Professor Ilan Pappé: Israel Has Chosen to be a "Racist Apartheid State" with U.S. Support

Access the following URL for video report. http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/28/professor_ilan_pappe_israel_has_chosen

As the Palestinian death toll tops 1,000 in Gaza, we are joined from Haifa by Israeli professor and historian Ilan Pappé. "I think Israel in 2014 made a decision that it prefers to be a racist apartheid state and not a democracy," Pappé says. "It still hopes that the United States will license this decision and provide it with the immunity to continue, with the necessary implication of such a policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians wherever they are." A professor of history and the director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter, Pappé is the author of several books, including most recently, "The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge." TRANSCRIPT This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: As we continue our coverage of the crisis in Gaza, we go to Haifa, Israel, to speak with Ilan Pappé, a professor of history and the director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter in Britain. He’s the author of a number of books, including, most recently, The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge, joining us by Democracy Now!video stream from Haifa. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Pappé. At this point, over a thousand Palestinians have been killed, as well, I believe the number is 45 Israeli soldiers, and three civilians have been killed in Israel. Can you talk about the latest negotiations over a ceasefire and what you think needs to happen? ILAN PAPPÉ: It’s good to be on your show, Amy. There is no sign for a ceasefire on the ground itself. And there are sort of two competing initiatives still going on: The Egyptian-Israeli initiative that actually wants to dictate to the Hamas a return to the status quo and sort of marginalize and disregard everything that Hamas was fighting for, and there is a more serious effort that the secretary of state was trying to push forward, John Kerry, with the help of the Qataris and the Turks, to try and address at least some of the issues that are at the heart of this present wave of violence. But so far, none of the two has affected the reality on the ground, apart from a certain lull in the last few hours compared to the last 20 days. AMY GOODMAN: There were protests in Tel Aviv. How many people came out at those protests, as well as Haifa this weekend? Were you there at the protest in Haifa, Professor Pappé? ILAN PAPPÉ: Yes, yes, I was. Haifa, there were about 700 people. In Tel Aviv, there were 3,000. I should say that, of course, a large number of the protesters are Palestinian citizens of Israel. So the number of Israeli Jews who are courageous enough to come out and demonstrate is even smaller than these numbers indicate. And they were met by a very vicious reaction both from right-wing demonstrators and very harsh—and were harshly treated by the police. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think it’s most important for people to understand about the conflict? ILAN PAPPÉ: I think the most important thing is the historical context. When you listen to mainstream media coverage of the situation in Gaza, you get the impression that it all starts with an unreasonable launching of rockets into Israel by the Hamas. And two very basic historical kind of backgrounds are being missed. The very immediate one goes back to June this year, when Israel decided, by force, to try and demolish the Hamas politically in the West Bank and foil the attempts of the unity government of Palestine to push forward an international campaign to bring Israel to justice on the basis of the agenda of human rights and civil rights. And the deeper historical context is the fact that ever since 2005, the Gaza Strip is being—or people in the Gaza Strip are being incarcerated as criminals, and their only crime is that they are Palestinians in a geopolitical location that Israel doesn’t know how to deal with. And when they elected democratically someone who was vowed to struggle against this ghettoizing or this siege, Israel reacted with all its force. So, this sort of wider historical context, that would explain to people that it is a desperate attempt to get out of the situation that your previous interviewee was talking about, is at the heart of the issue, and therefore it is soluble. One can solve this situation by lifting the siege, by allowing the people of Gaza to be connected with their brothers and sisters in the West Bank, and by allowing them to be connected to the world and not to live under circumstances that no one else in the world seems to experience at this moment in time. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Pappé, over the weekend, BBC correspondent Jon Donnison reported on what was called an Israeli admission that Hamas was not responsible for the killing of the three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June. On Twitter, Donnison said Israeli police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld told him the suspects who killed the three teenagers were a lone cell affiliated with Hamas but not operating under its leadership. What is the significance of this? ILAN PAPPÉ: It’s very significant, because this was, of course, known to the Israelis the moment they heard about this abduction and the killing of the three young settlers. It was very clear that Israel was looking for a pretext to try and launch both a military operation in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip in order to try and bring back the situation in Palestine to what it was during the failed peace process, with a sort of good domicile, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in a way that they could forget about it and continue with the colonization of the West Bank without the need to change anything in their attitude or policies. And the depression in the West Bank, the frustration, the anger, especially in May 2014, of the killing of five young Palestinians by the Israeli army, burst out in this local action, this local initiative, that had nothing to do with the strategy of the Hamas, that was willing to try and give Abu Mazen leeway to create a unity government and to try the new initiative—going to the United Nations, going to international bodies, in order to make Israel accountable for more than 46 years of colonization and occupation. So it really highlights the connection between a pretext and a policy and a strategy which has wreaked such carnage in Gaza today. AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Professor Pappé, you worked in Israel for years as a professor. You left Israel and now teach at the University of Exeter in Britain. You’ve returned to Haifa. Do you see a change in your country? ILAN PAPPÉ: Yes, unfortunately, a change for the worse. I think the Israel is at a crossroad, but it has already made its decision which way it is going from this junction. It was in a junction where it had to decide finally whether it wants to be a democracy or to be a racist and apartheid state, given the realities on the ground. I think Israel, in 2014, made a decision that it prefers to be a racist apartheid state and not a democracy, and it still hopes that the United States would license this decision and provide it with the immunity to continue with the necessary implication of such a policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, wherever they are. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think the U.S. should do? ILAN PAPPÉ: Well, the U.S. should apply the basic definitions of democracy to Israel and recognize that it is giving, it’s providing an unconditional support for a regime that systematically abuses the human rights and the civil rights of anyone who is not a Jew between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. If America wants clearly to support such regimes—it had done it in the past—that’s OK. But if it feels that it wants to send a different message to the Middle East, then it really has a different agenda of human rights— AMY GOODMAN: We have two seconds. ILAN PAPPÉ: Yeah, human rights and civil rights in Palestine.

