SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: February 2019

Thursday 28 February 2019

Situation in South Asia after Terrorist Attacks in India and Iran

Author: Vladimir Terehov

Country: India

The terror attack, which occurred on 14 February near the town of Pulwama in the district with the same name of the Jammu and Kashmir state, struck a serious blow to not only any positive (but weak) trends in the relationship between India and Pakistan, but also to the situation evolving in the subregion of South Asia as a whole.

We would like to remind our readers that as a result of the attack by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber, who drove an off-road vehicle with 300 kg of explosives into a convoy of Indian military personnel moving along the main state motorway, more than 40 people died and an approximately equivalent number sustained injuries. And although in the Indian part of the former princely state of Kashmir a guerrilla warfare has been waged non-stop (with practically daily casualties), this act of terror was the bloodiest in recent decades.

A militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed, included in a UN list of terrorist groups and designated as such (which is important to highlight) in Pakistan, claimed responsibility for the attack.

At this point, it is essential to add some key comments. As without them there is no sense in describing the words or actions following the terrorist attack, which were spoken or initiated by the leaders of not only India and Pakistan but also the two world powers, i.e. the USA and China.

In Pakistan, it is believed that the previously mentioned organization was a product of the notorious problems facing the Indian section of Kashmir, where this group is based. However, in India there is a wide-held belief that the all-powerful ISI (the Inter-Services Intelligence in Pakistan) sponsors this and other similar organizations, and that leaders and training camps of Jaish-e-Mohammed are in fact in Pakistan.

The author of this article will abstain from expressing his own point of view on this subject as well as the much broader topic of the Kashmir conflict, which, overall, is a sensitive issue for two of Russian Federation’s key partners. However, we will take the liberty to address the theme of relationships existing between participants within the system “special forces-terrorist organization”. Up until now, the mere existence of such an arrangement was primarily discussed in relation to Pakistan.

However, in recent years it has become quite apparent that such “systems” are also present in “civilized” countries.

And there is no real need to make any forms of moral judgements about this issue. Everyone faces problems over which they do not wish to get their hands dirty (officially). Unfortunately, our world is not perfect.

During a well-known address by Donald Trump to Europeans regarding their own citizens who had fought for ISIS (an organization banned in Russia), the author discerned the following message “Here’s the thing, my dear allies! Take your outlaws back. After all they have already caused enough mischief as a result of your post-colonial syndrome.”

We would also like to add that an acknowledgment of the presence of this syndrome is what compelled the former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to object to American participation in the Libyan venture in his time, which had begun, first and foremost, with the help of Anglo-French “sponsors”.

As for Pakistan, the extremely tough situation in the country and its surroundings demands (in the most stringent terms) that special forces, responsible for ensuring security, maintain some form of contact with dubious organizations. As a result, naturally, it becomes problematic to effectively monitor activities of such organizations. The act of terror in Pulwama was, seemingly, a manifestation of this issue.

The motto “zero tolerance towards terrorism” is only good to be voiced from UN platforms. Since extremely varied in nature events, labelled with a general (and absurd) term “terrorism”, stem from very different sources.

And their existence in the global political arena is no less reasonable than that of each member-state of the United Nations. The use of the term “terrorism” also allows one to evade a key question “Who has the right to use force in political conflicts and on what grounds can they do so?”

It is unlikely that the situation in the Indian part of Kashmir will improve drastically if the ISI undertakes serious efforts to combat the organization Jaish-e-Mohammed. It is simply a question of time (a fairly short period seemingly) when in its place a similar organization (but lacking any semblance of control) will appear in the Jammu and Kashmir state.

Taking into account the scale of what happened in Pulwama, it is worth noting that the leadership of both India and Pakistan has been able to keep the state of their bilateral relations under control. Still, naturally enough, rhetoric apt for the occasion did follow from New Delhi.

However, out of all the retaliatory measures voiced by India, the deadliest ones (as for instance, the use of air strikes to hit “terror infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir” with precision were not carried out for now. As an investigation, which started, has unearthed some important clues about the terrorist attack.

