UN genocide official warned not to be complicit in Israel’s crimes

Rania Khalek

UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Adama Dieng has ignored Palestinian appeals not to be complicit in Israeli occupation and abuses.

Jean-Marc FerréUN Photo

Pressure has continued to mount on organizers of a major international conference on genocide to move the venue from Jerusalem.

On Wednesday, a South African organization announced it was pulling out of the conference, organized by the International Network of Genocide Scholars, because of concerns over Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights.

But organizers and sponsors have ignored or rebuffed the appeals from hundreds of scholars, dozens of civil society groups and at least one former UN human rights official to move the conference.

A current UN official, the special advisor to the secretary general on genocide, is still scheduled to speak at the conference.

On 26 June, the International Network of Genocide Scholars (INoGS) is set to convene its 5th Global Conference on Genocide at Hebrew University’s Mount Scopus campus, some of which was constructed on land that Israel forcibly expropriated from Palestinians in East Jerusalem after it militarily occupied the West Bank in 1967.

Hebrew University directly participated in the ongoing removal of Palestinians in subsequent years, sending its own bulldozers to demolish their homes as recently as 2000 and threatening to displace even more families to expand dormitories in 2004.

Back in March, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) urged scholars and UN officials to boycott the conference over its partnership with Israeli academic institutions that are deeply complicit in Israel’s human rights violations.

At least 270 academics from 19 different countries have heeded that call and signed their names to a letter calling on conference organizers “to act in a principled way” and relocate the event to another country.

By holding its conference in Jerusalem, INoGS “is lending its name and reputation to Israel’s occupation and ongoing colonization of Palestine,” the letter states. “The significance of all this cannot be lost on genocide scholars.”

The letter also urged “scholars and professionals to reflect upon the ethical and legal implications of participating in a conference, organized by complicit institutions and taking place in a colony on occupied land and to boycott this event, should it go ahead under these circumstances.”

“ ‘Never again’ means never again for everyone,” the letter concludes.

According to PACBI, the conference organizers have ignored all appeals to cancel the conference.

INoGS did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The Electronic Intifada.

“Genocide studies is now complicit”

John Dugard, a former UN special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and a signatory to the letter, expressed shock at the conference location.

“There are serious allegations that Israel committed crimes against humanity in its 2014 assault on Gaza,” PACBI quoted him as saying in a press release. “In these circumstances it is highly inappropriate to hold a conference on genocide in Israel.”

John Docker, a professor of genocide and massacre studies at the University of Sydney, added, “Genocide studies is now, it seems clear, actively seeking opportunities to be complicit in Israel’s flouting of international law, not least the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

Haidar Eid, an academic who lives in the besieged Gaza Strip, slammed INoGS for colluding with his oppressors.

“I have witnessed three massacres committed by Israel, I almost lost my own life and saw my comrades, colleagues, relatives and students perish in them,” Eid said. “I have read with agony the names of 44 of our students and colleagues who lost their lives and 66 families wiped out by Israeli weapons.”

“INoGS is lending its name to the perpetrators of these crimes in a move that is not unlike holding a conference on racism in apartheid South Africa,” Eid added.

Indeed, Israeli universities are enthusiastic participants in Israel’s war machine at every level, from the development of military policy to shouldering the costs of bombing campaigns.

Hebrew University, which will host the INoGS conference, was one many Israeli institutions to reward “warrior students” who took part in Israel’s 2014 military assault on Gaza which killed more than 2,200 Palestinians, including at least 550 children.

UN stamp of approval

One of the scheduled conference speakers is Adama Dieng, special adviser on the prevention of genocide to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Last month, more than two dozen civil society and human rights groups from around the world published a letter urging Dieng to withdraw from the conference.

“Both the location of the INoGS conference and its attendance are incompatible with your mandate, which strives to protect populations from the worst international crimes,” the letter states.

“Palestinian and international human rights organizations are currently in the process of presenting evidence of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court, including compelling evidence of international crimes with close associations to genocide, such as murder, forcible transfer and persecution,” it adds.

Participation in the conference “would represent tacit acceptance of Israeli-perpetrated grave breaches of international law,” the letter states, urging Dieng not to take part unless the conference is relocated.

Dieng’s participation is all the more remarkable at a time when is Israel is being led by the most openly racist government in its history.

Dieng did not respond to The Electronic Intifada’s requests for comment.

German complicity

One of the conference sponsors is the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, a left-wing German institution that checks its progressive politics at the door when it comes to Palestine.

