|
The
Battle of Gaza
By Mike Whitney
06/16/07 "ICH" ----- In less than 24 hours of fierce
street-fighting, Bush’s proxy-army in Gaza was routed by armed
units of Hamas. It was a stunning defeat for Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas, and for US-Israeli policymakers who
have done everything in their power to overturn the “free and
fair” election of the Hamas government. For now, Hamas has
reestablished its authority in Gaza although Abbas is still
working frantically with Bush and Olmert to consolidate his
power in the West Bank. So far, Abbas has carried out the
demands of his paymasters by replacing Prime Minister Ismail
Haniyeh with ex-World Bank official, Salam Fayyad---a
Palestinian Karzai who will take his orders from Tel Aviv or
Washington. Abbas does not have the constitutional authority to
replace Prime Minister Haniyeh or to disband the Hamas-dominated
government, but this point is typically overlooked in the
western media.
The Bush administration has abandoned any pretense of neutrality
and is openly supporting the ongoing violation of UN resolution
242. Bush helped to engineer the savage boycott which has
withheld food, water, medical aid and financial resources from
Palestinian civilians. He has also funneled millions of dollars
and weapons to the Palestinian “Preventive Security Force”
headed by US-ally Mohammad Dahlan. According to the UK Guardian,
“Washington has launched a controversial $60 million program to
bolster Mr Abbas's presidential guard and Israel has quietly
allowed Arab states to send in arms and ammunition”. Dahlan’s
militia was organized to challenge Hamas, but the plan failed
spectacularly. As soon as the fighting broke out in Gaza,
Dahlan’s men panicked and fled across the border to Egypt. Those
who remained were disarmed, stripped and taken into custody by
Hamas. One prominent Fatah gunman, Samih Madhoun, who had
boasted of “executing several Hamas fighters and torching the
homes of others”, was shot execution style.
The defeat in Gaza is just the latest of Washington’s debacles
in the Middle East. US-Israeli failures in the territories are
the result of a misguided policy which is backfiring everywhere.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh summed up the present
policy like this: "We're in the business of creating ...
sectarian violence."
Hersh is right. Bush and Olmert are using the familiar “divide
and conquer” strategy to provoke “Arab on Arab” violence. The
policy is an extension of Henry Kissinger’s dictum during the
Iran-Iraq war: “I hope they all kill each other”. The goal is
the same today as it was then.
Hersh says that the Bush administration supported the group of
Sunni extremists, Fatah al-Islam, who are still battling the
Lebanese Army in Nahr al-Bared refugee camp. He said that it is
"a covert program we joined in with the Saudis as part of a
bigger, broader program of doing everything we could to stop the
spread of the Shiite world".
In Lebanon, as in Gaza Strip, the “divide and conquer” strategy
has produced appalling results---forcing 30,000 poor
Palestinians to flee their homes and search for shelter.
This week’s bombing of the minarets at the Golden Dome Mosque is
another example of the Bush Doctrine at work. Bush and his
generals assure us that Al Qaeda was responsible, but reports
from the New York Times tell a different story.
Here’s an excerpt from an article by Graham Bowley “Minarets on
Shiites Shrine in Iraq Destroyed in Attack” (NY Times) which
gives us a good idea of what really happened in Samarra. Bowley
says:
“Since the attack in 2006, the shrine had been under the
protection of local — predominantly Sunni — guards. But American
military and Iraqi security officials had recently become
concerned that the local unit had been infiltrated by Al Qaeda
forces in Iraq. A move by the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad
over the last few days to bring in a new guard unit —
predominantly Shiite — may have been linked to the attack
today.”
No reference is made to the sudden and unexplained changing of
the guards at the mosque in future accounts in the mainstream
press. And, yet, that is the most important point. The minarets
were blown up just days after the new guards took charge. They
cordoned off the area, placed snipers on the surrounding
rooftops, and then blew up the minarets in broad daylight.
The first explosion took place at 9:30 AM. Ten minutes later the
second bomb was detonated.
Al Qaeda?
Not likely.
The Golden Dome mosque has been heavily guarded ever since it
was blown up in 2006. The four main doors have been bolted shut
and not a tile has been moved in over a year. The reason for
this is that the Shiites consider it a “crime scene” which they
intend to investigate more thoroughly when the violence
subsides.
The Shiites never accepted the official US-version of events
that “al Qaeda did it”. Many believe that US Special Forces were
directly involved and that it was a planned demolition carried
out by experts. There is considerable proof to support this
theory including eye witness accounts from the scene of the
crime as well as holes that were drilled in the floor of the
mosque to maximize destruction. This was not a simple al
Qaeda-type car-bombing but a technically-demanding demolition
operation.