Still, the return of sharp rhetoric (for example, a voiced intention to isolate Pakistan economically and politically) into the framework of bilateral ties indicates that, after Pulwama, this relationship has practically instantaneously hit rock bottom. Similar developments were last observed more than two years ago when, following attacks by militants of Indian border patrol’s guard posts and barracks in that same Kashmir, Prime Minister Narendra Modi threatened to cut off water supply to Pakistan from tributaries of the life-sustaining Indus River. Pakistanis responded with their own counter-threats to resort to nuclear weapons.

From the author’s point of view, the act of terror in Pulwama is not in the interests of either of the two world powers, with each playing its own game of chess in the subregion of South Asia. The United States was forced to sharply rebuke Pakistan, who President Donald Trump only recently expressed his intention to improve relations with as part of the plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

In China, the tragic incident in the Indian part of Kashmir was clearly overshadowed by a more important event for Beijing: the visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the state of Arunachal Pradesh, which had taken place 5 days earlier as part of his campaign tour before the upcoming parliamentary elections. We would like to remind our readers that, in the PRC, the territories of the previously mentioned state are viewed as belonging to China and referred to as South Tibet. Hence, the visit of India’s Prime Minister to Arunachal Pradesh resulted in an act of protest by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.

The terrorist attack in Pulwama turned out to be a truly inopportune incident, first and foremost, for the Pakistani leadership on many grounds. One such reason was that only a day earlier one of Baloch militant groups carried out an equally bloody act of terror near the border of Pakistan and the Iranian Sistan and Baluchestan Province. The attack was aimed at the local headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). One of the leaders of IRGC also threatened Pakistan with retaliatory measures during his speech at a funeral service for one of the victims of this terrorist attack.

It is noteworthy that the Pakistani government has long waged a war against any form of separatism, including such a movement in its own province of Balochistan. What makes these state efforts especially significant is the fact that Baloch militants are increasingly taking aim against sites of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which are extremely important for the Pakistani leadership, Chinese construction workers and even Chinese diplomatic missions.

At any rate, both Iran and Afghanistan have backed U.S. appeals, directed at Pakistan, to stop supporting terrorism.

And all of these problems have fallen on the shoulders of the recently elected Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. One of his key promises, made during last year’s campaign before the parliamentary election, was his intention to improve relations with India. And since the Pakistani army (and by default the ISI) is behind all the important political events in this nation, the only complaint which could be levelled against the country’s current leadership is the fact that it has not taken enough measures to combat terrorism, and not that it (even indirectly) supports such organizations.

It is highly likely that such criticism will garner a response, i.e. something along the following lines “If only we had your problems.”

It is extremely sad that one of the main consequences of these recent acts of terror, which Pakistan has been accused of in one way or the other, is the fact that the situation in the subregion of South Asia is entering a state of chaos and all of its dire outcomes to follow.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

https://journal-neo.org/2019/02/28/situation-in-south-asia-after-terrorist-attacks-in-india-and-iran/
https://journal-neo.org/2019/02/28/situation-in-south-asia-after-terrorist-attacks-in-india-and-iran/

Netanyahu Finds Israeli Ultra-Right Parties Suited to His Political Purposes

The members of Otsma Yehudit are thugs and some have been designated as terrorists, and Netanyahu has more stately manners. But their objectives and their actions are in perfect sync.

February 25th, 2019

By Miko Peled

JERUSALEM, OCCUPIED PALESTINE —

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enters into an alliance with the Israeli equivalent of neo-Nazis, media outlets — including the Washington Post and The Forward — and even AIPAC express uneasiness. However, for Netanyahu, this political partnership makes sense ideologically and politically. Netanyahu shares the racist-nationalist ideology of these extremist groups and, since there is a mad rush to the right within Israel’s political parties, Netanyahu, wanting to win the race, is now in an alliance with the most right-wing group on the Israeli political map — and that is saying a lot!