Attack on Gaza by Saudi Royal Appointment

Why do Saudi Arabia and Israel make such comfortable bedfellows? For decades each country has had a similar feeling in their gut when they look around them: fear. Their reaction was similar. Each felt they could only insure themselves against their neighbors by invading them (Lebanon, Yemen) or by funding proxy wars and coups (Syria, Egypt, Libya).They have enemies or rivals in common – Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Hamas in Gaza, and the Muslim Brotherhood. And they have common allies, too – the US and British military industrial establishments, Fatah strongman and US asset Mohammed Dahlan who tried to take over Gaza once, and will probably be at hand when next required. By David Hearst There are many hands behind the Israeli army’s onslaught on Gaza. America is not unhappy that Hamas is getting such a beating. As footage of the scenes of carnage on the streets of Shejaiya was coming through, John Kerry said on NBC’s Meet the Presson Sunday that Israel had every right to defend itself and the US ambassador Dan Shapiro told Israel’s Channel 2 news that the US would seek to help moderate forces become stronger in Gaza, meaning the Palestinian Authority. Nor is Egypt overcome with grief. Its foreign minister Sameh Shoukry held Hamas responsible for civilian deaths after their rejection of the ceasefire. Neither matter to Netanyahu as much as the third undeclared partner in this unholy alliance, for neither on their own could give him the cover he needs for a military operation of this ferocity. And that can come not from a handwringing but impotent parent like the US. Such permission can only come from a brother Arab. The attack on Gaza comes by Saudi Royal Appointment. This royal warrant is nothing less than an open secret in Israel, and both former and serving defense officials are relaxed when they talk about it. Former Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz surprised the presenter on Channel 10 by saying Israel had to specify a role for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the demilitarization of Hamas. Asked what he meant by that, he added that Saudi and Emirati funds should be used to rebuild Gaza after Hamas had been defanged. Amos Gilad, the Israeli defense establishment’s point man with Mubarak’s Egypt and now director of the Israeli defense ministry’s policy and political-military relations department told the academic James Dorsey recently : “Everything is underground, nothing is public. But our security cooperation with Egypt and the Gulf states is unique. This is the best period of security and diplomatic relations with the Arab.” The celebration is mutual. King Abdullah let it be known that he had phoned President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi to approve of an Egyptian ceasefire initiative which had not been put to Hamas, and had the Jerusalem Post quoting analysts about whether a ceasefire was ever seriously intended. Mossad and Saudi intelligence officials meet regularly: The two sides conferred when the former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi was about to be deposed in Egypt and they are hand in glove on Iran, both in preparing for an Israel strike over Saudi airspace and in sabotaging the existing nuclear program. There has even been a well sourced claim that the Saudis are financing most of Israel’s very expensive campaign against Iran. Why do Saudi Arabia and Israel make such comfortable bedfellows? For decades each country has had a similar feeling in their gut when they look around them: fear. Their reaction was similar. Each felt they could only insure themselves against their neighbors by invading them (Lebanon, Yemen) or by funding proxy wars and coups (Syria, Egypt, Libya).They have enemies or rivals in common – Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Hamas in Gaza, and the Muslim Brotherhood. And they have common allies, too – the US and British military industrial establishments, Fatah strongman and US asset Mohammed Dahlan who tried to take over Gaza once, and will probably be at hand when next required. The difference today is that for the first time in their two countries’ history, there is open co-ordination between the two military powers. Abdullah’s nephew Prince Turki has been the public face of this rapprochement, which was first signaled by the Saudi publication of a book by an Israeli academic. The prince flew to Brussels in May to meet General Amos Yadlin, the former intelligence chief who has been indicted by a court in Turkey for his role in the storming of the Mavi Marmara. It could be argued that there is nothing sinister about Prince Turki’s wish to overcome ancient taboos that his motives are both peaceful and laudable. The prince is a staunch supporter of a laudable peace initiative proposed by the Saudi King Abdullah. The Arab Peace Initiative supported by 22 Arab States and 56 Muslim countries would indeed have been a basis for peace had Israel not ignored it some 12 years ago. Prince Turki waxed lyrical about the prospect of peace in an article published by Haaretz. In it he wrote: And what a pleasure it would be to be able to invite not just the Palestinians but also the Israelis I would meet to come and visit me in Riyadh, where they can visit my ancestral home in Dir’iyyah, which suffered at the hands of Ibrahim Pasha the same fate as Jerusalem did at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the Romans. Its the means, not the end, which expose the true cost of this alliance. Prince Turki’s promotion of the Arab Peace Initiative comes at the cost of abandoning the kingdom’s historical support of Palestinian resistance. The well connected Saudi analyst Jamal Khashogji made this very point when he talked in coded language about the number of intellectuals who attack the notion of resistance: Regrettably, the number of such intellectuals here in Saudi Arabia is higher than average. If such a trend continues it will destroy the kingdom’s honorable claim to support and defend the Palestinian cause since the time of its founder, King Abd Al-Aziz Al-Saud. Peace would indeed be welcome to everyone, not least Gaza at the moment. The means by which Israel’s allies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going about achieving it, by encouraging Israel to deal Hamas a crippling blow, calls into question what is really going on here. Turki’s father King Faisal bin Abdulaziz would be turning in his grave at what the son is putting his name to. This Saudi Israeli alliance is forged in blood, Palestinian blood, the blood on Sunday of over 100 souls in Shejaiya. Huffington Post

Why House of Saud fears/hates Iran

Saudi spy chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan 

By Finian Cunningham

In countless media interviews and statements, it is clear that the Saudi rulers have an abiding obsession with Iran - an obsession that betrays an intense fear and hatred.

Senior members of the House of Saud have let it be known that their real focus in Syria, for example, is not primarily the government of Bashar al Assad, and their desire for regime change, but rather the main target is Assad's closest regional ally - Iran.

Everywhere in the region, the paranoid House of Saud sees the hand of Iran. In an oped piece in the New York Times in December, the Saudi Ambassador to Britain, Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud, accused Iran without any evidence, saying that it "has financed and trained militias in Iraq, Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and militants in Yemen and Bahrain." This is, of course, ironically crass, coming from the House of Saud, which is provably the sponsor of terrorists or terror regimes, such as the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al Nusra in Syria, ISIS in Iraq and the ruling Al Khalifa despots in Bahrain.

But the main point here is that Saudi Arabia, or at least its rulers led by the aging King Abdullah, is transfixed in animosity towards Iran. That obsession is driven by a visceral hatred. Why?

