Although there was hope that the Sharm
el-sheik ceasefire negotiated on October 17 would reduce tensions it did
not happen. While Israel did pull back its forces where it could, Arafat
only gave the ceasefire lip service and actually seemed to encourage
Palestinian rioting.
Arab nations cannot go to war
Even as conditions in Israel degenerate
into a state of civil war following the failed Sharm el-Sheikh cease fire
agreement, the long-scheduled Arab Emergency Council meeting in Cairo on
October 21-22 resulted in only a relatively mild condemnation of Israel.
While good news for Israel and the rest of the world, Libya and Iraq
called the Cairo summit a failure and the leaders of these Muslim states
"traitors."
Even so, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah
proposed a $1 billion aid package for the Palestinians, of which they
would donate 25 percent. Given the enormous profits the Saudis and other
oil rich nations have been reaping for the past eight months, this is a
very small price to pay. Under the Saudi plan, $800 million would be used
to fund Palestinian efforts to achieve independence, a polite way for
saying they are funding the civil war. A further $200m - to be known as
the Jerusalem Intifada Fund - would be allocated to the families and
education of the children of the Palestinian martyrs who sacrificed their
lives in the struggle.
Even so, the inaction at the Cairo
summit was strongly condemned by the Arab press as not being enough.
Worse, the Arab press continues to publish inflammatory articles that are
whipping up emotions of the Arab people to demand war against Israel,
which in turn, is putting the moderate Arab leaders in a very difficult
position. These leaders know they are in no condition to go to war against
Israel.
Syrian President Bashar Assad, for
instance, is still attempting to consolidate his power following the death
of his father. On October 10, Stratfor Intelligence noted that the Druze
and Maronite factions in Lebanon are testing the younger Assad by
demanding the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. Iran is also
testing Assad's resolve in Lebanon. Not only does Assad need to prove
himself, new Jordanian King Abdullah is as yet untested and unpredictable.
Though Western educated, oriented, and dependent, Abdullah is not eager to
be alone in the region siding with Israel. Meanwhile, aging Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak seeks to ensure the perpetuation of the Nasserite
regime and leave his mark on the region as something other than Anwar
Sadat’s survivor. The Arabs cannot hope to win a war with Israel without
the Egyptian army, and Mubarak has serious reservations as to whether his
army is up for a war with Israel.
Clinton created crisis
President Clinton could not have been
more successful at creating this international crisis if he tried.
On October 16, Stratfor Intelligence
presented an analysis illustrating how president Clinton, by forcing the
Camp David Peace Summit, precipitated the current crises in the Mideast.
The present violence "flowed directly from a poorly conceived U.S.
diplomatic initiative last July, when President Bill Clinton invited Ehud
Barak and Yasir Arafat to Camp David," claims Stratfor. "The
goal was to move toward a final, formal settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian relationship. But the outcome was disaster," the
analysis concluded. The analysis states:
"Rather than allowing quiet,
informal arrangements on the ground to govern the evolution on the
relationship, Clinton tried to engineer a comprehensive, formal, top-down
solution. The result was that both sides faced the abyss of peace and, in
effect, chose war as the lesser evil and safer course. Had Camp David not
occurred, the situation probably would not have deteriorated this badly,
if at all.... Now, we are in what might be a nightmare scenario."
The nightmare scenario
Although the Arab nations simply are not
in a position to go to war with Israel now or for the next several years,
the near supernatural emotions now being whipped up throughout all the
Arab nations may force them into a war whether they are ready or not. If
the popular call for war intensifies, it would almost certainly force the
moderate Arab leadership into taking a disastrous course of action. Such
action, in turn, would likely force Israel into what Stratfor Intelligence
reports as Israel's "nightmare scenario."