The Partners

Otsma Yehudit, or Jewish Might, states in its party platform, in the “Enemies of Israel” section:

The fight against the enemies of Israel will be toal and without compromise. There will be no compromises or negotiations. The party will act to enforce Israeli sovereignty on all parts of Eretz Israel that were liberated in the 1967 war and it will work to sort out the status of the enemies of Israel in the Arab states that surround Israel.”

The platform also states that the party will act to see that all the enemies of Israel will emigrate and leave the country, returning to their countries of origin — and this out of a desire to keep Israel’s Jewish character. The party will fight without compromise to end the theft of land and will act to redeem the lands of Israel in the Naqab, the Galilee and elsewhere in the spirit of the JNF.

On the issue of Government and Morals, the charter states that the Jewish character of the state will take precedence over any “universal values:” “We do not wish to lose the Jewish state by war or peace or Western Democracy.”

To clarify some of the terminology, the “enemies of Israel” are the Palestinians, whom this party calls to expel. Their countries of origin are, according to this party, other Arab states. The general prevailing view among radical Zionists is that Palestine belongs to the Jews and that the Palestinians are invaders.

The JNF, or Jewish National Fund, has been the major force behind Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the covering of destroyed Palestinian villages with forests. On its website JNF claims that “We planted more than a quarter-billion trees in what was once a barren desert.” Which is true — except for the part about it being a barren desert. JNF further states that “We see the Negev and Galilee regions blooming with new families attracted by vibrant communities, meaningful work and affordable housing.” Again this is true — except for the fact that these new vibrant communities exclude the indigenous Palestinian Bedouin for whom the Naqab has been home since time immemorial. Furthermore, all of the development takes place on Bedouin lands.

Habayit Hayehudi (the Jewish Home) was established by Naftali Bennett, who now serves as Minister of Education. Bennett left the party to create a new party — a secular, right-wing party for “Israeli, right-wing Jews” — called “Yamin Hadash” or New Right.

Though one is a religious party using religious values as its core values, and the other calls for unity between religious and secular Israeli Jews, on the issue of the Land of Israel they are identical: The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews; Jews and only Jews have national rights on the land; there will be no compromises or negotiations on the land; settling the land with Jews is a national priority. They also claim they believe that minorities should have citizenship rights.

This last clause is problematic because if it is a Jewish state with Jewish symbols and priority is given to the settling of the land with Jews, this already negates the possibility that equal rights will be offered to the minorities. These minorities, who are the Palestinians, are in fact the majority between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, so once again there is a clear inconsistency here that can be attributed to the fact that they have no intention of giving any rights to Palestinians.

In addition to that, Palestinians, being the indigenous people of the land, should be provided not only citizenship rights but national rights.

Though these two parties are now running against each other, it is likely that they will sit together in a coalition government once Netanyahu is elected.

The main player

The only stable party that remains significant in today’s Israeli political map is the Likud party, which is headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Its charter resembles that of the other parties, which so many find hard to stomach:

Protecting the rights of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel as an eternal and unquestionable right. Developing and settling all parts of the land of Israel and extending Israeli sovereignty onto all parts of the Land of Israel.”

The Likud too calls for equal rights to all citizens and encouraging minorities to be included in the state. Since the Likud has a history of governing otherwise, particularly in the last decade under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is clear that these calls are merely lip service.

Hypocrisy

In an interview I gave recently, I stated that the entire orchestra of people and organizations that criticize Netanyahu for his political alliance with these right-wing parties is pure hypocrisy. He shares their ideology and it makes political sense for him to align with them. Comparing them to the KKK or to Neo-nazis is not wrong, but one must remember that they are the cutting edge of Zionism and the State of Israel.

They are the “soldiers” who push the limits and allow the official state policies to move forward. The members of Otsma Yehudit are thugs and some have been designated as terrorists, and Netanyahu has more stately manners. But their objectives and their actions are in perfect sync.