The short answer is self-preservation. But there are at least three specific reasons for this hatred, and they are inter-related.

The first is religious. The official religion of Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism. In this extreme deformation, Shia Islam is viewed as an intolerable apostasy. It is not just Shia that are perceived as "infidels". All forms of Muslim faith, including Sunnis, as well as Christians and other religions, that are deemed to not conform with the Wahhabi fundamentalist doctrine are considered infidels and are subject to merciless attack, even to the point of death.

In the warped Wahhabi belief Shia Muslims are the worst kind of "infidels". This explains why Shia and the closely related Alawite are subject to the most barbaric forms of violence in the Syrian conflict, where the anti-Syrian government militants are mainly driven by Wahhabi ideology - also known as Takfiris.

For historical reasons, Iran is the centre of Shia Islam in the region and the world. Iran therefore qualifies as the centre of Saudi hatred.

The second factor goes back to the Islamic Revolution in Iran. When the Iranian revolution succeeded in 1979 to kick out the US-backed dictator, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, that turmoil threatened all autocratic rulers in the region from the inspirational impact it conveyed to other populations to rise up against oppressive regimes. The House of Saud felt particularly threatened. That is why the Saudi rulers responded immediately by setting up the Persian Gulf Defense pact in the early 1980s, which comprised the other monarchies of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

Indeed, the Saudi rulers' hatred of Iran has only intensified since the Iranian revolution. The House of Saud views Iran's demonstratively more democratic credentials as a mortal threat to its despotism. The more Iran's political influence grows in the region, the more the Saudi rulers fear an existential threat. This explains the paranoid mindset of the House of Saud towards Iran, as expressed by its ambassador to Britain cited above, which suspects that Iranian subversion is everywhere, even when it isn't.

The third factor is more mundane, but perhaps is the ultimate concern for the House of Saud - the vital issue of oil and gas economics.

Of the 12 OPEC member states, the top three producers are Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Of most significance is Iran's enormous gas wealth, which is as yet hardly tapped as an economic resource. Natural gas is the fuel of the future for the next century, being more efficient as an energy source in terms of transport via pipelines and in terms of calorific output. Environmentally, natural gas is a much cleaner fuel than oil, giving off much less harmful byproducts from combustion.

Iran is reckoned to hold the largest known reserves of natural gas on Earth in its Pars Field. If Iran's international relations were normalized by the removal of trade sanctions, the country stands to become an even more formidable global source of energy. Of particular strategic importance is the European market for which Iran would be a top supplier, along with Russia (a non-OPEC member).

This development, which has an inexorable trajectory owing to irrepressible human need, is seen by the House of Saud as an imperative threat. Saudi Arabia is endowed with oil, but much less so with natural gas. Saudi strategic value as an energy producer is therefore on the wane, whereas Iran is bound to grow owing to its vast natural gas deposits.

At all costs, from the Saudi point of view, Iran must be prevented from developing its potential energy wealth. Saudi Arabia is living on borrowed time. Its oil reserves will eventually be surpassed by Iran's gas riches. Already, the Saudi rulers are sitting atop a demographic time bomb of an increasing and unemployed youth population, which so far has been placated with state fiscal handouts from its oil exports. The days for those handouts are numbered.

What will happen when Saudi's oil economy goes into demise, and is sidelined with the new global energy economy of natural gas in which Iran is a leading nation? That will translate into greater Iranian political influence in the region and a diminishing hold on power by the sclerotic Saudi autocrats.

The political and economic fate of the United States is closely tied to the Saudi petrodollar economy and that of the other Persian Gulf monarchies. The bankrupt American dollar is already largely on life-support due to the Saudis and their related sheikhdoms dealing in the commodity with the greenback and funneling profits into the US Treasury, propping up the dollar.

If Iran were to develop to its full potential, trade in oil and more importantly natural gas would most likely be denominated in Euro, Ruble, Yen or Yuan. That is a doomsday scenario for the US dollar and its long overdue collapse.

Ultimately, Washington shares the intense antipathy of the House of Saud towards Iran's unfettered political and economic freedom. Not for arcane Wahhabi reasons, but for vital economic self-preservation. Hence, the sharp rebuke from Washington this week when a French business delegation visited Iran to explore possible partnerships. US Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly phoned his French counterpart Laurent Fabius in a panic to protest at the delegation. The last thing the Americans want to see is Iran doing independent trade with Europe without the dollar.

The Saudi despots and their American patrons cannot afford Iranian development as an economic power. That directly threatens the House of Saud, politically and economically, which in turn threatens Washington to its very core.

For all of the above reasons, the Saudi rulers fear Iran above all else. The Zionist Israeli regime and its desecration of Islamic sanctities in East Al Quds (Jerusalem) does not even raise a single heckle for the Al Saud - the self-proclaimed Custodians of Islam. Their only fear and hatred are expressed in waging covert war against Iran and its allies, including Syria and the people of Bahrain, Iraq, Yemen and anywhere else. They want Iran contained, thwarted, sanctioned at all costs, and Washington by geopolitical necessity is on the Saudi side.

But as the tectonic plates of global energy needs shift inexorably over the coming decades, the Saudi rulers and their American patrons will find themselves on the losing side. In a very real way, this spells death to al Saud and the American Empire. Hence, the hatred.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is now located in East Africa as a freelance journalist, where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring, based on eyewitness experience working in the Persian Gulf as an editor of a business magazine and subsequently as a freelance news correspondent. The author was deported from Bahrain in June 2011 because of his critical journalism in which he highlighted systematic human rights violations by regime forces. He is now a columnist on international politics for Press TV and the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Palestinian Peace Talks – How to Fail without Really Trying

  Jim Dean

“The American peace initiative has ground to a halt. The full truth about it can and must now be told. It was doomed to failure before it even started. There was not the slightest chance of its bearing fruit.” – Uri Avnery, Israeli peace activist, ex-Irgun and Knesett member

The Palestinian peace talks concluded with their expected end… a dead one. The reasons are many, but mainly fall into the historical negotiation record where failure really was the goal, and then the planned smokescreen reasons particular to this round of talks.

