While Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
condemned Israel for the atrocities committed in Lebanon, his government
remains a staunch ally of Israel and a major military actor in the Middle East
and Central Asia, with close ties to Washington, Tel Aviv and NATO headquarters
"This war is unjust . . . The Israeli war . . . is
simply fueling hatred . . . It is not difficult to see that a terrible global
war and a huge disaster await us," said Erdogan at the Organization
of the Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in Kuala Lumpur, in early August
In a cruel irony, Turkey, through its military alliance with
Israel and the US, is a de facto partner in the "terrible global war"
alluded to by Prime Minister Erdogan.
The Turkish head of government's apparent indignation
responds to strong anti-Israeli sentiment within Turkey and the Middle East.
His Justice and Development Party (AKP), which dominates the ruling coalition
is considered to be a "pro-Islamic political entity." Yet beneath the
gilded surface of Turkish party politics, the ruling AKP coalition government
led Prime Minister Erdogan is complicit in Israeli war crimes.
Turkey's condemnation of Israel is in blatant contradiction
with the substance of its longstanding military cooperation agreement with
Israel, which the ruling AKP government has actively pursued. Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not only supported Israeli interests, he had also
developed a close personal rapport with (former) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
The contradictions underlying Turkey's foreign policy also
relate to complex divisions within the ruling coalition as well as between the
government and the military hierarchy, which historically has maintained
a close rapport with the Pentagon and NATO. While the alliance with Israel
may be the source of political contention in the Turkish parliament, it has,
nonetheless, been accepted and endorsed, since the mid-1990s, by successive
A significant turnaround in Turkish foreign policy occurred
in the immediate wake of the Cold War, which contributed to redefining the
Turkey-Israel relationship. Initially forged under the helm of Prime Minister
Tansu �iller, the Israeli-Turkish military pact is characterized by the
landmark 1994 Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA). This strategic realignment
of Turkey with Israel was part of Washington's post Cold War agenda in the
Middle East, which was also supported by US covert intelligence operations. In
1997, Mrs. Ciller was accused of having been recruited by the CIA and "of
accepting money from foreign governments [the US] to work against Turkey's
national interests." (Voice of
America, 17 July 1997)
The 1994 Security and Secrecy Agreement emulates a defunct
secret agreement between Israel and Turkey formulated in the late 1950s at the
height of the Cold War, entitled the "Peripheral Pact":
By 1958, however, a fascinating secret agreement,
sometimes referred to as the "peripheral pact," had emerged between
the two nations. It�s conceptual framework can be traced back even before the
founding of the state [of Israel] to the ideology of Baruch
�Uzel [Uziel], an Israeli leader who would later become a member of
the Liberal Party.
Notably, exact details of the alliance remain hidden in
numerous classified Israeli documents, and are obscured by Turkish secrecy,
classified documents, and insistence that there was no actually documented pact
between the countries. Nonetheless, it seems the alliance had three fundamental
tenets. The diplomatic tenet involved joint public relations campaigns to
influence general publics. The military aspect allegedly involved the exchange
of intelligence information, joint planning for mutual aid in emergencies, and
Turkish support in the Pentagon and at NATO for an improved Israeli military.
Some also say that �highly sensitive� scientific cooperation as well as the
export of Israeli military equipment to the Republic occurred. (See Washington
This 1958 bilateral military cooperation agreement, however,
was short lived. In the course of the 1960s, Turkey pursued a rapprochement with
both the Soviet Union and the Arab countries. (Ibid).
A protocol on Defense Cooperation was established in 1992
under the government of S�leyman Demirel, followed two years later by the
signing of the 1994 Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA). Necmettin
Erbakan succeeded Tansu �iller as Prime Minister in 1997 in
"an Islamic center-right coalition" with Ciller's True Path
In 1997, the Erbakan government was forced to resign as
result of pressures exerted by the Military in what was described as "a
post- modern coup d'�tat."
The US sponsored 1994 Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA)
implemented by the �iller government, essentially set the stage for a firm and
close relationship between Israel and Turkey in military and intelligence
cooperation, joint military exercises, weapons production and training. The SSA
is far-reaching in its implications. It also requires the exchange of military
intelligence in what is described as the "guaranteed secrecy in the
exchange and sharing of information."