Israel already has in place a preemptive
strike contingency known as the nightmare scenario that will be unleashed
if Israel is fighting a simultaneous internal civil war and it appears
likely that the Arab nations are preparing to attack. Explained by
Stratfor on October 16, it would be initiated long before the Arabs
themselves were prepared to attack. Under this plan Israeli doctrine holds
that Israeli forces must move first to secure Sinai’s Mitla and Gidda
passes--before the Arab nations are fully mobilized. Indeed, the full
preemptive scenario would include a reoccupation of Sinai up to the passes
along with preemptive air strikes on Arab air forces and, above all,
missile capabilities.
Israel's next step controlled by
Clinton
As long as the Arab nations are
successful in resisting the emotional hysteria of their people, Israel is
not likely to use the nightmare scenario. Yet, even if Israel does not go
to this extreme it must quell the rioting and protect the Israelites.
By October 24, the The Hindustan Times reported
the Israeli army was ready to implement the plan to re-conquer the West
Bank and Gaza Strip and completely separate Israelis and Palestinians in
Israel as well as Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Israeli deputy
defense minister Ephraim Sneh, would oversee the plan which would involve
corridors to Israel from each settlement and border checkpoints
everywhere. "This would create a Palestinian state though not the
kind the Palestinians had in mind," notes the Times article.
President Clinton rejected the plan,
however, according to the October 25 World Tribune. To buck Clinton, Barak
must have full cooperation of the Likud Party headed by Ariel Sharon in a
unity government. Repeated efforts to form a unity government failed on
October 18 and 27 when Sharon demanded total veto power over anything
Barak did.
Without Sharon’s backing, Barak is
nothing more than a pawn for president Clinton. Because of Clinton's veto,
Barak has been forced to postpone the West Bank and Gaza Strip attack. The
World Tribune reports that sources from both Barak's Labor Party and the
opposition Likud said Barak owes Clinton too much to spark a dispute
between the two men during the president's last months in office. For
Barak, Clinton represents the most recent, and important, of more than
20-years of relationships between Barak and successive U.S.
administrations that began when he was a colonel in the Israeli army.
Labor Party sources spin the close ties
between the two leaders as well as Clinton's efforts to promote Barak's
policies throughout Europe as necessary to keep the UN out of Israel.
"They say an angry Clinton would destroy Barak's reputation, which
would end up turning Israel into an international pariah and spark an
effort to deploy United Nations troops in the Palestinian areas,"
says the Tribune. Opposition sources are less charitable. They say Barak
owes his premiership to Clinton. These sources, who include aides to
leading opposition politicians, "say Clinton groomed Barak for
leadership when he left the military in 1994 and then helped raise tens of
millions of dollars as well as political support for Barak's
campaign," claims the Tribune.
Clinton leaves Barak twisting in the
wind
Just as predicted in the August
Discerning the Times (DTT) Digest, Barak is caught in a political death
spiral over which he has little control. Strangely, while Barak is dancing
for Clinton, Clinton has given no support to Barak, leaving him to twist
in the wind--exactly like he has done with Taiwan.
Israel claims it needs $800 million in
assistance to fight the civil war and the threat of a regional war.
Clinton has said no. Clinton has objected to Barak's threats to suspend
the peace process and implement a plan that would, in effect, annex parts
of the West Bank to Israel. He has dismissed Barak's appeal to force
Arafat to either stop the violence or drive him into exile and launch
peace efforts with a new Palestinian leadership. Instead he has agreed to
an Arafat proposal for peace negotiations after the presidential elections
on Nov. 7, according to the World Tribune. But why? Clinton knows
that Arafat deliberately torpedoed the peace initiative, so why would he
agree to Arafat's conditions and sandbag Barak?
But that is not all. The Tribune also
stated that the CIA now knows, and therefore so does Clinton, that
"Arafat plans to escalate violence against Israel until he declares a
state as early as Nov. 15. At that point, the aides said, Arafat will
offer to renew negotiations with Israel." Indeed, when it became
obvious on October 22 that the peace talks and ceasefire were a sham and
Barak called for a "time out" from any talks, Arafat told Barak
to "go to hell." It doesn't matter to Arafat. "Barak has
said he wants the peace process to stop, but our people are going on their
road until they arrive in the Holy Land of Jerusalem, the capital of the
Palestinian nation," Arafat said.