First up is why should the Israelis want peace when the never-ending “no peace” situation has been such a gold mine for them? The list of benefits is too long to cover here so I will just mention a few highlights. One of the constant glues holding the Israeli multiparty fractious political system together is the age-old outside enemy, which keeps them all on the plantation so to speak.

The Knesset is legendary for its infighting and nasty debates, which international media has bent over backwards not to publicize all the nasty names used by Jews against Jews. It got so bad that years ago they had to literally compile an official list of nasty names that could not be used during debates. It is buried on an old hard drive somewhere, but I distinctly remember it reading like an encyclopedia of nasty name calling, quite humorous really.

With peace would come the lessening of security tensions in the Mideast, where Israel is by far the biggest threat. The Israeli would have to start saying goodbye to all the US money that has kept the failed socialist state afloat with its various underclasses.

In the US we have some in jail, those administering the funds, for taking bribes for accepting false applications, and I mean a lot of them… something in the 5000 range. Their attitude was “the more the merrier.”

US money comes to Israel in multiple ways, starting with the public amount that is published every year, which Israel never has to account for how it was spent. And then there is the lesser known back door funding right out of the Pentagon budget.

This includes goodies like the Army Corps of Engineers having chipped in to build the big confinement cage for the Gazans, and the huge, nuclear-hardened underground command centers on the scale of what we have here. Americans would riot if they knew the true amount over the years… tens of billions. Do the militant Israelis want to say goodbye to that? No way.

And last, there is that little problem of the Israelis being the biggest WMD depot in the Mideast. They know that with peace would come much stronger pressure to turn over all of those stockpiles to international supervision. Iran is out in front of this issue by calling for the entire region to do so, with no free pass for Israel.

I have also been astounded how there has not been a peep from anyone about the Israelis’ joint ICBM program with India to build five warhead MIRV’d rockets that can hit anywhere from China and Russia to the US. I wonder who is helping to pay the tab for that?

The Kerry leadership of the talks was a disaster from the start, beginning with the choice of Martin Indyk as the negotiations coordinator. He was an old AIPAC employee, and like they used to say with the Italian Mafia… you are in it for life. So the US Israel Lobby, doing all they could to defeat Obama’s Mideast peace efforts, had a seat at the table with one of their most obvious agents. This was an open display of their power, despite Obama giving them the stiff arm on their wanting to wreck the Iran talks.

Kerry was angry with the Israelis, but that was the expected cover story. Any intelligent person knows that the Israelis will not make peace until forced to do so. The Likud party running the government knew that Washington would never use the sanctions card on Israel. Congress and AIPAC would have any president blocked on that. I won’t say the Jewish Lobby has America totally compromised, but I will say “very compromised”. And that includes their massive espionage operations here with our Congress at the top of the target list.

The final talks-killer was Netanyahu’s refusing to release the last batch of prisoners previously agreed upon. This was a dual lightening rod. The first part being how large the ex-prisoner constituency is among the Palestinians, its biggest fraternity. The numbers are close to 40% of the men having been imprisoned, about 800,000.

They have their own multiparty government inside the prison system and join a tight community when released, despite the harsh restrictions on their not engaging in any political activism. The purpose is to neuter them politically. Recently near Ramallah, 38 people were arrested for collecting money to help build a house for a PFLP member’s widow.

Two of the tightest bonds I know of among men is those who have been in a lot of combat together, and those who have survived harsh imprisonment, especially where torture was routine as it was in Israel. Netanyahu knew he could hold back the prisoner release card and cause the Palestinians to walk out of proposed talks.

Kerry knew it, too. So what did he do about it? He used the “A” word on the Israelis… apartheid, and we know how the Israelis like to control the vocabulary, as a display of power. And Kerry had been mentioning all along that the boycott pressure would increase with no peace agreement, and it will. The Israelis obviously considered the boycott to be the lesser of two evils, as they still have the US on the hook for the ten-year advance funding agreement that was George Bush’s going away present to them.

But when it came to punishing Abbas for not accepting political suicide, the sanctions card was played immediately with the threat of US funding cut offs for the PA. And no, the hypocrisy of that did not embarrass the US State Department in the slightest. It is top heavy with dual Israeli-American citizens.

The Palestinian Authority had anticipated the Israeli move. They went ahead with their UN membership requests, which will include access to the international legal forums to pursue the numerous Israelis participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity. I hope to see those trials in my lifetime.

The second motivation for the Israelis to kill the talks by reneging on the prisoner release was having the PA make up with Hamas to form a coalition government. Much fanfare was made of this in the media when it was announced, but it is a task easier discussed than done, as power sharing in any Mideast country is like tightrope walking on a windy day.

Left out of the coverage about the talks breakdown was something so obvious that I found hard to believe it could have been purposefully overlooked. And that is, how can anyone continue investing in a peace negotiation, which requires confidence that the other party will live up to its terms, when that party is already in breech of their agreements made before going into the talks? How stupid would that investment be?

It is mind boggling this was not front-page news. Could the reason be that the Israel-friendly corporate media does not want to publicize the track record of Israel not living up to agreements any time it wants, simply by “reinterpreting” them? This is the elephant sitting in the living room, which everyone pretends not to smell.

In closing, there is another “don’t even go there” aspect that everyone seems afraid to discuss publicly. And that is the large oil and gas reserves off the coast of Gaza, which could be a Mother Earth’s monetary reparations fund for the inestimable economic devastation inflicted on the Palestinians for 66 years.

If such a thing had been inflicted on Jews anywhere on the planet, they would have had worldwide support for reparations. So what remains to be answered is who is going to pay the Palestinian reparations? I don’t mean just the Israeli Jews. Those who aided and abetted them, like the American Christian ones — who give more money to Israel every year than American Jews do — have directly funded the crimes against the Palestinians.

For the CZ’s, this includes the persecution of the Christian Palestinians, the “living stones” of Christianity whose numbers have dwindled from 20% of the population down to 2%. This has been an ethnic cleansing so shameful that hardly anyone dares mention it.

But I mention it because I hold these actions in utter contempt. One of the great benefits of independent journalism is that we get to tell folks exactly how we feel. It is a wonderful freedom that is worth all the struggles that accompany this work. And I will keep doing it until my last breath.