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of “The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.”

https://www.mintpressnews.com/netanyahu-israel-ultra-right/255522/

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

Returning Syrian Refugees Were Fleeing US Proxy War, Not “Assad”

Author: Tony Cartalucci

Column: Politics

Region: Middle East

Country: Syria

A recent BBC segment titled, “The Syrians returning home after years of fleeing war,” contradicted 8 years of the British state media’s narratives regarding the war in Syria.

A synopsis of the short BBC video segment would read:

After years of people fleeing Syria and its civil war, there are now long queues to enter the country each day. Jordan opened its Jaber border crossing last October after Syrian government troops defeated rebels who had controlled the other side.

Now several thousand people pass through each day. They include small-scale merchants reviving cross-border trade and returning Syrian refugees who hope to rebuild their lives.

Huge numbers of Syrians have already returned to Syria – specifically to areas government forces have cleared of Western-armed and backed terrorists. This includes Aleppo, Homs, and Daraa.

The flood of returning refugees to government-held areas indicates Syrians were fleeing the US-backed proxy war against the Syrian government – not the Syrian government itself.

What the BBC Has Previously Claimed

Viewers and readers who invested trust in the BBC’s narratives over the past 8 years will be shocked to hear thousands of Syrians crowding the Jordanian-Syrian border daily to return to the war-ravaged nation.

The BBC has insisted for 8 years, millions of refugees had fled Syria to escape the nation’s “brutal dictator” Syrian President Bashar Al Assad – accused of “gassing his own people,” raining down “barrel bombs” that were both crude and “indiscriminate” but also paradoxically capable of pinpointing elementary schools and children’s hospitals, and whose “Shabiha” death squads lurked around every corner.

In 2016, a BBC article titled, “Syria conflict: Aleppo bombing shuts largest hospital,” uncritically repeated claims made by US-funded fronts operating in Aleppo during security operations to clear it of terrorists.

The BBC would eagerly report:

Russian and Syrian air raids on the rebel-held eastern half of the city of Aleppo have forced the closure of the largest hospital in the area and killed two people, a medical charity says.

The Syrian American Medical Society, which supports the hospital, said it had been struck by barrel bombs.

The BBC – along with the rest of the Western media – have depicted bombs used by the Syrian military as “barrel bombs,” claiming that because of their crude construction, they could not be aimed and therefore were “indiscriminate” in nature.

A 2013 BBC article titled, “Syria conflict: Barrel bombs show brutality of war,” would claim:

…barrel bombs reportedly used again in Aleppo by Syrian government forces during recent days – are home-made, relatively crude and totally indiscriminate in their impact.

The barrel bomb is essentially a large, home-made incendiary device. An oil barrel or similar cylindrical container filled with petrol, nails or other crude shrapnel, along with explosives. With an appropriate fuse, they are simply rolled out of a helicopter.

The article would also claim such “barrel bombs” were, “in no sense accurate,” except of course – when they needed to be accurate for the sake of war propaganda – such as allegedly pinpointing US-funded “hospitals” in terrorist-held Aleppo.

A 2017 BBC article titled, “Syria chemical ‘attack': What we know,” would claim:

More than 80 people were killed in a suspected chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in north-western Syria on 4 April.

Hundreds suffered symptoms consistent with reaction to a nerve agent after what the opposition and Western powers said was a Syrian government air strike on the area.

The report – of course – was based entirely on “witness” accounts, with OPCW inspectors unable to investigate the site due to the fact Khan Sheikhoun was – and still is – under Al Qaeda occupation. The BBC article intentionally omits that “samples” the OPCW examined lacked any verifiable chain of custody. In other words – the samples could have come from anywhere, including labs where they were likely fabricated.

The BBC has faithfully repeated every claim made by militants regarding chemical weapons throughout the war. The BBC has gone as far as claiming “Assad’s” repeated use of chemical weapons was a key factor in his victory – though failed categorically to explain how.