The foundation calls itself “one of the largest political education institutions in Germany today and sees itself as part of the intellectual current of democratic socialism.”

The Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, or BNC, wrote to the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation asking it to withdraw its funding for the conference so as “not to undermine Palestinian rights under international law.”

The BNC received a response from the foundation which it has not published.

Based on the BNC’s side of the correspondence seen by The Electronic Intifada, it would appear that the foundation justified its sponsorship by invoking German guilt for the Holocaust.

“[W]e are not convinced that German exceptionalism (“special history and responsibility”) exonerates Germany and German institutions of complicity in maintaining and covering up illegal acts,” the BNC wrote in response to the foundation’s refusal to budge.

Such “exceptionalism,” PACBI noted, “has translated in exceptional German treatment of Israel as if the latter were above international law.”

The conference is also co-sponsored by five other Israeli institutions that PACBI wrote “have been irrefutably and persistently implicated in Israel’s violations of international law.”

In a statement to The Electronic Intifada, PACBI highlighted the contradictions in proceeding with the conference as planned.

“The 2016 INoGS conference will theorize about genocide and histories of mass violence while willfully ignoring the very real role of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in forcefully displacing Palestinian families from their homes to make way for the campus where the conference is being held,” PACBI said.

The statement continued, “The decision of INoGS leadership to reject appeals from Palestinians and hundreds of academics for the conference to be moved on the basis of its complicity with Israel’s crimes strikes as deeply hypocritical and epitomizes all that is wrong with ivory tower academia.”

Update

On Wednesday, South Africa’s Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation announced its withdrawal from the INoGS conference.

BDS South Africa said the move came after it contacted the center urging them to pull out.

According to BDS South Africa, the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation wrote to conference organizers that it “had failed to carefully consider the ramifications of its participation when it initially registered for the conference.”

A staff member had been scheduled to give a presentation.

“While we saw the INoGS conference as an opportunity to share our work and learn from others, we cannot turn a blind eye to the nature of the location and the host institutions for the conference,” the South African center wrote. “Serious concerns about these issues have been raised by Palestinian human rights groups.”

PACBI welcomed the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation’s decision as a demonstration of “admirable consistency with its mission of social justice, sustainable peace and human rights,” and urged other participants to follow its lead.

Rania Khalek is an independent journalist reporting on the underclass and marginalized.

• PACBI 
• genocide 
• BNC 
• Rosa Luxemburg Foundation 
• Adama Dieng 
• Hebrew University of Jerusalem 
• Mount Scopus 
• academic boycott 
• INoGS 
• Germany 
• John Docker 
• John Dugard 
• Haidar Eid

The ugly face of Islamophobia in Canada

Is Islamophobia on the rise in Canada as well in the wake of the racist Islamophobic rhetoric of Donald Trump south of the border? The June 20 assault by an ugly woman on a hijabi sister at a London, ON supermarket definitely gives cause for concern. The assailant has been charged but not with hate crime; only assault. From what has transpired, it definitely appears to be a hate crime.

Toronto,
Wednesday, June 22, 2016, 16:38 DST

Police in London, ON, have charged a suspect with assaulting a hijabi Muslim woman in a supermarket on Monday June 20. The38-year-old assailant spat on, punched several times, and had her hair and hijab pulled off of a Muslim woman who was at the store with her four-month old baby.

The ugly woman first started shouting obscenities at the Muslim woman for no apparent reason before assaulting her. The 38-year-old assailant’s photo has appeared in the media (see attached photo). After appealing to the public the woman was found and has now been charged although the police have not released her name.The Muslim sister was at the Superking Supermarket at 785 Wonderland Rd. S. at about 5 pm Monday when the ugly woman started yelling at her. The victim did not know the assailant.

Not content with verbal abuse, the ugly woman then spat at the Muslimah, punched her several times and pulled her hijab in full view of the public. The assailant then hurried left the store.

"We don't have a motive for the assault right now," London Police Service spokeswoman Sandasha Bough said. "We don't have any information that this is a hate motivated offence. In what you're seeing and what you're hearing and what was provided through social media Tuesday [June 21] it would lead people to believe that. But right now
we're looking at it as an assault."

It is strange that the police would not say it is a hate crime. What was the motive for the assault? Did the Muslim sister do anything wrong other than wearing a hijab that is her right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Why would a total stranger attack her and pull her hijab?