Jim W. Dean, managing editor for Veteran Today, producer/host of Heritage TV Atlanta, specially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Saudi Arabia’s approach to terrorism, hypocritical

File photo shows Saudi-backed militants in Syria.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

On Friday, the government of Saudi Arabia listed five groups as "terrorist organizations." Two of those groups – Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – actually are terrorist organizations. They have engaged in a policy of indiscriminate killing, including targeting civilians, in Syria.

The odd thing is that the Saudi government has long been the main supporter of both groups! 

Now, by royal decree, any Saudi citizen fighting abroad must return within two weeks, on pain of imprisonment. And any member of Jabhat al-Nusra or ISIL faces 20 years in prison.

The first Saudi who ought to go to prison is Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, former head of Saudi Intelligence "Bandar Bush," as he is affectionately known in American organized crime circles, ran the main conduit of arms to the terrorists until he was relieved of his Syria duties two weeks ago.

Bandar should be arrested and charged in connection with the false-flag chemical weapons attack in al-Ghouta last August. The whole Obama Administration, along with several top Israeli leaders, should be also arrested as suspected accessories.

But the Saudi government is hardly in a position to prosecute terrorists. If laws against terrorism were enforced in the kingdom, the whole Saudi elite would have to go to jail.

Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea.

The new Saudi "anti-terror" move is a virtual admission of defeat in Syria. By firing Bandar, and then outlawing Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIL, the Saudis apparently have given up on overthrowing the Syrian government. Saudi withdrawal from Syria may help open the door for a diplomatic solution.

But will the Saudis really stop funding Syrian terrorists? Or is the new Saudi "war on terror" merely cosmetic?

One indication that the new Saudi "anti-terror" policy is phony: Three of the alleged "terrorist" organizations banned by the Saudis are not really terrorists at all.

There is no evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Hizbollah, or the Yemeni Houthis have a policy of indiscriminate violence or attacks on civilians. The Saudi claim that these groups are "terrorists" is a self-serving lie.

Saudi Hizbollah has been blamed for attacks on property and on occupation forces. But even if these disputed claims are true, it has never engaged in indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

The Houthis in Yemen, likewise, do not engage in indiscriminate violence or attacks on civilians. The Takfiris they oppose, not the Houthis themselves, deserve the terrorist label.

But of all the hypocritical aspects of Saudi Arabia's anti-terror proclamation, the most outrageous is the claim that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a terrorist group. The MB, by far the biggest international Islamic organization, does not even have an armed militia. Since the 1970s, its official policy has been strictly non-violent activism. Even the MB's Western enemies, who consider virtually all Muslims as likely terrorists, concede that the Brotherhood has followed a policy of non-violence for decades.

Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of peaceful Muslim Brotherhood activists have disappeared and been tortured in Egypt during the decades of vicious repression by the Zionist-backed Mubarak and al-Sisi dictatorships.

Will Saudi Arabia follow Egypt's lead and begin disappearing and torturing Muslim Brotherhood activists and intellectuals?

The new wave of persecution should concentrate the minds of MB leaders. They ought to reconsider the organization's alliances and methods.

While ostensibly non-sectarian and pan-Islamic, the Muslim Brotherhood has been strongly influenced by Salafism, a puritanical, intolerant, politically-quietist strain of Islam. Saudi money has promoted Salafism in the MB. Mohamed Morsi, Egypt's first-ever democratically-elected president and still its legitimate leader, was hamstrung by the need to placate the Saudi-funded Egyptian Salafis.

Now that Saudi Arabia is turning against the MB, perhaps the Brotherhood will escape the Salafi influence and become a genuine brotherhood of all Muslims – and a promoter of brotherhood between Muslims and all mankind. A good first step would be for the MB to launch a global campaign against sectarian violence. By demonstrating and speaking out against sectarian violence not just in Syria, but also in Yemen, Iraq, Nigeria, Myanmar, and elsewhere – and intensifying its opposition to the genocidal persecution of non-Zionist people in Palestine – the MB could gain support from progressive forces around the world.

The MB needs to learn how to build bridges among people of good will, beginning with Muslims of different orientations, and then reaching out to include justice-seeking non-Muslims. What Gandhi said of "Western Civilization" is also true of Muslim Brotherhood: It would be a good idea.

The MB should intensify its dedication to social justice, and reconsider its traditional policy of cooperation with oppressors – not just Saudis but also Western governments. The Saudis and the West are in bed with the Zionists. The MB needs to preserve its integrity and independence; it must not allow itself to be bought.

The ridiculous Saudi assertion that the MB is a "terrorist" group could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to the Brotherhood. It could wean the group of Saudi government money and influence once and for all.

The Saudi turn against the MB could create a new set of alliances in the Middle East. On one side, the house of Zionism, Takfiri fanaticism, social injustice, dictatorship, and submission to empire: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their acolytes. On the other side, the house of anti-Zionism, anti-imperialism, democracy, social justice, and inclusive Islam: Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, a more inclusive Muslim Brotherhood...a newer and broader "Axis of Resistance" that could spread across the region as it gradually democratizes and wins genuine independence.

When that happens, the Saudi and Zionist regimes will be tossed in the proverbial dustbin of history, and remembered as the two biggest sources of terrorism in the region since the Mongol invasion.

KB/SS

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). 

Saudi Arabia: a Kingdom that prays publicly and preys privately

by Abu Dharr

Misleading a generation of Muslim youth to create a “Sunni” militia to launch sectarian warfare will ultimately recoil on the House of Saud. It is setting itself up for a fall.

This column in the Crescent International has been coming down like a thunderbolt on the royal fiends of Arabia, otherwise referred to in the mainstream media as the Saudi royal family. And with the world turning into a global village, we hear about good-mannered individuals whose Islamic credentials are sterling, who say that we are becoming somewhat obsessed with Saudi Arabia! We are not preoccupied by Saudi Arabia, much less obsessed by it. The fact of the matter is that there is something like a public silence in Islamic circles when it comes to the Arabian billionaire royals who are wreaking havoc from Makkah eastward to Makkah westward. And we can’t stand by and watch the “transgression of the law” and the deadly sins that are traceable to the mob of pseudo-Muslims who masquerade as the “custodians of the two harams” while they are the willing accomplices of wars against Muslims and wars among Muslims.