From the outset in 1992, the Israeli-Turkish military
alliance has consistently been directed against Syria. A 1993 Memorandum
of Understanding led to the creation of (Israeli-Turkish) "joint
committees" to handle so-called regional threats. Under the terms of the
Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed "to cooperate in gathering
intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share
assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries' military
Turkey agreed to allow IDF and Israeli security forces to
gather electronic intelligence on Syria and Iran from Turkey. In exchange,
Israel assisted in the equipping and training of Turkish forces in anti-terror
warfare along the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian borders." (Ibid)
In 1997, Israel and Turkey launched "A Strategic
Dialogue" involving a bi-annual process of high level military
consultations by the respective deputy chiefs of staff. (Milliyet,
Istanbul, in Turkish 14 July 2006).
The 1994 SSA was followed in 1996 by a Military
Training and Cooperation Agreement (MTCA). Also in 1996, Turkey entered into a
Military Industry Cooperation Agreement with Israel, which was in turn
instrumental to the signing of "a secret agreement" with Israel
Military Industries to update its tank division, modernize its helicopter fleet
and its F-4 and F-5 combat planes (Ibid). In turn, the two countries entered
into negotiations with a view to establishing a Free Trade
Agreement, which came into operation in 2000.
On the official agenda of recent Israeli-Turkish talks are
joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater
Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter, also
known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on
More recently, the Eastern Mediterranean corridor, from the
Red Sea, through Lebanon and Syria to the Syrian- Turkish border has, both from
a strategic and economic standpoint, become an important factor in the evolving
Israel-Turkey military alliance. It is intimately related to the proposed
Ceyhan-Ashkelon oil pipeline project (to be implemented by Turkey and Israel),
which would link the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline to Israel's
Ashkelon-Eilat pipeline. (Michel Chossudovsky, The
war on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, July 2006)
The war on Lebanon ultimately seeks to establish joint
Israeli-Turkish military control over a coastal corridor extending from the
Israeli-Lebanese border to the East Mediterranean border between Syria and
Turkey. What this militarization of the coastal Lebanese-Syrian corridor would
signify is the control of almost the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline by
Turkey and Israel under the terms of the Israeli-Turkish military alliance.
Water is also part of this strategic relationship. Under a
2004 agreement, Turkey was to sell some 50 million cubic meters of water per
annum to Israel over a 20 year period. In recent developments, the agreement
has been revised. The water would to be channeled to Israel via an
Israeli-Turkish water pipeline. (Ibid)
In April 2001, Israel entered into "a security
agreement" with NATO as part of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue:
"This security agreement provides the framework for
the protection of classified information, as defined by all 19 member
countries, and is signed by countries that wish to engage in cooperation with
In 2004, the decision was taken to "elevate" the
2001 Mediterranean Dialogue "to a genuine [military] partnership and to
launch the Istanbul Cooperation
Initiative (ICI) with selected countries [including Algeria, Egypt, Israel,
Jordan. Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia] in the broader region of the Middle
East." The mandate of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, is to:
"contribute to regional security and stability,
by promoting greater practical cooperation, enhancing the Dialogue�s
political dimension, assisting in defense reform, cooperation in the field
of border security, achieving interoperability and contributing to the fight
against terrorism, while complementing other international efforts." (NATO,
The Initiative "offers a 'menu' of bilateral
activities" consisting of "defense reform, defense budgeting, defense
planning and civil-military relations; military-to-military cooperation to
contribute to interoperability through participation in selected military
exercises and related education and training activities, . . ." ;
cooperation in the fight against terrorism, including through
intelligence-sharing; cooperation in the Alliance's work on the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction . . . (NATO, The Istanbul Cooperation
In practical terms, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative
(ICI) neutralizes Israel's potential adversaries in the Arab World. It
essentially grants a green light to Israel and its indefectible Turkish ally.