Why would people – enjoying refugee status in neighboring countries and even in Europe, risk returning to Syria where “brutal dictator” Bashar Al Assad not only still remains in power – but has decisively defeated his opponents through the use of “barrel bombs,” “chemical weapons,” and other forms of indescribable brutality?

The answer is simple – refugees were fleeing the US-backed war and the terrorists it had armed to divide and destroy the country – not the Syrian government. The vast majority of Syria’s displaced remained inside Syria – and simply moved into areas under government protection. Now with many other areas of the country having security restored by government forces with Russian and Iranian backing – hundreds of thousands more are returning from abroad, including from Europe – according to the BBC itself.

Great effort had been put into misrepresenting the refugee crisis the Syrian conflict triggered – specifically because the specifics of the crisis clearly revealed who Syrians were really fleeing and why. Analysis of Syria’s internally displaced refugees was intentionally and systematically omitted by the BBC and other Western media organizations in their reports over the years to obfuscate the fact refugees were fleeing militants, and voluntarily returning once militants were pushed out of various regions across Syria.

Explaining The BBC’s Reversal

London-based security expert Charles Shoebridge in a short but insightful social media post would note:

When the preferred narrative becomes unsustainable, media manage this by switching to reporting as if for years they hadn’t suggested opposite. Also, UK govt (and BBC) know that UK will again have relations with Assad, which continuing to demonise him may make difficult to sell.

And of course – the BBC knows that any viewer or reader still investing trust in its daily and extensive propaganda efforts – will unlikely notice the sudden, dramatic shift in narrative regarding Syria.

BBC correspondents will claim that their past articles intentionally framing Syrian President Assad as a “madman” “gassing his own people” and raining “barrel bombs” on their heads were “balanced” because in the last paragraph, brief and marginalized statements from the Syrian or Russian governments refuting such accusations were also included.

A similar defense has been mounted since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq failed to turn up weapons of mass destruction after media organizations like the BBC assured the public of the necessity of that war.

The BBC has all but admitted to its 8 years of war propaganda aimed at the destruction of Syria. The very refugees it now reports are returning to Syria suffered the fate they have specifically because of the inability of media organizations like the BBC to honestly inform the public. The cost of the Syrian war helps remind the public why during the Nuremberg trials following World War 2, war propagandists were sent to the gallows alongside the trigger-pullers their lies helped enable.

While the BBC still enjoys vast amounts of impunity with no likelihood in the foreseeable future of ever being held accountable for its actions – it should be remembered at all times that the BBC is in the business of propaganda – and especially war propaganda – not “news.” This fact should be kept in mind whether its correspondents are covering the Middle East, South America, or Southeast Asia.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

https://journal-neo.org/2019/02/28/returning-syrian-refugees-were-fleeing-us-proxy-war-not-assad/

https://journal-neo.org/2019/02/28/returning-syrian-refugees-were-fleeing-us-proxy-war-not-assad/

With Oil, Water and Iran as Targets, US on Brink of Recognizing Israeli Sovereignty Over Golan Heights

Israel is now pushing for the U.S. to recognize its sovereignty over the Golan for fear of losing it completely, even though such recognition could result in an all-out war between Israel and Syria, as well as with Syrian allies such as Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

By Whitney Webb Whitney Web b

WASHINGTON — A new bill recently introduced in the Senate, along with its companion bill in the House, would result in the United States government recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over Syria’s Golan Heights, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967. The territory was later annexed in 1981, but the international community — including the United States — has not recognized Israel’s claim to the Syrian territory.

In addition, the bill would also promote the U.S. conducting “joint projects” with Israel in the Golan, including “industrial research and development.” This is sure to result in joint U.S.-Israeli efforts to extract the large oil reserves recently discovered in the Golan Heights, as the rights to extract that oil were granted to the joint U.S.-Israeli venture Genie Energy soon after its discovery was made public.

The move to introduce legislation regarding the contested territory has been hinted at for months by top Israeli officials, especially following the decision of the Trump administration to unilaterally recognize the city of Jerusalem as belonging exclusively to Israel and as being that country’s capital.