And when does an assault become a hate crime? There is unfortunately a pattern to the police attitude across Canada not taking assaults on Muslim men and women seriously. Hate crime charges are far more serious.

At the Quds Day rally in July 2014, for instance, a Muslim woman and man that were left behind from the main rally were assaulted by Jewish Defence League (JDL) thugs. The man was seriously wounded after being punched and kicked. The assault was captured by another person on his cell phone camera and the police were able to identify the assailants. Again, they were only charged with assault, not hate crime!

In the case of the London, ON assault on the Muslim woman, the police said their department's street gang unit will review the investigation once it has been completed. It will determine if the assault has elements of hate or bias, which could be used during sentencing, if charges are laid and the matter ends up in court.

The police spokesperson, Ms Bough said: "We're asking anybody who saw or heard anything to let us know." She went on: "We're really, really hoping that the public can help. We've spoken to witnesses, but we're still looking for more."

The suspect was located after tips were called in to Crime Stoppers and London police headquarters.

While hate crimes are not as widespread in Canada as they are in the US, the trend is disturbing both because racists and bigots think they can act with impunity and the police’s reluctance to charge them with hate crimes.

It is absolutely certain that if a Jewish woman or man were assaulted, it would be immediately branded a hate crime. In the case of Muslim victims, a different standard seems to apply.

London, ON has witnessed a number of such incidents in recent years. There is a group of Islamophobes in th city including some Christian clergy that spout venom against Muslims. Further, Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric has also fuelled hate against Muslims in North America.

Canadian politicians cannot be absolved of responsibility either. The Harper regime that was soundly defeated at the polls last October did much to spread hatred against Muslims. He never missed an opportunity to denigrate Muslims. One of his ministers, Jason Kenney went a step further denouncing the Muslims’ “barbaric cultural practices”. Kenney who is from the province of Alberta, tried to capitalize on the inherent racism of some Canadians but mercifully, the majority rejected the Conservatives hate-filled rhetoric.

The recent attack in London, ON gives cause for concern. If the police do not treat it as a hate crime, it would mean they are indirectly complicit in such crimes. That would be a very troubling development.

IslamophobiaCanada

Islamophobia Rises in Germany amid Immigrants Upsurge: Poll

Alwaght- Islamophobia has risen sharply in Germany after more than one million migrants, mostly Muslims, arrived last year, a new poll shows.

In a study published on Wednesday, Every second respondent in the study of 2,420 people said they sometimes felt like a foreigner in their own country due to the many Muslims here, up from 43 percent in 2014 and 30.2 percent in 2009.

The number of people who believe Muslims should be forbidden from coming to Germany has also risen, the study showed, and now stands at just above 40 percent, up from about a fifth in 2009.

The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Leipzig in co-operation with the Heinrich Boell Foundation, the Rosa-Luxemburg Foundation and the Otto-Brenner foundation.

The influx of migrants has fueled support for the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party that wants to ban minarets and the burqa and has described Islam as incompatible with the German constitution. The number of attacks on refugee shelters has also risen.

The number of those surveyed that believed Sinti and Roma peoples tended towards criminality rose to nearly 60 percent, while slightly more than 80 percent of respondents wanted the state not to be too generous when examining asylum applications.

Almost 40 percent of those surveyed in east Germany agreed with the statement that foreigners only came to Germany to take advantage of its social welfare benefits, compared to about 30 percent of those in the west of the country.

Early April, German police recorded almost 300 attacks and other criminal offences on refugee shelters since the beginning of the year. 

Law enforcement agencies fear that the 2016 attacks against refugee shelters across Germany could exceed last year's level.

Germany has witnessed multiple similar attacks on residences for refugees as the country took in more than one million asylum seekers in 2015. LEGIDA which is an offshoot of the anti-Islam and anti-refugee group PEGIDA, protested against the government's refugee policy.

Europe is facing an unprecedented influx of refugees who are fleeing conflict-ridden zones in Africa and the Middle East, particularly Syria.

Major Western powers have been blamed for the unprecedented exodus due to their policies of militarily intervening in other countries, leading e led to a surge in terrorism and war in those regions, forcing more people to flee their homes.

The Rising Threat Against Shia Muslims in Pakistan

The efforts of various governments to counter the growing influence of extremist forces have not been effective.