It ensures that other member States (frontline Arab States) of the NATO
sponsored ICI, will not intervene in a Middle East conflict instigated by
Israel. This is the main purpose of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI):
paralyze the Arab States at the diplomatic and military levels, to ensure that
they will not act in any meaningful way against US-Israeli interests in the
By late 2004, the "enhanced" Mediterranean
Dialogue (Istanbul Cooperation Initiative), had evolved into a more cohesive
military cooperation agreement. The member countries met in Brussels in
November 2004. Senior Israeli IDF officers held discussions, under NATO
auspices, with the top military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin
nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and
Mauritania. The hidden agenda of this meeting was essentially to set the stage
for a full-fledged NATO-Israel partnership, with the tacit consent of the
frontline Arab States.
This partnership relationship was firmed up in bilateral
NATO-Israel talks held in Tel Aviv in February 2005.
In early 2005, the US, Israel and Turkey held military
exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria, which were
followed by NATO military exercises with Israel, which included several Arab
These joint war games were then followed in February 2005,
by NATO's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's visit to Israel. De
Hoop Scheffer had talks with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Foreign Minister
Silvan Shalom, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and the Chief of Staff of the
Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Lt. General Moshe Ya�alon. (NATO Press
Release, 24 February 2005).
The purpose of these meetings pertained to "possible
ways of expanding current cooperation, particularly in the areas of military
co-operation, the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
The ongoing relationship between NATO and Israel was
confirmed in NATO's Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer's February 2005
speech in Tel Aviv:
. . . At NATO�s Istanbul Summit [June 2004], we
agreed, in close consultation with Israel and other partners in this process,
to try to move our relationship to another level � in short, to move from
dialogue to partnership. We want to further intensify our political
dialogue; to promote greater interoperability between our military forces;
and to encourage greater cooperation on defense reform, as well as in the critical
fight against terrorism . . .
. . . Israel has
. . . stepped forward with a list of concrete proposals for enhancing our
cooperation. These proposals cover many areas of common interest, such
as the fight against terrorism or joint military exercises, where Israel�s
expertise is very much valued. They underline your country�s desire for a
strengthened relation, and we are looking forward to working with Israel in the
framework of an individual action programme. (NATO website, 24
February 2005, click for complete transcript of speech) (emphasis added)
These military cooperation ties were viewed by the Israeli
military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding
potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria."
It is worth noting that in February 2005, coinciding with
the NATO mission to Israel, the government of Ariel Sharon dismissed General
Moshe Ya'alon as Chief of Staff and appointed Air Force General Dan Halutz.
This was the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General was
appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of
Staff was considered in Israeli political circles as "the
appointment of the right man at the right time." In retrospect, his
appointment has a direct bearing on the planning of the air campaign directed
against Lebanon, although at the time Maj General Halutz was slated to
undertake the planning of possible aerial bombing raids on Iran, as part of a
planned US-Israeli operation. These planned bombings on Iran would be
coordinated by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) in liaison with Israel, Turkey
and NATO. (See Michel
Chossudovsky, May 2005, February
The Role of NATO in
Relation to the War on Lebanon
NATO cannot under any circumstances play a "neutral
stabilizing" role in Lebanon. NATO's involvement would be dictated by the
precise terms of the "NATO-Israel partnership." A NATO
"stabilization force," pursuant to a UN Security Council Resolution
would side with Israel against Lebanon.
The NATO-Israel partnership establishes NATO's
"responsibilities" in relation to its ally Israel: Israel is under
attack and has "the legitimate right to defend itself." The
terms of the NATO-Israel agreement as defined in the February 2005
consultations in Tel Aviv, specifically point to "the fight against
The 2005 Israel-NATO agreement is all the more important
because it requires NATO, in the context of the Israeli led war on Lebanon, to
support Israel. It also means that NATO would be involved in the triangular
process of military consultations and planning, which link Tel Aviv to
Washington and Ankara.
Meanwhile, the NATO-Israel partnership reached in 2005 was
also viewed by the Israeli government as an opportunity to boost the shattered
image of Israel:
<>The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country
facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater
will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO.
Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that
the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's
links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive military
potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's
operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain
considerable strength. (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies)
Turkish Chief of Staff
Another crucial and related development --which has a direct
bearing on the current situation in Lebanon-- is the timely appointment by the
Erdogan government of a new Chief of Staff. Ground Forces Commander General
Yasar Buyukanit's is slated to succeed Gen. Hilmi Ozkok in late August.
