THE ‘DEMOCRACY FASCISTS’ OF THE WEST VERSUS THE ‘TOTALITARIAN FASCISTS’ OF NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST AND HOW THE ‘DEATH’ OF OSAMA BIN LADEN FITS IN.
If it was not for the fact that a lot of innocent people are dying, it would almost be a laughable situation. What we are witnessing is one bunch of fascists pretending to have the best interests of ‘the people’ at heart – let’s call them ‘democracy fascists’ – using the genuine desire of the ordinary people of North Africa and the Middle East to be able to determine their own future as an excuse to rid Israel of all of its enemies by going to war against the dictators – let’s call them ‘totalitarian fascists’ – of the Arab world. Put simply, it’s fascists versus fascists.
North Africa and the Middle East are full of tin-pot dictators of varying descriptions. They govern their respective nations through fear, intimidation, corruption and nepotism. Some, like Libya’s Gaddafi, literally are straight-out dictators while others, like King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia, have elevated themselves to royalty and rule by virtue of being an ‘absolute monarchy’. The rest fall somewhere in between.
The problem for the West, and, particularly, the neoconservatives in the West, is that they have painted themselves into a corner as far as this part of the world is concerned. All of the Arab and Islamic governments of North Africa and the Middle East had fallen into one of basically two categories; pro-US or anti-US. Those that fell into the pro-US camp were, or still are, supported by the US and, while they continued not to give Israel a hard time, they continued to be supported by the US. Those that were or are in the anti-US camp are not so much actually anti-US, but more anti-Israel and, as a result of being anti-Israel, are seen as being anti-US by default. These are the neocons enemies.
The problem for the neocons is this: Their rhetoric and propaganda revolves around the idealistic notion that Israel is a democratic state in the likeness of America and that all of Israel’s problems would go away if the anti-US and anti-Israel Middle Eastern states were democratic like Israel and the US and, once that is achieved, then everyone would be happy.
This, however, is indeed just rhetoric and propaganda.
The reality is far different.
The Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative supporters are interested in creating a Greater Israel state that will ultimately preclude the existence of a Palestinian state and which will dominate the Middle East region by virtue of it being the region’s sole nuclear power. Its close alliance with the US will allow the US to project hegemony to the resource-rich region; a resource that will be shared with a resourceless Israel.
Where the neoconservative plans fall apart is in their arrogance. They somehow believe that governments that are likely to replace the autocratic and dictatorial governments that Arabs have and are currently revolting against, will somehow suddenly become pro-Israel once the dictators have been kicked out of power.
The neoconservatives’ rhetoric about ‘democracy’ has been their own undoing. Initially the rhetoric was used as part of their propaganda when referring to the states that are, or were, anti-Israel and anti-US; particularly Iraq, Iran and Syria. The ‘bringing democracy to Iraq’ propaganda was used extensively in the lead up to and aftermath of the destruction of Iraq by the US and its allies. The same propaganda was then intensified when the neocons turned their attention on Iran to crank up public opinion to support a war against them.
When the people of Tunisia revolted against their rulers, the neoconservatives hailed this as another victory for ‘democracy’. But when the Arab Spring revolt spread into Egypt the neocons were initially quiet about it. The reason for this was that Israel had a deal with Egypt’s leader, Hosni Mubarak, which kept the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in their place. But as the revolt looked like actually getting somewhere and it became obvious that Mubarak was not going to be able to quickly put the revolt down, the neocons had no choice but to support the call for democracy from the Egyptian revolutionaries despite it likely leading to a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government and also running contrary to the interests of Israel; a point which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at one point made very clear to the West.
The people of Libya have not enjoyed the same success as their neighbours in Tunisia and Egypt as they attempt to rid themselves of their dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. Again, the neocons have supported his removal by all means possible. They have called on President Obama to ignore the UN mandate that provides for protection of civilians and go all in to kill Gaddafi and to put US boots on the ground in order to ensure that only the ‘right’ government is formed to replace Gaddafi. So far Obama has resisted these calls and the war continues with neither side making much headway.
Now Syria looks like the next country to fall to the Arab Spring. This, on the surface, is not seemingly a problem for the neocons; Syria is their enemy. But, again, while the neocons want to be rid of Syria’s President Assad, the government that replaces him is likely to be even more anti-Israel than Assad’s government. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is pro-pro-Hamas and Hezbollah, is banned in Syria to the point where membership of the Muslim Brotherhood even attracts the death penalty. So, like in Egypt, the neocons will once again be hoisted by their own petard – it’s either ‘democracy’ or hypocrisy.
One has to wonder what the neocons expect to achieve with their seemingly self-destructive attitude. They have allowed their propaganda ideology to get the better of them so, one needs to ask, why have they?
As I have said, it is the dream of the neoconservatives, all of whom are either Zionists or support Zionism, to see that a Greater Israel is ultimately created. The only way a Greater Israel can ever be created is at the expense of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, which the Israelis already have, and – so they hope – south Lebanon up to the Litani River. None of these places have been or will be given up without a fight. The challenge for the Zionists is and has been how to start a fight without seeming as though they started it.
Israel’s two main direct hindrances to the Israelis dream of a Greater Israel are Hamas in the Gaza Strip and to a lesser extent also in the West Bank, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both are supported by Syria and Iran. Iran is seen by Israel and their Western allies as by far the most important of their enemies because they are the main suppliers of weapons to both Arab organisations. However, what Israel and her allies need before they can attack Iran is a casus belli giving them a legitimate reason to attack them. Once war against Iran is under way then pre-emptive war against Hamas and Hezbollah can also get under way providing the opportunity for Israel to fully invade and occupy the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in order to defeat Hamas and also south Lebanon in order to destroy Hezbollah.
Getting the casus belli has always proved a problem for Israel. They’ve tried several times before to attack both but they have not been able to develop these attacks into a full scale confrontation with Iran even when they’ve had help from the George W. Bush administration. The recent ‘death’ of Osama bin Laden, however, and the potential for retaliation for his ‘death’ by Islamists from Hezbollah and Hamas may well prove to be the catalyst that provides the casus belli to bring on the confrontation they need.
I, as usual, hope that I’m wrong. Thankfully I have been so far but I fear that eventually it will happen unless a complacent world wakes up and demands that it doesn’t.
Time will tell.