 

Karachi residents protesting the rising violence against Shia Muslims 

in January, 2013. Credit: Reuters

A few weeks ago a delegation of the Pakistan’s People Party led by Senator Sherry Rehman staged a protest at the National Press Club in Islamabad over the killing of social activist Khurram Zaki, who was well-known for his open criticism of extremist groups in Pakistan. However, the protest was against not just the murder of a social activist but also yet another Shia Muslim becoming the target of extremist forces in Pakistan in the name of sectarianism.

Admonishing the federal government for turning a blind eye to the plight of Pakistan’s Shia community, Rehman said, “The purpose of the National Action Plan was not to impart selective justice – the government cannot continue ignoring these killings.”

In Pakistan, the environment in which the minorities find themselves is characterised by hate speech, the invocation of blasphemy laws and a surge of vicious attacks on worshippers and sacred places. Pakistan is an Islamic country. However, Jinnah’s vision seems to have faded with the passage of time. Now, not only non-Muslims are being harmed but also sub-sects like the Sufis, Ahmadis and Shias.

The Shia Muslims of Pakistan

Shias account for 15-20% of the Muslim population in Pakistan. The country is home to the second largest Shia population after Iran. Shias in Pakistan are geographically spread across the country. The highest numbers are found in the Gilgit-Baltistan province in the northern region, where they form the majority. Cities in Pakistan like Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi and Multan are also home to large Shia communities. There are numerous Shia mosques and dargahs, or shrines, located across Pakistan.

The majority of Pakistan’s Shia community adheres to the Twelver school of thought; other sub-sects are the Ismailis, Khojas and Bohras. Most of these are not easily distinguishable by either name or identity. Among Twelver Shias, however, the most vulnerable is the Hazara community in Quetta region as they are easily recognisable due to their ethnicity and language. Quetta is home to nearly 6,00,000 Shi’ite Hazaras. According to estimates, for every 10 Shias killed in Pakistan, 5 of them are Hazaras.

Targets against Shias

Over the years, the Shias of Pakistan have been specifically targeted and killed by machine guns and suicide bombers. They have been killed inside mosques and shopping markets, while on pilgrimage to Iran and even at funerals. Hazaras have been the victims when extremists have gunned down buses packed with pilgrims heading to Iran via the Pakistan-Iran border at Baluchistan. In 2011, extremist organisations in Quetta sent an open letter to the Shia Hazara people stating: “All Shias are worthy of killing and the intention is to make Pakistan their graveyard.”

In January 2014, a suicide attack on a bus with Shia pilgrims left at least 22 dead. Reacting to the rising spate of selective violence against the Shia community, Fatima Bhutto, niece of late Benzazir Bhutto, wrote in the Hindu in 2015 that Shias had overtaken Hindus and Christians as the targets of sectarian killings and Pakistan had become “a country of ghosts”.

Attacks on Shias escalate during the month of Muharram, when Shias mourn the martyrdom of the grandson of the Prophet by taking out street processions in the thousands. During Muharram in 2012, 30 Shias were killed and more than 200 injured in attacks. In November 2013, on the 10th day of Muharram, a suicide bomber killed eight people and left 30 injured in a Shia procession in Rawalpindi.

Various reports on the death toll

A report by the Human Rights Watch states that more than 500 Shia Hazaras have been killed since 2008. According to another report, by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, around 600 Shias were killed between 1999 and 2003 as a result of extremist violence and approximately 500 Shia doctors fled the country as a result of the assassination of more than 50 of their colleagues in Karachi alone. In October 2015, UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon urged the Pakistan government to protect its citizens, including Shia Muslims.

Below is a list by the South Asian Terrorism Portal (SATP) compiling data on incidents of targeted violence against Shia Muslims from 2003 to May 16, 2016.

Year

Incidents

Killed

Injured

2003	4	24	17
2004	8	129	466+
2005	10	86	223
2006	9	60	61
2007	28	258+	195+
2008	23	150	371+
2009	17	183	455
2010	34	`245	693
2011	24	136	199
2012	115	399	439
2013	81	504	965
2014	45	116	116
2015	38	251	316
2016	6	11	2+

Total

446

2558+

4518+

(+approximate number)

Reasons for the violence

The first main reason behind the violence is religious – the great Shia-Sunni divide in Islam that dates back to the death of Prophet. The succession of the caliphate is a highly debated topic in Islam and will always be. Sunnis believe that Abu-Bakr was the right man to succeed the Prophet; Shia Muslims instead affirm that the Prophet had decided that his cousin and son-in-law Ali should succeed him. The two sects have clashed for centuries. In Pakistan, the extremist Sunnis, or the Wahabis, consider Shias to be apostates and believe that it is right and pious to kill Shias for being ‘non-believers’.