General Buyukanit is pro-Israeli. He is a US approved
appointee, firmly committed to America's "War on Terrorism." His
timely appointment at the outset of Israel's military campaign in Lebanon bears
a direct relationship to the evolving Middle East war theater.
The appointment of General Buyukanit as Chief of Staff has
been in the pipeline since December 2005, when he visited Washington for
consultations with his US counterparts. At the Pentagon, General Buyukanit met
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, Army
Commander General Francis Harvey Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
General Yasar Buyukanit also had discussions at the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Neo-conservative think tank with close ties to
the Pentagon. AEI's military analyst Thomas Donnelly was responsible for
outlining and drafting the 2000 Neo-conservative military blueprint entitled "Rebuilding
America's Defenses" published by the Project of the New American century
The decision by the Turkish cabinet led by Prime Minister
Erdogan, to appoint General Buyukanit as Chief of Staff, was ratified by
President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in early August at the height of a judicial
procedure, indirectly implicating General Buyukanit, in the alleged
organization of state-sponsored death squads targeting Kurdish rebels in
Turkey's southeastern region (The Independent, 21 April 2006).
Coinciding with General Buyukanit's appointment as Chief of
Staff, Prime Minister Erdogan's government had already formulated the contours
of Turkey's participation in "an international force for stability in Lebanon"
in anticipation of a UN Security Council resolution, which was being prepared
by France and the United States.
Under the helm of General Buyukanit, the Turkish military
could come play a more active role in the Israeli sponsored conflict. This role
would be based on the terms of the military alliance between Israel and Turkey
as well as on Israel's partnership with NATO.
Meanwhile, General Buyukanit's appointment as Chief of Staff
is likely to be followed by purges within the Military, with a view to weeding
out anti-Israeli sentiment among Turkey's senior military brass. The first
target of this streamlining could be Deputy Chief of Staff General Isik
Kosaner, who refused to attend the bi-annual "Strategic Dialogue"
with his Israeli counterparts in Tel Aviv in mid-July.
If the Lebanon war were to escalate into a broader conflict
involving Syria, Turkish ground troops could be deployed under the terms of the
Israeli-Turkish military alliance. It is worth mentioning that prime
ministers Recep Erdogan and Ariel Sharon in a 2005 meeting in Tel Aviv decided
to set up a "Hotline for the exchange of intelligence" as part of
their evolving military alliance. What this suggests is that Turkey is a
potential partner in the ongoing war on Lebanon.
Alliance": US, Israel, Turkey
Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular
military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This
"triple alliance," which is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of
Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three
countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close
military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a
strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. Amply
documented, Israel and Turkey are partners in the US planned aerial attacks on
Iran, which have been in an advanced state of readiness since mid-2005. (See
Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005)
In recent developments, on July 6, barely a week before the
bombing of Lebanon, a so-called "Shared Vision" document was
signed by the US and Turkey, which essentially confirms the "Triple
Alliance." Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was in Washington with
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the signing ceremony.
The "Shared Vision" agreement describes the
relationship between Turkey and the United States as: "characterized by
strong bonds of friendship, alliance, mutual trust and unity of vision. We
share the same set of values and ideals in our regional and global objectives:
the promotion of peace, democracy, freedom and prosperity." more significantly,
it implies Turkey's unbending support of the US "war on terrorism."
In practice, the document requires the Ankara government to
endorse Washington's foreign policy stance with regard to Israel's right to
"self defense" . This commitment was ratified barely a week before
the onslaught of the war on Lebanon. According to Zaman (Istanbul) (July
6, 2006), the "Shared Vision" document is aimed at ensuring that:
" Turkey remains aligned with the United States and
the West in strategic and tactical terms, adding that Ankara in turn wants to
be part of the political planning processes in the Middle East rather than a
'blind implementer' of policies determined by global players."