Working the Iran angle

Last May, Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz told Reuters that Washington’s endorsement of Israel’s control of the Golan Heights was now “topping the agenda” in bilateral diplomatic talks between the two countries, and that such a move would likely come within a matter of months, though it apparently took longer than Katz had originally anticipated.

Katz also had stated that U.S. recognition of the Golan was being peddled to the Trump administration as a way to further counter Iran, the goal that has now become the guiding force behind President Donald Trump’s Middle East policy. In addition, Katz had stated that bilateral discussions regarding U.S. recognition of the Golan had vastly expanded to involve various levels of the U.S. administration as well as several Congressmen.

The effort to which Katz alluded last year appears to have paid off in the form of the recently introduced bills in both the House and the Senate. The Senate bill was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is the top Republican recipient of pro-Israel lobby contributions in the U.S. Senate, and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who is also heavily funded by the pro-Israel lobby. Indeed, Cotton received over $700,000 from the Emergency Committee for Israel in 2014 and nearly $1 million from that same group a year later.

Just as Katz had stated, the new bill frames U.S. recognition of the Golan as a means of countering Iran, stating directly that the U.S. must recognize Israeli sovereignty over the area “in light of new realities on the ground, including Iran’s presence in Syria.” It also notably states that it is in the “national security interest” of the United States that Israel consolidate its control over the territory, and further states that the push to recognize the Golan Heights as belonging to Israel is a “diplomatic and geopolitical” consequence of the Syrian government’s alleged use of “weapons of mass destruction,” alleged “ethnic cleansing of Arab Sunnis,” and its killing of civilians.

Senator Ted Cruz

✔@SenTedCruz

The US has been committed for over 40 years to ensuring Israel’s security from attacks emanating from across the Golan Heights. The threat Iran poses to America and Israel requires acknowledging the reality of Israel’s control over the territory as a matter of national security.

Senator Ted Cruz

✔@SenTedCruz

Today @SenTomCotton, @RepGallagher & I today introduced companion bills establishing that it shall be the policy of the United States to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. --> http://bit.ly/2NzgyNS

923

4:46 AM - Feb 27, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

305 people are talking about this

This basis for punishing Syria by weakening its claim to the Golan is dubious at best. Indeed, the Syrian government’s alleged use of “weapons of mass destruction,” apparently a reference to chemical weapons, is a contested matter given the fact that many, if not all, of those alleged chemical weapons attacks were either staged or involved chemical weapons instead used by rebel groups backed by the United States and its regional allies, including Israel. The United States has also repeatedly and illegally used a chemical weapon, white phosphorus, in its military operations in Syria.

In addition, the bill fails to note that the U.S. has killed scores of Syrian civilians in its military operations in Syria — including in Raqqa, where civilian bodies are still being uncovered nearly two years after the U.S.-led “liberation” of that city. Apparently, only the Syrian government’s civilian death toll has “diplomatic and geopolitical consequences.”

Furthermore, the latter point of Syria’s alleged ethnic cleansing of “Arab Sunnis” is sharply ironic given Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine, most of whose inhabitants are also “Arab Sunnis,” as well as the fact that U.S.-backed rebel groups ethnically cleansed large parts of Syria from religious minority groups such as Christians and Yazidis.

Thus, the justification for giving the Golan to Israel as a means of punishing Syria is just window dressing for the Israeli government push to consolidate its control over the territory with the help of its allies in the U.S. government. Despite that, the bill has a good chance of passing the Senate, given that chamber’s recent and overwhelming bipartisan approval of the so-called “anti-BDS” bill that had been pushed by the pro-Israel lobby as a means of countering nonviolent efforts to protest Israel’s inhumane occupation of Palestine.

Cover for the oil

Despite Israel’s eagerness to consolidate control over the territory, any U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan would likely generate backlash from the majority of the international community and would likely heighten tensions between Israel and Syria. This is largely because international law still refuses to recognize the area as part of Israel, even though Israel has sent over 20,000 Jewish settlers to live there in order to permanently change the area’s ethnic-demographic composition, turning the native Druze population into a minority.