The second reason is political – specifically, Pakistan’s long-standing support of Saudi Arabia. As Shia-dominant Iran tries to export its Islamic revolution beyond the Middle-East and into countries with significant Shia populations, Wahabi-dominant Saudi Arabia views this as a threat. Saudi Arabia’s alleged financing of Sunni militant groups has been a sore point in Washington as well. In 2009, a cable released by Wikileaks made public the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s warning that “donors in Saudia Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

In 2012, Iqbal Haider, the former law minister of Pakistan, told Deutsche Welle that most jihadist and terrorist organisations operating in Pakistan are Wahabi and funded by Saudi Arabia. Pakistani historian Mubarak Ali said that Wahabis are against any cultural plurality, so they attack shrines and other cultural centres that are, in their view, ‘un-Islamic’.

Prominent anti-Shia groups

Prominent anti-Shia groups banned by the Pakistan government are the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), the Ahle-Sunnat Wal Jama’at, previously known as Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). A report published in 2013 by the Human Rights Watch Pakistan revealed that the LeJ reportedly has links with the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies.

LeJ believes it has a sacred calling – to safeguard the legacy of the Prophet and his companions – and it sees Shias as the main obstacle in this goal. One LeJ operative captured in 2012 by the Pakistan army told Reuters, “Get rid of Shias, that is our goal. May God help us.”

Over the years, various governments have taken the initiative to protect the Shia Muslims of Pakistan. But their efforts have not been effective in countering the growing influence of extremist forces. These forces have now started targeting notable Shia clerics, speakers, journalists and those with influential positions, in a bid to weaken the strength of the community. Andreas Rieck says, in The Shias of Pakistan: “Sunni extremists have increasingly targeted them [Shias] with hate propaganda and terrorism.” Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and the most highly regarded individual within the country was himself a Shia Muslim; however, his vision for all communities to live in peace and safety is no longer even acknowledged.

Uzair Hasan Rizvi is an independent multimedia journalist.

Invasion of Kuwait

The Invasion of Kuwait, also known as the Iraq–Kuwait War, was a major conflict between Ba'athist Iraq and the Emirate of Kuwait, which resulted in the seven-month-long Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, and subsequently led to direct military intervention by US-led forces in the Gulf War and the setting alight by Iraq of 600 Kuwaiti oil wells.