The document defines Turkey's strategic and military
alignment in the broader Middle East-Central Asian region as defined in
"Greater Middle East Initiative":
"[The Shared Vision agreement] will encourage
democracy and stability in Iraq, the Black Sea, Caucasus, Central Asia and
Afghanistan [as well as support]" international efforts aimed at resolving
the Middle East conflict; boosting peace and stability through democracy in the
Greater Middle East Initiative; ensuring energy security; strengthening
transatlantic relations; and enhancing understanding among religions and
Daily, 6 July 2006)
Israel is involved in a major military operation with the
full deployment of its air force and ground forces. More than 30,000 CHECK
troops have already been deployed. The target of the Israeli-led military
operation is not Hizbollah but the destruction an entire country and the impoverishment
of its population.
Israel is meeting fierce resistance not only from Hizbollah
but from an armed civilian movement. The Israeli government has issued an order
to mobilize as many as 40,000 additional reserve soldiers (Patrick
Martin, July 2006)
In contrast to the "shock and awe"
March 2003 Blitzkrieg over Iraq, the Israelis have aimed systematically and
almost exclusively civilian targets. Moreover, Lebanon is defenseless. It
does not possess an air defense system and the Israelis know it. The number of
declared targets is staggering, even when compared, for instance, to the
300 selected strategic targets identified in the 1991 Gulf war.
The civilian infrastructure has been
destroyed: water, telecommunications, bridges, airports, gas stations,
power plants, dairy factories, etc. Confirmed by the British press, in
towns and villages across Lebanon, schools and hospitals have been targeted
with meticulous accuracy. In an utterly twisted logic, the Israeli government
has casually blamed Hizbollah for using the schools and hospitals as
hideouts or launch pads to wage their terrorist activities. (ABC Australia,
interview with Israeli Ambassador to Australia, Nati Tamir, 21 July 2006).
Recent developments in the war theater point towards
escalation both within and beyond the borders of Lebanon. The Israeli
government has confirmed that it is in for a "long war." Patterns of
weapons stockpiling by Israel support the long war agenda. To meet
shortfalls in current stockpiles of WMD, Israel's IDF is to take delivery of an
emergency shipment of precision guided bombs, including US made GBU-28 bunker
buster bombs produced by Raytheon.
The proposed shipment is described by military observers as
somewhat "unusual." Israel already has a large stockpile of precision
guided weapons. In addition to its own stockpiles, the IDF took delivery in
2005 of some 5000 US made "smart air launched weapons" including some
500 "bunker-buster" bombs.
While the report suggests that "Israel still had a long
list of targets in Lebanon to strike," the history of these deliveries of
bunker buster bombs to Israel since 2004, suggests that they may be intended
for use in the broader Middle Eastern region, including Syria and Iran.
The Broader Middle
The war in Lebanon is an integral part of the US Middle East
war agenda. Over the last two years, US military documents and national security
statements point quite explicitly to Syria and Iran as potential targets
of US military aggression. Escalation in relation to Syria is a strategic
scenario, contemplated by US, Israeli and Turkish military planners.
In their July Joint
Press Conference at the White House, President George W. Bush and Prime
Minister Tony Blair renewed, in no uncertain terms, their threats against
Syria and Iran. These threats are now backed by concrete military plans:
"The message is very, very simple to them. It is
that, you have a choice. Iran and Syria have a choice. And they may think that
they can avoid this choice; in fact, they can't. And when things are set in
train like what has happened in Lebanon over the past few weeks, it only, in my
view, underscores the fact they have this choice. They can either come in and
participate as proper and responsible members of the international community,
or they will face the risk of increasing confrontation." (White House, 28
This and other statements point to escalation, where Lebanon
is slated to be used as a casus belli, a "just cause" for war
on Syria and possibly Iran, due to their alleged support of Hizbollah.
On the other hand, the Syrian government has intimated that
if Israel launches an all out invasion of Lebanon beyond the southern region,
it would have no choice but to intervene in the conflict:.
"Syria issued a stark warning that an Israeli
invasion of Lebanon would drag it into the spiraling Middle East conflict and
called for an immediate ceasefire.
"'If Israel makes a land entry into Lebanon, they can get
to within 20 km of Damascus,' Information Minister Moshen Bilal told the
Spanish newspaper ABC.
'What will we do? Stand by with our arms folded?