If the Muslim Brotherhood does not have the moral courage to speak truth to power or to fight foolishness with facts then we will try to fill that void. If any other Islamic orientation is impotent and ineffectual in exposing the Saudi deadly and mortal sins then we will try to help them out.

Let us begin. Saudi Arabia — the best kept American-British-Israeli secret in the Muslim East — has come out swinging against the Ikhwan (the Muslim Brotherhood). When Washington’s Egyptian military overthrew a duly elected president of Egypt — Dr. Mohamed Mursi — the Saudi king-emperor said, “Let the entire world know that the people and government of the Saudi kingdom stood and still stand today with our brothers in Egypt against terrorism, extremism, and fitnah [sedition].” The grand Arabian, the political descendant of Abu Lahab is equating the rule of the Ikhwan to terrorism, extremism, and sedition! We wonder out-loud: after all this, is there a difference between ‘Abdullah and Mu‘awiyah — both Arabian potentates — in the minds of the leaders within the Ikhwan and their counterparts around the world?!

From its official birth which was midwifed by British colonialism in the 1930s up until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the retreat of communism (1990s), the Saudis camouflaged their subservience to the US under that broad worldwide banner of combating atheist communism.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran caused the Saudi ruling elites to redouble their efforts to furbish their “Islamic credentials” and thus we had the Saudi regime channeling a restive youth population to go to Afghanistan and fight the honorable jihad against Soviet occupation. In one sense, this was one way the masterminds that created Saudi Arabia in the first place (colonialism, imperialism, and Zionism) sought to have Riyadh eclipse Tehran during the 1980s. Tens of thousands of committed and less-than-committed Muslims went to fight the good war in Afghanistan, not knowing that they were used for a war-effort in which the rollback of the Soviet forces from Afghanistan was one of its lesser goals.

The other more important objective of that dual-purpose war was to kill off a revivalist Islamic youth generation while overshadowing the Islamic Revolution in Iran. If there were any Islamic leaders who were unaware of this then we have an acute problem; if they were in fact aware of this, then we have a chronic problem. So the Saudi masters were able to delay Islamic revival outside Islamic Iran for one generation. But time does not stop there. Now there are more generations coming of age. And so the Saudi un-intelligentsia seeks to be ahead of the curve — relying of course on strategies and stratagems that originate in Washington and London directly, and in Tel Aviv indirectly; although the lines are being blurred nowadays.

The uprisings in North Africa in general, and the one in Bahrain in particular although meant to burn the “Islamic card” did not sit well with a mentally disordered and an emotionally high-strung Saudi monarchy.

Enter Bandar ibn Sultan, the kingdom’s troubleshooter, now in charge of virtually all matters relating to intelligence and security. This nightlife ambassador sought to create a “Sunni” militia in Lebanon relying on another Washingtonian-Lebanese nighttime creature by the name of Sa‘d al-Hariri. Bandar’s imbibing of CIA and Mossad instructions not only left him with a hangover, he got a rude awakening when the combined forces of Zionism in 2006 and Saudi patronism (al-Hariri’s al-Mustaqbal party) in 2008 both were dealt resounding defeats, militarily and politically.

Enter Syria. In the commotion of what the establishment media calls the “Arab Spring” the Saudis and their political siblings — the clients of Zionist hegemony — all threw in their lot to bring down the rulers in Damascus — and not all the ruling individuals, only the ones who have a record of coordinating policies with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their grand plan can be distilled into a single word: sectarianism.

In Syria, the Saudis want to play off (kill off) Sunnis and Shi‘is. This Zionist-imperialist campaign financed and fanaticized by Saudi Wahhabis can only turn against the Saudi officials themselves. According to some approximations, more than two-thirds of the population in Saudi Arabia do not consider themselves Wahhabis. Hijaz is predominantly Shafi‘i and Maliki. The eastern oil-rich province is teaming with Shi‘is. In some southern areas of Arabia the Zaidis and Isma‘ilis have a substantial presence.

Once the Saudi sectarian scheme comes to light all these Muslims will turn their wrath on the Saudi decision makers who in retrospect were accountable for a generation lost in Afghanistan, then a generation lost in Syria, and then a generation lost who knows where else before the Saudi sectarians face their day in the court of justice.

Let us clarify an important point that some of our readers may think we are oblivious to; that point is: we acknowledge there are many unsuspecting Muslims who are unaware of the larger picture, who went to Afghanistan or who are going to Syria today, all of whom do not have the slightest idea of their utility from a Saudi-Zionist-imperialist perspective.

Bandar may not have known at the time but he has set into motion a sequence of events that may result in the undoing of the Saudi regime itself. Syria may become Saudi Arabia’s Masada. What began as controlled jihadi groups in Syria has undergone numerous mutations. There are scores of “Islamic” jihadi fronts from “The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) ” to al-Nusrah.

The Turks have become very edgy about this development because all this is happening in close proximity to them. Once this mutually hostile potpourri of jihadi groups make their way southward to the Jordanian area, then the Saudis will have realized that the magic has turned against the magician. What began as a supervised campaign to topple the Syrian regime will wind up as a snowballing campaign to topple the Saudi regime. To preempt this looming threat his najasty majesty issued a decree recently threatening any Saudi who goes outside of the kingdom for jihad with a punishment of anywhere from 3–20 years of imprisonment. The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia (the king’s echo chamber) reinforced the king’s statement by describing such Saudi jihadists as miscreants who are being misled.

In the middle of all this, isn’t it a shame that all this Islamic youth and vitality is left to the shenanigans of the likes of Bandar who inject them with sectarian venom, and then set them loose on innocent people throughout the region and throughout the world? Isn’t it a painful emotion resulting from an awareness of inadequacy or guilt to see a young generation — in its prime — leaderless?

President Obama is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia this month. Do the Saudi royals have the sectarianism in them to consider Obama a kafir, as they instructed their surrogates in Egypt to consider the Copts as kafirs? There are words from the grapevine (even reported in the Washington Post on February 19) to the effect that Bandar is going to be replaced by his cousin Muhammad ibn Nayef who for the last decade or so has been in charge of combating terrorism in the kingdom and who came to Washington, DC in February to set the stage for Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia.