In 1990 Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi petroleum through slant drilling, although some Iraqi sources indicated Saddam Hussein's decision to attack Kuwait was made a few months before the actual invasion. ome feel there were several reasons for the Iraqi move, including Iraq's inability to pay more than US$14 billion that had been borrowed to finance the Iran–Iraq war, and Kuwaiti overproduction of petroleum which kept revenues down for Iraq. The invasion started on 2 August 1990, and within two days of intense combat, most of the Kuwait Armed Forces were either overrun by the Iraqi Republican Guard or fell back to neighboring Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The Emirate of Kuwait was annexed, and Saddam Hussein announced a few days later that it was the 19th province of Iraq.
Alleged economic warfare and slant drilling
In 1988 Iraq's Oil Minister, Issam al-Chalabi, stressed a further reduction in the crude oil production quota of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members so as to end the 1980s oil glut. Chalabi argued that higher oil prices would help Iraq increase its revenues and pay back its US$60 billion debt. However, given its large downstream petroleum industry, Kuwait was less concerned about the prices of crude oil and in 1989, Kuwait requested OPEC to increase the country's total oil production ceiling by 50% to 1.35 million bpd. Throughout much of the 1980s, Kuwait's oil production was considerably above its mandatory OPEC quota and this had prevented a further increase in crude oil prices. A lack of consensus among OPEC members undermined Iraq's efforts to end the oil glut and consequently prevented the recovery of its war-crippled economy. According to former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, "every US$1 drop in the price of a barrel of oil caused a US$1 billion drop in Iraq's annual revenues triggering an acute financial crisis in Baghdad". It was estimated that between 1985 and 1989, Iraq lost US$14 billion a year due to Kuwait's oil price strategy. Kuwait's refusal to decrease its oil production was viewed by Iraq as an act of aggression against it.
The increasingly tense relations between Iraq and Kuwait were further aggravated when Iraq alleged that Kuwait was slant-drilling across the international border into Iraq's Rumaila field. The dispute over Rumaila field started in 1960 when an Arab League declaration marked the Iraq–Kuwait border 2 miles north of the southernmost tip of the Rumaila field. During the Iran–Iraq War, Iraqi oil drilling operations in Rumaila declined while Kuwait's operations increased. In 1989, Iraq accused Kuwait of using "advanced drilling techniques" to exploit oil from its share of the Rumaila field. Iraq estimated that US$2.4 billion worth of Iraqi oil was "stolen" by Kuwait and demanded compensation. Kuwait dismissed the accusations as a false Iraqi ploy to justify military action against it. Several foreign firms working in the Rumaila field also dismissed Iraq's slant-drilling claims as a "smokescreen to disguise Iraq's more ambitious intentions".
On 25 July 1990, only a few days before the Iraqi invasion, OPEC officials said that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had agreed to a proposal to limit daily oil output to 1.5 million barrels, thus potentially settling differences over oil policy between Kuwait and Iraq. At the time of the settlement, more than 100,000 Iraqi troops were deployed along the Iraq–Kuwait border, and American officials expressed little indication of decline in tensions despite the OPEC settlement.
Iraqi hegemonic claims
Many westerners believed that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was largely motivated by its desire to take control over the latter's vast oil reserves. The Iraqi government justified its invasion by claiming that Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq carved off as a result of British imperialism. After signing the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the United Kingdom split Kuwait from the Ottoman territories into a separate sheikhdom. The Iraqi government also argued that the Kuwaiti Emir was a highly unpopular figure among the Kuwaiti populace. By overthrowing the Emir, Iraq claimed that it granted Kuwaitis greater economic and political freedom.
Kuwait had been loosely under the authority of the Ottoman vilâyet of Basra, and although its ruling dynasty, the Al Sabah family, had concluded a protectorate agreement in 1899 that assigned responsibility for its foreign affairs to Britain, it did not make any attempt to secede from the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, its borders with the rest of Basra province were never clearly defined or mutually agreed.
Invasion
On 2 August 1990 at 2:00 am, local time, Iraq launched an invasion of Kuwait with four elite Iraqi Republican Guard divisions (1st Hammurabi Armoured Division, 2nd al-Medinah al-Munawera Armoured Division, 3rd Tawakalna ala-Allah Mechanized Infantry Division and 4th Nebuchadnezzar Motorized Infantry Division) and Iraqi Army special forces units equivalent to a full division. The main thrust was conducted by the commandos deployed by helicopters and boats to attack Kuwait City (see Battle of Dasman Palace), while the other divisions seized the airports and two airbases.
In support of these units, the Iraqi Army deployed a squadron of Mil Mi-25 helicopter gunships, several units of Mi-8 and Mi-17 transport helicopters, as well as a squadron of Bell 412 helicopters. The foremost mission of the helicopter units was to transport and support Iraqi commandos into Kuwait City, and subsequently to support the advance of ground troops. The Iraqi Air Force (IQAF) had at least two squadrons of Sukhoi Su-22, one of Su-25, one of Mirage F1 and two of MiG-23 fighter-bombers. The main task of the IQAF was to establish air superiority through limited air strikes against two main air bases of Kuwaiti Air Force, whose aircraft consisted mainly of Mirage F1s and Douglas (T)A-4KU Skyhawks. Meanwhile, certain targets in the capital of Kuwait City were bombed by Iraqi aircraft.
Despite months of Iraqi sabre-rattling, Kuwait did not have its forces on alert and was caught unaware. The first indication of the Iraqi ground advance was from a radar-equipped aerostat that detected an Iraqi armour column moving south. Kuwaiti air, ground, and naval forces resisted, but were vastly outnumbered. In central Kuwait, the 35th Armoured Brigade deployed approximately a battalion of Chieftain tanks, BMPs, and an artillery battery against the Iraqis and fought delaying actions near Al Jahra (see Battle of the Bridges), west of Kuwait City. In the south, the 15th Armoured Brigade moved immediately to evacuate its forces to Saudi Arabia. Of the small Kuwaiti Navy, two missile boats were able to evade capture or destruction.
Kuwait Air Force aircraft were scrambled, but approximately 20% were lost or captured. An air battle with the Iraqi helicopter airborne forces was fought over Kuwait City, inflicting heavy losses on the Iraqi elite troops, and a few combat sorties were flown against Iraqi ground forces. The remaining 80% were then evacuated to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, some aircraft even taking off from the highways adjacent to the bases as the runways were overrun. While these aircraft were not used in support of the subsequent Gulf War, the "Free Kuwait Air Force" assisted Saudi Arabia in patrolling the southern border with Yemen, which was considered a threat by the Saudis because of Yemen–Iraq ties.
Iraqi troops attacked Dasman Palace, the Royal Residence, resulting in the Battle of Dasman Palace. The Kuwaiti Emiri Guard, supported by local police and M-84 tanks managed to repel an airborne assault by Iraqi Special Forces, but the Palace fell after a landing by Iraqi Marines (Dasman Palace is located on the coast). The Kuwaiti National Guard, as well as additional Emiri Guards arrived, but the palace remained occupied, and Republican Guard tanks rolled into Kuwait City after several hours of heavy fighting.
The Emir of Kuwait, Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah had already fled into the Saudi desert. His younger half brother, Sheikh Fahad Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, was shot and killed by invading Iraqi forces as he attempted to defend Dasman Palace after which his body was placed in front of a tank and run over, according to an Iraqi soldier who was present and deserted after the assault.
Towards the end of the first day of the invasion, only pockets of resistance were left in the country. By 3 August, the last military units were desperately fighting delaying actions at choke points and other defensible positions throughout the country until out of ammunition or overrun by Iraqi forces. Ali al-Salem air base of the Kuwaiti Air Force was the only base still unoccupied on 3 August, and Kuwaiti aircraft flew resupply missions from Saudi Arabia throughout the day in an effort to mount a defense. However, by nightfall, Ali al-Salem air base had been overrun by Iraqi forces. From then on it was only a matter of time until all units of the Kuwaiti Military were forced to retreat or be overrun.
Kuwaiti resistance movement
Kuwaitis founded a local armed resistance movement following the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Most of the Kuwaitis who were arrested, tortured, and executed during the occupation were civilians. The Kuwaiti resistance's casualty rate far exceeded that of the coalition military forces and Western hostages. The resistance predominantly consisted of ordinary citizens who lacked any form of training and supervision.
Aftermath
After the Iraqi victory, Saddam Hussein installed Alaa Hussein Ali as the Prime Minister of the "Provisional Government of Free Kuwait" and Ali Hassan al-Majid as the de facto governor of Kuwait. The exiled Kuwaiti royal family and other former government officials began an international campaign to persuade other countries to pressure Iraq to vacate Kuwait. The UN Security Council passed 12 resolutions demanding immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but to no avail.
Following the events of the Iraq–Kuwait war, about half of the Kuwaiti population, ncluding 400,000 Kuwaits and several thousand foreign nationals, fled the country. The Indian government evacuated over 170,000 overseas Indians by flying almost 488 flights over 59 days. It was the biggest civilian evacuation in history. Alaa Hussein Ali was placed as head of a puppet government in Kuwait, prior to its brief annexation into Iraq.
During the 7-month occupation, the forces of Saddam Hussein looted Kuwait's vast wealth and there were also reports of violations of human rights. A 2005 study revealed that the Iraqi occupation had a long-term adverse impact on the health of the Kuwaiti populace.