Absolutely not. Without any doubt Syria will intervene in the conflict.'"
26 July 2006)
Moreover any encroachment or movement of Israeli troops
inside Syrian territory could trigger the entry of Syria into the conflict.
Syrian troops and air force are currently deployed and are "in an advanced
state of readiness."
If Syria were to be brought into the war, in all likelihood
Turkey would intervene in accordance with the terms of the Israel-Turkey
military alliance. NATO would send troops pursuant to its 2005 military
partnership agreement with Israel.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration in close liaison with Britain
is pushing for a UN Security Council Resolution on Iran's nuclear program,
which could lead in the months ahead to punitive bombings directed against
In relation to Lebanon, Iran's president Ahmadinejad
intimated at the very outset of the bombing campaign that Iran would
intervene if Syria is attacked:
Mr [Mahmud] Ahmadinezhad expressed grave concerns over
the Zionist military's attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. He
described the aggressions as the sign of weakness on the part the illegitimate
regime. He said despite what the Zionist officials may think, such actions
cannot save the regime.
Commenting on the recent Israeli threats against Syria,
the president said that the regime's ever increasing aggressive measures would
be interpreted as an attack on the whole of the Islamic world, adding that it
would meet with a strong response.(Voice of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, in Persian 0430 14 July 2006)
As the Middle East war escalates, the Resistance
movements in the various countries will move closer together. Already a
solidarity movement in favor of Hizbollah has developed in Iraq. In Lebanon,
sectarian boundaries are breaking down between Sunni and Shiite. Muslims
and Maronite Christians are joining hands to defend their Homeland.
The US and Israel will not be able to handle this resistance
on the ground without destroying the entire country with aerial bombardments.
If Syria is brought into the war and Turkey intervenes, the entire Middle East
will flare up. Turkey
has a formidable military arsenal with more than 300,000 troops. Yet at the
same time, there is a very strong anti-Israeli sentiment in Turkey to the
extent that the Erdogan government would have to present Turkey's role to
public opinion as part of a limited "peace-keeping" or humanitarian
mandate under UN auspices.
The geopolitics behind the war on Lebanon must be addressed
by the antiwar movement. We are not dealing with a limited conflict between the
Israeli Armed Forces (IDF) and Hizbollah as conveyed by the Western media. The
Lebanese war theater is part of a broader US military agenda, which encompasses
a region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean into the heartland of
Central Asia. The war on Lebanon must be viewed as "a stage" in this
broader "military road-map."
The structure of military alliances is crucial in
understanding the evolution of the US sponsored Middle East war. The war on
Lebanon is not strictly an Israeli military project, it is part of a
coordinated military endeavor by Israel's main partners and allies including
the US, Britain, Turkey, and the member states of the Atlantic Alliance.
While Israel is indelibly responsible for "Crimes
against Peace" as defined in Article 6a of the Nuremberg Charter:
for "the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of
aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties," the same
Article 6a also extends to Israel's military partners and allies.
Israel is responsible for "War Crimes" under
Article 6b of the Nuremberg Charter .through the "plunder of public or
private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or
devastation not justified by military necessity;" (Art. 6b). It is
responsible for "Crimes against Humanity" through the perpetration of
acts of : "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the
war . . ." (Article 6c).
Those Western heads of State and heads of government who
overtly support Israel's air raids and illegal occupation of Lebanon, are
complicit in "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity."
This pertains specifically to those Western political leaders who, at the
outset of the war, turned down the "cease fire" proposal, which would
have led to a halt to the Israeli aerial bombardments, largely directed against
the civilian population.
The legitimacy of the main political and military actors and
corporate sponsors must be the target of a consistent anti-war movement
which goes beyond the expression of anti-war sentiment and the holding of large
public antiwar rallies. Under the Nuremberg Charter, Article 6, Western
leaders who support and/or pay lip service to Israel's war crimes are
categorized as accomplices:
"Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices
participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to
commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by
any persons in execution of such plan."
The latter clause also applies to the permanent members of
Security Council, who uphold Israel's right to "self defense."
Article 7 of the Nuremberg
Charter stipulates that "the official position of defendants,
whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments,
shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating
There is a sense of urgency in reversing the tide of war.
