except the Eranda Foundation and foundations associated with the Kalms family donated to the Community Security Trust. The UK Friends of the Association for the Well-being of Israel’s Soldiers and the Jewish National Fund each received funding from six HJS donors, while four donors contributed to the Jerusalem Fund.”

Pertinent here is that the Eranda Foundation, which has funded the HJS, has also funded the UK Friends of the City of David, the British-based branch of the Ir David Foundation, commonly known as Elad.

Elad, one of Israel’s wealthiest nonprofits, is a Jewish settler organisation which works to “Judaise” occupied East Jerusalem. The fanatical group has been behind the recent ethnic cleansing taking place in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan.

Despite these foreign influences and connections, the HJS works parasitically within the corridors of power.

In 2020, it was revealed by Declassified that the Home Office was financing the HJS to report on “UK connections to Islamist terrorism”.  The HJS also funded the current Home Secretary Priti Patel’s trip to Washington DC to be a “delegate” at a forum organised by Israel lobby group AIPAC.  

These dubious moves in pursuit of Zionist interests are per form, especially when one considers how the HJS has driven a McCarthyist approach for the Government in relation to Muslims.

In September 2015, we published a piece on a Number 10 press statement which announced the duty to stop “extremists” radicalising on campuses.  In the release, they “named and shamed” universities and Muslim activists for allowing “extremists” on campus and being “extremists”, respectively. The Home Office-based Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU) was used to determine the list of “extremists”. We demonstrated that the government lifted chunks of its press release from a dubious report published by the Student Rights organisations, a project of the HJS. This was confirmed in the 2017 Salman Butt case in which the Home Office admitted it was uncritically relying on information provided by the HJS to smear Muslim activists and speakers.

Recent reports have revealed other facets of the neocon-Israel nexus:

  1. Gove, who became a director of the HJS in January 2017, was funded to visit “New York to receive an award at the anniversary of the Algemeiner Journal – a right-wing pro-Israel publication – and ‘attend events organised by the Henry Jackson Society’”. Later that year,
  2. Gove also attended an event co-funded by AIPAC and the HJS.
  3. At least two HJS employees have subsequently taken up positions in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  4. Another investigative report showed that, whilst Patel and Gove were involved in HJS, HJS’s US directors have also been directors of charities which are not only supporting the IDF but are also funded by Israel’s Ministry of Defence.

Gove, counter-extremism, and Palestine

Given the above nexus, it is not surprising to find Gove’s statements and actions all favour Israel, whilst also hyping up the fear of “Islamist extremism”.

In 2011, Gove intervened and shutdown school workshops celebrating Palestinian literature and human rights via his Department’s Prevention of Extremism Unit. This was found to be done at the behest of the pro-Israel lobby group Board of Deputies of Jews (BoD).

(It is worth pointing out here that the BoD (along with Community Security Trust) submitted written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the “roots of violent radicalisation” in the same year. BoD promoted “preventative approaches” to “combatting radicalisation”, whilst claiming the “UK Muslim community” is the target for “many radicalising forces”.)

In 2014, Gove commissioned former CTU head Peter Clarke to investigate the Muslim-demonising, hoax Trojan Horse affair. Published in 2014, Clarke, using the PREVENT definition of “extremism”, categorised an orthodox Jewish group – the Neturei Karta – as “extoling” extremist views because it was “anti-Israel”. It is worth pointing out that from 2008, Clarke was on the advisory council for Policy Exchange.

In 2015, Gove was lauding proposals to suppress support of the BDS movement. In the following year, Gove followed Israel’s agenda to curb criticism of its actions by equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and called for the UK embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 

In 2020, Gove again claimed “anti-Zionism has become the new antisemitism”, whilst calling on an “anti-extremism” group Mainstream UK to “continue its work”. Those who support Mainstream UK include Blairite Zionist MPs (including Joan Ryan who faked claims of antisemitism), the pro-Israeli neocon Eric Pickles, and the director of the Israel-Britain Alliance, and former vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel Michael McCann.

There is an undeniable link between counter-extremism and the protection of Israel thanks to neoconservatives and Zionists in key political positions. As the PREVENT policy has developed, it has worked to suppress pro-Palestinian views.

To date, no “anti-Palestine” views have been censured as “extremist”.

Concluding Remarks

The War on Terror was also coined the Global War on Terrorism.

This is clearly misleading, as the focus has been much of the Muslim world.

Though the Zionist entity repeatedly terrorises the Palestinians through its apartheid policies, indiscriminate slaughtering of women and children, and ethnically cleansing whatever slivers of land remain of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israel has remained outside the rhetoric of pre-emptive strikes, “shock and awe” action, “terrorism” and “extremism”.

And this is for good reason.

The War on Terror cannot be understood without factoring Israel and the lobbying done on its behalf by its neoconservative proxies in the US and UK. Through the neoconservatives who pined for an unending security paradigm and warring, Israel, and its agenda to “reshape” the Middle East through the War on Terror, continues to be delivered to the present day with a helping hand from MBZ and MBS.

This only reinforces the reality that the chants of “terrorism”, and the infrastructures of repression that have been built on this noise, mask the sustained attack against Islam and Muslims through a process in which the major factors are Masjid al-Aqsa and Palestine.

However, despite its intensity and devastation, which is now openly facilitated by treacherous Arab leaders, this attack is doomed to failure.

“And they worked out their plot and whatever they plot is before Allah, even though their plot is such as would move the mountains.”

Al-Qur’ān, Ibrahim: 14:46

Given twenty years of War on Terror policies, pointed questions must continue to be asked.

How many British lives have been lost in wars that have done more to protect Israeli interests than British ones? How many laws have been passed, and policies advocated that have threatened the freedoms of all to please the Zionist lobby? Will there be a systematic government “independent review” into the interconnected neoconservatives, pro-Israel lobby groups, and MPs who act as conduits for Israeli interests in Britain? Should Britain be interfered with by a foreign influence via a small syndicate of neoconservatives?

And what will happen if Britain acts against the interests of Israel?


References

[1] Walt, Stephen and John J. Mearsheimer. “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP06-011, March 2006, p.30.

[2] Ryan, M., Neoconservatism and the New American Century, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p.55-6.

[3] Ibid., pp.57-8

[4] Fn.1, p.29.

[5] Ibid. pp.30-1, p.33.

[6] Ibid. p.32.

[7] Ben-Eliezer, U. Old Conflict, New War: Israel’s Politics Toward the Palestinians, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p.108.

[8] Kundnani, A., The Muslims Are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror, London: Verso, 2015, p.173

[9] Ibid. p.174, p.165.

_____________
source

This entry was posted in World by truthaholics. Bookmark the permalink.

About truthaholics

| Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin. Truth is not gossip. It's not sensational or even exciting. Truth's reality, fact. Truth's shocking, sad, horrific, frightening and deadly. Controversial issues discussed here so only for those able to digest Truth.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.