Many of the Druze living in the occupied Golan have long complained of being routinely discriminated against under Israeli rule, and continue to support the Syrian government. In addition, the UN has accused Israel of “forcing citizenship” onto the group in a bid to increase its claim to sovereignty over the region. Israel hopes to add an additional 100,000 Jewish settlers to the area by 2020 in order to strengthen this claim.

A Druze man watches fighting between Syrian troops and rebels in the village of Jubata al-Khashab, as seen from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, on, Sept. 11, 2016. Ariel Schalit | AP

While any such measure is unlikely to gain much traction internationally, it is important to note that the goal of a U.S. measure to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan is not to secure international support but to provide enough diplomatic cover for the joint U.S.-Israeli extraction and use of the area’s strategic resources, namely oil. Indeed, in 2015, a massive oil reserve was discovered in the Golan Heights and is estimated to contain “billions of barrels” of crude oil that could turn Israel – which currently imports the vast majority of its fuel – into a net oil exporter.

Soon after that discovery, the Israeli government granted exclusive drilling rights to Afek, an Israeli subsidiary of New Jersey-based energy company Genie Energy, Ltd. As MintPress has previously reported, Genie Energy is backed by powerful interests in the U.S., such as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, former Vice President and Halliburton executive Dick Cheney, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. Powerful Zionist billionaires, such as Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch and England’s Jacob Rothschild, are also connected to the company. Its Israeli subsidiary, Afek, is run by a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

MintPress has previously reported that Genie Energy’s investments in the Golan are likely the strongest factor guiding the U.S. towards the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied territory. Indeed, without a U.S. move recognizing Israel’s control over the region, Genie’s Israeli subsidiary is unable to sell any oil it extracts from the occupied territory on the international oil market.

This argument is strongly supported by the text of the current bill, which specifically calls for joint U.S.-Israeli projects in the Golan that include projects in “basic and applied scientific fields” and “industrial research and development.”

Oil and water do mix

In addition to oil, the Golan Heights contains important freshwater resources, as it is one of three sources of freshwater available to the Israeli state. It is the largest in size and most abundant, as it includes the mountain streams that feed Lake Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee) and the headwaters of the Jordan River. As MintPress has noted in the past, the water resources of the Golan Heights are essential not only to Israel’s existence but also to its expansionist ambitions, a fact that explains Israel’s role in creating a plan in 2006 to engineer a “civil war” in Syria. Yet, the discovery of oil and creation of Genie Energy have dramatically strengthened Israel’s resolve, as well as the resolve of powerful figures in the U.S. and the U.K., to consolidate control over the Golan.

However, the current text of this new bill suggests that the use of this water will also come into play in the joint U.S.-Israeli project it calls for in “strategic and applied research of agricultural problems.”

Originally, Israel had planned to use a “buffer zone” of extremist militants it was funding in southern Syria in order to push for international recognition of the Golan, particularly in the event that the Syrian conflict resulted in regime change in Damascus. However, as South Front noted late last year, the Syrian military’s defeat of those groups has dealt “a huge blow to Tel Aviv’s plans to make the international community recognize the annexation of the Golan Heights” and led then-Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman to worry that the Syrian military’s success could soon threaten Israel’s hold on the Syrian territory.

Thus, Israel is now pushing for the U.S. to recognize its sovereignty over the Golan for fear of losing it completely, even though such recognition could result in an all-out war between Israel and Syria, as well as with Syrian allies such as Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Given that Israel has been preparing for such a war for well over a year and that Israel has been given the authority to bring U.S. troops into that conflict if and when it occurs, the likely consequences of the passage of this bill should be treated with the gravity they deserve.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and has contributed to several other independent, alternative outlets. Her work has appeared on sites such as Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire among others. She also makes guest appearances to discuss politics on radio and television. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/new-bill-recognizing-israel-sovereignty-golan-greenlight-joint-us-israeli-oil-operations/255672/