Reversing the tide of war can not be limited to a critique
of the US war agenda. Ultimately what is at stake is the legitimacy of the
political and military actors and the economic power structures, which
ultimately control the formulation, and direction of US foreign policy.
A war agenda is not disarmed through antiwar sentiment. One
does not reverse the tide by asking President Bush or Prime Minister Olmert:
"please abide by the Geneva Convention" and the Nuremberg Charter.
Ultimately a consistent antiwar agenda requires unseating the war criminals in
high office as a first step towards disarming the institutions and corporate
structures of the New World Order.
To break the "war on terrorism" consensus, we must
also break its propaganda apparatus, the pervasive structures of media
disinformation, the fear and intimidation campaign, which galvanize public
opinion into accepting the legitimacy of the Anglo-American military project.
This can only be effectively implemented by unseating the
war criminals from the positions of authority which they quite legitimately
occupy. It is this legitimacy of "war criminals" in high office in
our respective countries, which has to be broken.
Sanctions against Israel must be adopted by member countries
of the United Nations. And if they are not adopted or ratified by the relevant
government or inter-governmental authorities, then the officials representing
those authorities should be held responsible for "war crimes" under
the Nuremberg Charter. If the national legislatures of UN member countries
uphold governments which condone Israeli war crimes, then those members of
parliament must also be unseated.
A UN Security Council resolution cannot override or erase
the fact that Israel has violated international law and has committed extensive
crimes. Moreover, the veto exercised by a permanent member which might
temporarily uphold Israel's actions, including its illegal occupation of
Lebanon, has no legitimacy and cannot override the UN Charter and the tenets of
international law (Nuremberg Charter).
In other words, if appropriate sanctions against
Israel are not adopted by the UN Security Council, due the encroachment of the
one or more permanent members of the Security Council, the heads of State and
heads of government of those permanent member countries of the Security Council
(e.g. US, UK, France) should be considered, under the Nuremberg Charter,
accomplices of Israeli "crimes against the peace," " war
crimes" and "crimes against humanity." (Article 6).
Similarly, the adoption of a bogus consensus Security
Council resolution brokered by the US, France or Britain, which protects the
interests of Israel and/or upholds the illegal occupation, while calling for
the disarmament of Hizbollah, does not alter the fact that Israel has committed
those crimes. Moreover, it should be clear that if such a resolution were
to be adopted, those members who voted in favor of the resolution would, under
Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter, be considered accomplices of Israeli
crimes. Ultimately what such as bogus resolution signifies is the
"criminalization" of the United Nations Security Council.
But the more crucial and complex relationship to be
addressed by the antiwar movement pertains to the powers operating behind the
scenes: the Anglo-American oil giants, the so-called "defense
contractors" which produce Weapons of Mass Destruction in the real sense
of the word, the media conglomerates which fabricate the news and constitute an
instrument of war propaganda, and the powerful financial institutions, whose
interests are served in a profit driven war.
here for complete text
AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in
Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the
European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who,
acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals
or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning,
preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a
common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws
or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to,
murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of
civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of
prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public
or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or
devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder,
extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed
against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on
political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with
any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation
of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices
participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to
commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by
any persons in execution of such plan.
The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of
State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be
considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.
The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his
Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be
considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice
At the trial of any individual member of any group or
organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the
individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the
individual was a member was a criminal organization.
After the receipt of the Indictment the
Tribunal shall give such notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends
to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization
will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal
upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal
shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is
allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be
represented and heard.
In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal
by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have
the right to bring individual to trial for membership therein before national,
military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the
group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.
Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a
national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of
this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or
organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon him
punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the
Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or
The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings
against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of
this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for
any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct the
hearing in his absence.
The Tribunal shall draw up rules for
its procedure. These rules shall
not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter.
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international
best seller "The
Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is
Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center
for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a
contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is
entitled: America�s "War on Terrorism," Global Research,
2005. To order Chossudovsky's book America's
"War on Terrorism," click here.
The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CH020060806&articleId=2906
Note: Readers are
welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and
warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East