The damning information in the New York Times article has been
corroborated in many other publications including an official
statement from the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI).
According to the AMSI, Prime Minister Nouri al Mailiki replaced
the Sunnis who had been guarding the site for over a year with
Shiite government forces from the Interior Ministry. Their
statement reads:
“Security forces arrived yesterday afternoon from Baghdad
Tuesday for the receipt of the task of protecting two tombs
instead of the existing force there. Somehow they obtained a
scuffle followed by gunfire lasted two hours over control of
security forces coming from Baghdad."
So, the Sunni guards were replaced (after a scuffle) with goons
from the Interior Ministry. The next day the minarets blow up.
Coincidence?
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki immediately issued
statement where he claimed that the al Qaeda was responsible for
the attack. At the same time, however, he arrested all 12 of the
guards he sent from the Interior Ministry.
Why? Was he afraid they would talk to the media?
The Association of Muslim Scholars said that “last year’s
explosion happened after a severe political crisis between blocs
involved in the political process to the occupation. After the
elections, the establishment of the government was blocked at
that time. It is quite similar to the political crisis faced by
the government and parliament today”.
The AMSI is right. The destruction of the Golden Dome Mosque
took place soon after the Iraqi parliament rejected the US-plan
for dividing Iraq. (“Federalism”) This time, the parliament has
voted-down the US-plan to transfer control of Iraq’s vast
petroleum reserves to the American oil giants via the “oil
laws”.
The AMSI sees the bombing as a desperate attempt by the US
occupation to break the logjam in Parliament over the oil laws
and to conceal the failures of the “surge” by inciting sectarian
violence. The only difference this time is that the Shiite
militias have been less responsive to US manipulation. In fact,
Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr has tried to stop his Mahdi Army
from attacking Sunni areas and he has decried the bombing as
another plot by US-Israeli intelligence agents operating in
Iraq. He said that the incident reveals “the hidden hand of the
occupier.”
He added, “This is what the occupiers brought to Iraq: a
disintegration plot and fanning the flames of sectarian
violence. Destroying the Askariya shrine goes exactly with the
insurgents' beliefs.”
Among Shiites, there’s nearly unanimous agreement that the US
was behind the bombing. Middle East expert Juan Cole reports on
his blog-site “Informed Comment, that protests have broken out
in India, Pakistan, the Caucasus, Bahrain, Iran and other
locations where there are high concentrations of Shiites. The
consensus view is that the minarets were blown up as part of a
larger US-Israeli strategy for controlling the Middle East.
But why would the Bush administration want to unleash a fresh
wave of sectarian violence when they can’t even establish
security in Baghdad?
Here’s what the AMSI says:
“Sectarian violence is an effective means to enable the militias
to fully impose their control on (Sunni) neighborhoods and
cities as it did after the bombings of Samarra….The government
is also trying to control the capital of Baghdad; seeking to
extend its power over other cities that reject the occupation,
especially the cities of Baquba and Samarra”.
This is what is gained by the bombings—further ethnic cleansing
of the Sunni neighborhoods and greater control over the public
through a campaign of terror. It’s all part of a broader neocon
strategy that centers on “creative destruction” rather than the
traditional US policy of “regional stability”.
Al Sadr’s comments (as well as those of the AMSI) show that
fewer and fewer Iraqis are taken in by US counterinsurgency
activities. In fact, US-Israeli aggression is now seen as the
main source of violence in the region. This has turned Muslims
around the world against the West. For these people, the
victories by Hamas and Hezbollah must come as a welcome relief.
They are small indication that the imperial grip is beginning to
loosen and that, perhaps change will be achievable sometime in
the “not so distant” future.
The perception of US invincibility has been shattered. America’s
moral authority is in ruins. We are neither feared nor
respected; that is the unfortunate legacy of Abu Ghraib and
Falluja. But what is bad news for us may be good news for the
people in the Middle East. It’s now possible to imagine a New
Middle East where fundamental change is possible. As resistance
continues to swell from a trickle to a stream---we can envision
“regime change” sweeping through the region from Riyadh, to
Amman to Cairo---an entirely new world shaking off its colonial
past.
The forces that Bush has put in motion will inexorably lead to
the decline of “superpower rule” and the dismantling of the US
imperium. The transition is already visible. The battle of Gaza
is just a macrocosm of a much larger phenomenon which now
extends from Mogadishu to Kabul.
Change is coming, but it might not be to Bush’s liking. That’s
the real lesson of what happened in Gaza
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