A century later today this situation remains unchanged; And the ME continues to bleed

By Lateef Farook  

During the second half of 19th century the British Empire wanted to ensure the Middle East remains destabilized. It was around the same time that the Zionist Jews were planning to set up a separate Jewish state in Palestine where more than 97 percent of the population were Palestinian Arabs-both Muslims and Christians.

Zionist wanted to bring in Jews from all over and settle them in Palestinian lands which, the migrant Jews have not even seen, after killing and kicking out Palestinians from their lands and homes into refugee camps where they still languish.

It was the time when most of the Middle East was under Turkish Ottoman Empire. This was a hurdle which needed to be removed. The opportunity came during World War 1 when Turkey was defeated by allied forces led by Britain and France.

Anticipating the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France began secret talks since 23 November 1915 to divide Middle East and bring the entire region under their control. These talks ended up in Sykes-Picot Agreement. Russia was in decline, but Britain and France got Russia involved.

This was the worst ever western conspiracy from which the Middle East suffers even today. After the war Britain and France, as per the agreement, divided the Middle East and defined the borders of their respective new states and shaped the region to suit their purposes.

As per Sykes-Picot Agreement Palestine in the Mediterranean, Jordan, Baghdad and areas around the Persian Gulf were grabbed by Britain while Syria, Lebanon and Turkish Cilicia were brought under French control. Later Egypt was brought under British control while North African countries Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Mauritania came under French control.

Neither France nor Britain actually ‘owned’ these territories, but they were to effectively control them from London and Paris .This situation continues to date.

