“Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Unfortunately, these days those words and goals are still not implemented and probably never will be. There are too many interests involved in establishing such an ideal government. Too much ego, prejudice, and economic, social and many other and conflicting interests are involved in the basic ingredients for melding such a government. Maybe it should be like this in the name of democracy and freedom of choice; maybe the people don’t deserve such an ideal government.
The major problem is generating the desired balance among all those ideals and desires. The two extreme possibilities are a government with too much power and a weak, divided government that is unable to make crucial decisions. A government or an organization with enough resources can do almost anything. Not only that, they can even publicly justify their actions in the name of preserving and protecting the democracy. They will support their actions, which may be illegal, immoral or even criminal in the name of justice, for the people and nation. To balance between a completely open society where everything is transparent, visible and known to everybody and a closed society where certain actions and information are known to few is a very difficult task. “People don’t have to know everything,” may have justification in certain cases. Polls have already proved that the mood of people can be easily manipulated and change directions with time, events and publicity.
Governments can, if they wish, eliminate certain groups or individuals who, in their opinion, oppose and are hostile to their policies. The elimination of a terrorist or a political opponent is as easy to achieve as it is easy to hide from the public. The death or disappearance of such people is explained under categories such as natural causes, accidents, mental hospitalization or death during emergency surgery.
All agencies, unofficial and official, such as the CIA, MI5/6, KGB and the Mossad, were and will be doing “it” in the name of national security. The popular public reason may be: “In order to protect, preserve or even enforce Democracy.” In certain cases those actions might be truly justified; the problem is where to set the limit. Many people have disappeared worldwide in the name of national security.
The reason of national security for not disclosing certain information or imprisoning an undesired subject is used too often by many countries and organizations.
Governments operate mainly at three levels. While level one is the clean and white level of activities, reserved for heads of states and highly exposed political figures, level two is the gray area. This is an unethical area of activity which smells bad but is still legal. Killing, eliminating, removing and falsifying are part of level three. Normally, “we the people” are exposed to level one and occasionally to level two, but rarely to level three.
At level three, I can mention for example, Gerald Bull, the Canadian engineer who developed the Babylon or “super-gun” long-range artillery for the Iraqi government. Bull was assassinated in Brussels, Belgium in March 1990.
It is quite interesting to note the language evolution with regard to using politically correct terminologies. The word-laundering is quite fascinating. Terms such as “Terrorists” or “freedom fighters,” “guerrillas”, “political assassination” or “removing from power” all depends on which side you ask or talk to.
The USA is a super-power with worldwide presence and intervention. In general, they are a stabilizing factor. Many Americans don’t understand the importance of their support for certain countries and at the same time many supported countries simply hate their presence.
To better understand the above, try to imagine a world without the U.S. involvement. Let’s assume that the U.S. is not a super-power or they evolved from an Empire to a regular Republic interested mainly in their internal affairs.
What would the world look like without U.S. intervention?
Oil is one of the major energy resources of most modern countries. Oil was one of the main reasons for wars and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. It was not a territorial dispute; it was about oil. The Americans are one of the largest oil consumers, so it is obvious why the U.S. was interested in assisting Kuwait.
However, this is not the whole picture. The U.S. involvement all over the world is not only for oil and monetary interests. Most people believe that there are other reasons. In the era of a globalized economy, world stability is essential and according to the Chaos theory, even a small problem in the Middle-East, for example, can generate a chain reaction which affects the U.S. in many areas. Most people believe that the global American intervention is also because they care. They care about establishing and maintaining Democracies and enabling freedom for everybody everywhere possible. Obviously there are other reasons and interests; so what are they?
China is becoming a major player in the world arena. They are the second largest oil consumers. The route of oil to China is secured and enabled by the U.S. Navy. China’s long term goal might be to be equal the U.S. and they can achieve it.
Without the U.S., Taiwan would cease to exist as a Democracy and may be annexed to mainland China. Without the U.S., Japan would have to get nuclear capabilities if they wanted to remain independent. They have had a continuing dispute with China since 1937, and the Chinese will never forget the Japanese invasion. The U.S. assisted Iran indirectly by eliminating Saddam Hussein, who had fought Iran over a border dispute for eight years. Saddam Hussein was interested in making Iraq an influential power in the Persian Gulf region. He invaded Iran not only because of the long history of border disputes, but also to enlarge Iraq’s oil reserves. Europe wants and needs oil, but they are not willing to pay the full price to get it. They hate the American presence and will not acknowledge that without the U.S., they wouldn’t get the oil they need.