Will Saudi Arabia, with direct and clear instructions from Washington, join regional governments who are now lined up to combat terrorism — most of which they themselves created? Will there be anyone in that decrepit royal family who will discover that the Saudi clan has been and cannot be anything but an instrument for Zionists and imperialists? Will the leaders of the Ikhwan ever face tyrants with words of truth and justice?

We seriously and regrettably doubt it.



O my Sustainer! Had You so willed, You would have destroyed them before this, and me [with them]. Will You destroy us for what the weak-minded amongst us have done? All this is but a trial from You… (7:155).

Behavior of Saudi Arabia at the present time and its impact on Lebanon

Alwaght-Keeping out the military option from Iran nuclear case in the light of Geneva talks, can be an introduction for the same policy about Syria case. After Iran agreement Khadar Ibraham, Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for Syria set for a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian crisis and announced dates Geneva 2. Tranquility in Syria effects Lebanon directly. For sure, an important factor for peace in Syria and Lebanon is the policies of Saudi Arabia which we will explain here.
Leaders of Riyadh are encountered with two main factors which determine their behavior:  deterrent and enhancing actions.
Deterrent actions: series of factors which can put Saudi Arabia in an inactive status which will lead to promoting peace in the region.
Increasing actions: series of factors that stimulate and excite the Saudi regime which will lead to security crisis in the region.

Deterrent actions

A.      Normalization of Iran nuclear case

After Geneva agreement Riyadh leaders are worried about Iran's domination in the region with USA approval. Namely, the old ally of Saudi cooperates with Saudi's old rival. Saudi leaders believe that the Geneva agreement paves the way for Iran's advance in nuclear technology field and Iran's potential threats will be de facto. In such conditions, Saudi Arabia will probably take a passive strategy encountering USA which has precedent. In 2001, Abdullah the then Saudi prince, sent Bandar Bin Sultan to Washington to deliver a threatening message to George Bush, saying that now the time has come to recognize Palestinian rights and let them form their own government and end killing them, otherwise things will go very bad and Saudi will stop oil export. Afterwards Bush apparently agreed with this. But shortly after the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and intelligence agencies reported that 19 terrorists engaged in that attack which 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia. Issue that has strained relations between America and Saudi Arabia, and later expeditions of the America's Army to the Middle East began. Saudi Arabia apposed strongly to it because it knew that the Sadam's fall is inevitable and Iran will be strengthened. But despite threats from Saudi Arabia and estrangement, the Saudi regime has chosen the path of retreat and coordinated its policies to USA. Once again, raising the average oil production led to stable fuel prices at the gas station in the United States and did a great favor to the government of America. It could happen again as the Riyadh leaders eschew increasing actions in the area stop and re-tune their policy to United States. Namely, after Saudi protest and refusing to accept non-permanent seat of UN Security Council as a criticism to America conduct for not attacking Syria and acting against Saudi interests, maybe they take a peaceful action facing USA.

B.      Iran and west closeness in the light of Iran's nuclear case towards peace     

The close relation between Iran and west is inevitable after Iran's nuclear agreement. Saudi Arabia worries that this relation causes west especially the USA leave its old ally alone which may occur in security or other fields.  In such a condition it is probable that Saudi changes its mood and opt a political approach. It's not to the benefit of Saudi Arabia to continue the current struggle with west. Saudi Arabia worries about Iran and west friendship, because they think Iran will fill Saudi Arabia place in the oil market.

C.      Internal difference

Now the two factions can be seen in the body of Saudi policy. One faction insists on supporting terrorism and is opposed to reflection in exercise in order to achieve political solutions which are managed by Bandar bin Sultan, Secretary General of the Saudi intelligence agency and Saud al-Faisal, foreign minister of the country. They argue that in the light of flaming the Arab world, Al Saud monarchy will become the most influential in the region. This faction is of high influence in the body of Saudi policy which is supported by Malek Abdullah and Malek Altujiry the social secretary of Saudi king. The position of social secretary in Saudi equals to prime minister position in other countries. Up to now the obstinacy and courage of this faction has set many countries into fire in the region and predicted to infect Saudi Arabia itself in the near future if they do not put an end to this process. But the other side believes in deliberate actions and wants to take a soft approach in dealing with the challenges. If the events happens in a way that Saudi see its national interests and sovereignty at risk, it maybe change its approach in dealing with challenges.

D.      Persian Gulf states' deviation from Riyadh policies.

Since US has put the military action against the Syria off the table and opted the political approach to solve its problem with Iran, may Arab states of Persian Gulf are trying to deviate from Saudi Arabia policies. According to Al-Manar weekly report, many Persian Gulf Arab states has sent political delegations to Iran and Russia secretly to find a way to come out from Saudi domination.  However, the multi-destination trip of Iran Foreign Minister to several Arab states of Persian Gulf is sign of Iran's good will.
These countries have eight perceptions of the regions events. They know that the current primary is not apposing with political solutions. But Saudi Arabia is moving lonely through a dark space where finally will find itself alone and hapless. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, in a recent interview with the Lebanese channel OTV clearly unveiled the devastating role of Al Saud in the region crisis. He said" Saudis are trying to change the field realities in any possible way by the means of their arms and decisions until January 22th (Geneva 2 talks)".
Meanwhile Iran's attempt to pursue the policy of détente with Saudi regime and to re-establish a relationship with the Saudi regime has been fruitless and Saudi is traveling on its path. Secretary General of Hezbollah of Lebanon in his interview said that Iran has never severed his ties with its neighbors and attributed the problem to the other side. He added" what Iran foreign minister id doing is in accordance to Iran's status and he is trying to ensure them that what has happened is not against Saudis. But what Iran has done was a failure because Saudi has shut the cooperation doors".
In such a condition it is probable that Saudi adopt a more moderate approach because it sees that its old allies are not on its side.

E.       Nabih Berri mediation

One of the deterrent actions is the trip of Nabih Beri, Speaker of Lebanon Parliament, to Iran to consult with Iranian officials and also his future visit to Saudi to mediate Iran Saudi disputes. Fouad Siniora, the former Lebanese prime minister after his meeting with Nabih Berri said that he will meet with Saudi officials for consultations on finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Although his power and influence is not enough to do such mediation alone, but if the means and the necessities for such mediation be prepared, this visit could be effective.