British kept the Arabs in dark of these secret negotiations while Zionists were active partners.The Arabs came to know of the Agreement only when the Russian Communists released its contents in the media- Izvestia

This agreement violated  assurances given by T E Lawrence  ,British Army officer tasked with convincing the Arabs to fight against the Ottoman Empire promising Arabs freedom and their own rule after the war .The Arabs trusted the British but were betrayed .

Documents in the National Archives declassified and published disclosed various assurances of Arab independence provided by Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, the Viceroy of India, and others in the War Cabinet.

Great Britain never intended to honour the promises that they made. They had used the Arabs to get the Ottoman Empire out of the way protect their own interests.

The entire time Lawrence was negotiating with the Arabs, Great Britain, behind everybody’s back, was negotiating with France, and planning to divide up the Middle East after the war. They needed to make sure there was no united Arab kingdom that would ever get in the way.

In the newly created western European model of the nation-states, Britain and France installed corrupted Arab stooges as rulers giving titles such as kings and created Royal families. This concept of Royal family dividing the people and the rulers were in complete violation of Islam which insists on equality.

These, ruthless dictators were expected not to introduce democracy, freedom and develop their countries, keep the people in poverty and illiteracy especially on Islam and never allow Islam to emerge as a force.

Thus today’s political, economic, religious and social scenario in the entire region is the direct outcome of this British French conspiracy.

In partitioning the Middle East Palestine was brought under British Mandatory Authority which, between 1923 and 1948, did everything possible for the Zionist Jews to drive out Palestinians, grab Palestinian lands and create the required infrastructure for a separate Jewish state. For example Jewish migrants were allowed to use arms while Palestinians were tied to lamp post and killed for using a pen knife.

Even before Palestine was brought under British control , in 1917 the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour  wrote to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Zionist Jewish community, stating that: "His Majesty's government view with favor  the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object .

Balfour wrote a memorandum from the 1919 Paris Peace Conference in which he declared that: "The four Great Powers (Britain, France, United States and Soviet Union) are committed to Zionism.  And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

 On 30 September 1918, disgusted Arabs, religious leaders and other notables in Mecca 

declared in Damascus a government   loyal to Sharif of Mecca. However Britain supplied weapons and money to Ibn Saud, current ruler of Saudi Arabia, and got Sheriff of Mecca removed and brought the Holy cities of Makkah and Madinah under the control of Ibn Saud family.

“This is the last time the Arab world had a united Islamic State led by a religious leader: the Ottoman Empire, the caliphate,”

Later United States and Soviet Union joined Britain and France, blackmailed member countries in the United Nations and passed a UN resolution establishing the Zionist Jewish state of Israel in 1948, in violation of all known laws, norms and cherished human values.

Britain and France never allowed their stooges, Arab dictators, to be removed .For example in 1956 Egypt’s popular President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized Suez Canal, which was under British control. Britain, France and Israel jointly invaded Egypt but were forced to withdraw due to pressure from US President Dwight Eisenhower.

Avenging this setback in its war of aggression in June 1967 Israel, with the backing of US,UK, France and Russia, annexed Egypt’s Sinai and Gaza, Syria’s Golan Heights,  West Bank and East Jerusalem  from Jordan. This was a crippling blow to Arabs.

During the past few decades Arab dictators   perhaps under pressure from their US- European masters began establishing secret ties and various deals with Zionists virtually abandoning Palestinians. Israel was behind all subsequent wars in the region. Today’s state of affairs was such that Saudi, Jordan, Israel and Israel’s Palestine authority secretly planned the invasion, destruction and the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza.

In the midst under the guise of fighting a war on terrorism US, Britain France and Russia together with Israel demonized and declared war on Islam and Muslims and turned almost developed Arab countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria into virtual killing fields   besides driving more than 58 million millions of Arabs into refugee camps. For example US-European oil companies grabbed the oil wealth of Iraq besides its billions of investments in the West. In Libya alone they looted 145 tons of Libyan gold besides gaining control over Libyan oil wealth   and its investments abroad. Today Iraqis and Libyans are in refugee camps while Syria is emptied of its people.

Thus four powers have created the environment for the creation of Greater Israel with occupied Palestinians lands and parts of Syria and Iraq and Egypt.

The question is how log these crimes will continue?

Latheef  Farook is Colombo based senior journalist. He can be reached at E mail-almfarook19@gmail.com  16 MAY 2016