Clinton knows full well what Arafat is
doing. So why is he supporting Palestinian lies and subterfuge? There can
be only one answer. He is playing both sides against the middle to insure
that the crisis deepens until only one solution remains--a forced peace
offered by the international community. But not until after November 7.
Clinton does not want Americans to realize that he precipitated an
international crisis of gargantuan proportions before the election. Such
an epiphany for the American people would destroy Gore's chance at winning
the presidency.
The international connection
What is happening in the Mideast is born
in the pits of hell and leaps from the pages of Bible prophecy. Every
indication is that Clinton is quietly promoting discord and violence in
the name of peace by catering to Arafat. Both men want an international
solution, but for different reasons.
On October 20, the Ha'aretz Daily News reported
that Israel's military (the IDF) determined that Arafat's entire strategy
from the beginning was to duplicate Kosovo. Such a strategy, notes
Ha'aretz, "involves increasing international involvement, foreign
observers and troops, and finally an imposed settlement - which would be
better for the Palestinians than what the Americans offered at Camp
David."
The minute parties other than the
Americans are involved, Arafat profits. An Israeli mistake (bombing
civilians, a massacre by settlers) or a new, more hesitant American
administration would also help. And if Plan A does not achieve its goals,
Arafat would still have the option of a regional conflict. "His hope
is that once the smoke clears," observes the Ha'aretz, "a
Palestinian state will emerge, perhaps with better borders than Ehud Barak
and Bill Clinton have offered him."
The international attendees at the Sharm
el-Sheike peace summit spoke volumes about the growing role of the global
community. In addition to Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat, Egyptian Hosni
Mubarak, Jordan King Abdullah and William Clinton, European Union Foreign
and Security Policy Chief Javier Solana, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
also attended. The previous week British Foreign Minister Robin Cook and
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov were also deeply involved in the
peace negotiations.
DTT has repeatedly cautioned since early
this summer that the current peace talks were unlike any that had
proceeded it. The Camp David Summit seemed to be designed to fail and when
it did, DTT warned that the international community would become involved
in a very intimate way for the first time in any of the Israeli-Arab talks
to date. The fact that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and EU Foreign and
Security Policy Chief Javier Solana are fully involved give the move to
global governance a tremendous push. Annan, of course, is deeply involved
in the move toward global governance, and just told all the heads of state
at the conclusion of the Millennium Summit, September 8, that he considers
their Millennium Declaration to implement global governance to be a
mandate. Arafat wants UN intervention, and therefore allowed himself to be
talked into the Sharm el-sheike ceascefire talks by Annan when he had
already refused to go.
Most people have never heard of Javier
Solana, but he is considered by many to be one of the most powerful men in
Europe. As reported in the May 1999 issue of DTT Digest, it was Solana who
masterminded the Kosovo bombing that established the right of the
international community to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign
state. It was Solana, not president Clinton who gave the order to American
pilots to start bombing Kosovo and Serbia. The defeat of Slobodan
Milosevic earlier this month in Yugoslavia, validated the international
community's right to intervene militarily into other nations.
Solana is also the force behind the
60,000 EU standing army that was authorized this year and reported in the
February 28 edition of DTT NewsBytes and the May DTT Digest. And, it is
Solana who is the principle architect to expand the EU into a federalized
Superstate. But, most of all, it is Solana who is the man-behind-the-
scenes working with other governments around the world to enhance the
power of the EU.
It seems that Clinton, Annan, Solana and
Cook are involved in the Mideast for one reason. To guide the process of
violence to the point where an international solution is mandated. These
global power figures may or may not be working in lockstep with each
other. But they all have the goal of imposing a global solution to the
Mideast nightmare. In doing so, they just may fulfill biblical
prophecy. V mc