Increasing actions

A.      The loss of the Saudi role in regional equations

Saudi leaders believe that with the emergence of new conditions in the region, America will provide a new route for Iran to deepen its influence it the region and Iran will become the axe of the future west Asia and Saudi will lose its patron role in the region. It is impossible for Saudi leaders to imagine a Lebanon without the role of Al-Saud. They have been always struggling to dominate the Wahhabism thought in the region. Dispatch of many Wahhabi terrorists with different nationalities to the crisis prone area is an evidence for this claim. Considering the current situation it is possible that Saudi will take its last tricks even if his red lines are violated.

B.     The possibility of losing Lebanon    

 It is no secret that Saudi has a great role and influence in its traditional colony Lebanon. Saudi fears that as a result of Syria failure they will lose their permanent influence in the Lebanon. In this situation it is possible that Saudi Arabia, who sees all of its properties gone with the wind, exacerbate the crisis to save the Lebanon, and if it could not achieve its goal with unconventional methods use the Lebanon as the scapegoat. Intensifying the unrest in Tripoli helps Saudi to take the control of this district from government and army in order to make there a support base for terrorists and smuggling line for terrorists and weapons. These intensifying actions can also an appropriate condition to bargain about Resistance weapon, namely by the means of Increasing the amount of weapons in the hands of organized excommunication forces which at least 15000 of them are present at the Lebanon, a transaction can be arranged to disarm Resistance.

C.     The conspiracy illusion and Iran's attack in the light of acquiring nuclear weapon      

 Saudi officials believe that Iran's nuclear program is not controlled; Iran will definitely acquire atomic bomb. They imagine that after acquiring atomic bomb Iran will use it to enhance its influence it the region and cease their strategic territories. In fact Saudi fears from the inhibitory role of these weapons for Iran. However the long-standing grudge of Saudi against Iran is not limited to nuclear weapon. According to Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, "The Saudis from the outset treated with Iran as an enemy, and war that Saddam Hussein launched was with Saudi incitement and financing. The Saudis have never stopped their war plans against Iran, but since 1979 Iran revolution they have made it more complete. "  
In recent years the leaders of the Saud have told secretly Washington and Tel Aviv that the Saudi Arabia and its land is ready to be used in an attack against Iran. Less than a month later the Israeli media reported a secret agreement between Riyadh and Tel Aviv to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

D.      Foundation of new Arabic- Hebrew front

 In the last decade Saudi Arabia has maintained his secret relationship with Israel, focusing on common issues such enmity with Hezbollah. According to Israeli sites, "Rotter.net" Last month, several Israeli officials had traveled to Saudi for inspection of the facility bases which the Israeli regime can use to attack Iran. According to Al-Manar in 2006, a confidential meeting was held between Ehud Olmert, Israeli prime minister and Bandar bin Sultan, secretary of the then Supreme National Security Council of Saudi Arabia.  At this meeting, has offered Olmert's much to finance the war against Hizbullah, if Israel does not halt the war against Hezbollah unless they overthrow the Organization.
Such relations and connections between the leaders of the two regimes have occurred many times. It is feared that at the present time Saudi use its illegitimate links and take some distructive and without prudence actions. Especially in the past few days we have witnessed in Netanyahu's speech some form of public support from Saudi Arabia. In Hizbullah statement, the recent assassinations of Hassan Allqys one of the most influential leaders of this organization, is attributed to Israel; Meanwhile, the Beirut embassy bombing, according to evidences is attributed to affiliated groups to Saudi Arabia. So, one can conclude that there is a kind of there is a convergence between the two actions. The coordination between Riyadh and Tel Aviv can trigger crisis and be a synergy in terrorist acts, which the Lebanese arena, undoubtedly is one of the most important goals to caught Hizbullah inside the Lebanon and reduce its influence in Syria. Intensifying insecurity indide Lebanon has another result for Saudi; they can attribute this condition to the presence of Hizbullah in Syria and cause the masses to protest against Hizbullah and reduce its popularity.

E.       Hope for Pakistan nuclear weapons

 Nawaz Sharif, the current Prime Minister of Pakistan, in the past decade has been under the patronage of the Al Saud. In 2000 he was convicted by the court for corruption, was exiled to Saudi Arabia along with his family. Furthermore, Part of the terrorists who are fighting in Syria, are trained in Pakistan funded by Saudi Arabia. David Avtovaz, renowned journalist and author of a biography of Prince Bandar bin Sultan says" If Iran becomes a nuclear power and threaten Saudi Arabia, it is possible that Pakistan defend Saudi  against Iran instead of the United States." According to the American newspaper The Daily Post, Netanyahu quoted from Bandar bin Sultan, who last month addressed some European diplomats and said that Saudi is getting ready for giant leap to distance from his former allies the United States. Some people close to the Bandar Bin Sultan interpreted his talks and said that the Saudi efforts to establish more friendly relations with Pakistan.
It worth mentioning that the current Prime Minister of Pakistan is known for licensing Pakistan's nuclear bomb test in 1998 in response to India's nuclear tests.
This is one of the pendants for leaders of the House of Saud to intensify the crisis in the region, and use Pakistan's nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent if necessary.

F.       Increase in conflicts is conventional before negotiations

Usually prior to negotiations to resolve security and military crises, the parties will attempt to increase their field achievements to obtain the upper hand in negotiations. According to Khadar Ibrahim the Geneva 2 talks will be held in January 22th on Syria crisis. Since The Syrian army has already completed seizing a major part of opposition territory in the region around Damascus, Aleppo and the strategic region Al-Qalamun, Saudi Arabia is doing its best to retake the region to have the upper hand in the negotiations. So exacerbating the terrorist attacks in the Syria is predictable.
Although there is a great dispute among rebels in Syria, especially those in battle field, and there is little hope to quit conflicts after negotiations, but the diplomatic model to solve the problem can be presented in that round of talks.
Definitely Saudi elements how are engaged in creating crisis in the region will do their best to reduce Iran influence in the region by the help of their Israeli intelligence companions. Meanwhile Lebanon where Iran has many interests there is one of the most vulnerable areas for the Resistance. An area where Iran has gone so far to reduce its problem diplomatically , after the recent terrorist attacks.