Europe’s attitude toward Israel is extremely hypocritical. They have a short memory; however what unites Europe against Israel or the Jews is Anti-Semitism.
Since March 2003 when Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Turkey’s Prime Minister, their policy toward Israel has changed. Erdogan was unhappy with Israel’s reaction to Hezbollah’s kidnapping of soldiers in 2006; he was critical when Israel conducted the Gaza War; he asked to inspect Israel’s nuclear facilities under IAEA inspection; and he has criticized Israel for its many defensive actions.
The tension between the countries has escalated following the Gaza flotilla raid.
The question is what his motives are and if he has a hidden agenda that may explain his overzealous attention to Israel. His reactions have gained Turkey influence and sympathy among his Arab neighbors. Particularly, he may have gained certain advantages among his domestic political parties. His special collaborative attention and meetings with Syria and Iran should worry the West and particularly Israel.
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK, founded in 1978, is a Kurdish organization which fights against Turkey. Their goal is to establish an independent Kurdish state.
There is a claim by Germany that the Turkish military has used chemical weapons against members of the PKK.
Lebanon is a puppet country controlled by Syria and Iran. Hezbollah or “The Party of God” is a Shi’a Islamic organization involved in Lebanese politics, supported by Syria and Iran. Actually, they are viewed by most of the world as a terrorist organization.
Their forces are trained and organized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Their main goal is to eliminate the colonial entity in Lebanon and to establish an Islamic regime.
To achieve that, the Iranians with their supporters all are united under the hatred towards Israel and their desire to eliminate the Zionist entity from the region.
A top secret CIA document released on April 2004 lists the many possible suspects for the assassination of Elie Hobeika, former Lebanese Forces Commander.
Possible culprits include fellow Christians, other members of the Lebanese elite, Palestinians and Israelis.
According to a Western news agency, a previously unknown anti-Syrian group, “Lebanese for a Free and Independent Lebanon.” has claimed responsibility. The claim may be associated with rightwing Maronite Christians, who bore a grudge against Hobeika because he betrayed the Lebanese Forces and the Israelis by switching allegiance to the Syrians in the mid-80. Hobeika also was active in Christian infighting during Lebanon’s civil war.
Palestinians despise Hobeika because he allegedly directed the massacre of approximately 1,000 Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in 1992.
An Israeli commission in 1983 accused Hobeika of carrying out the massacre and held then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for the attack.
Many Lebanese suspect Israeli involvement because Hobeika had said he would testify against Sharon if the Belgians went forward with a trial accusing Sharon of genocide and crimes against humanity for his role in Sabra and Shatilla.
A Belgian court next month will rule on whether a judicial investigation into Sharon’s role can proceed.
President Lahud claims Hobeika was killed to stop him from testifying, according to press reports, a sentiment echoed by other government officials.
There is no direct evidence of Israeli involvement in the assassination, but highlighting an Israeli connection could help the Lebanese avoid the internal friction that would arise if a Lebanese group were blamed.
Anybody who thinks that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is over territories is totally wrong.
Israelis are willing to give back certain territories and make peace in exchange for a piece of paper… Unfortunately, based on history, those signed agreements have a very short life time. In the volatile region of the Middle-East Israel will face many difficulties without U.S. support. In the 1980s Soviet military forces in Afghanistan faced a different type of war than they had experienced in the past. The resistance forces fighting them were the mujahedeen.
The Makhtab Al-Khidamat (MAK) was founded by Osama Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, which led to the establishment of Al-Qaeda in 1988. At the end of the Soviet occupation they wanted to extend and justify their operations, so they tried to include other Islamic causes. It is quite obvious that Al-Qaeda benefited from the U.S. funding and training given to the Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet invasion.
There are many Al-Qaeda cells which are operative worldwide. Without united cooperation they will continue their terrorist operations including their attempt to get nuclear related weapons.
by Dr Giora Ram