Chossudovsky: secret Turkish Israeli alliance


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

"Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon

By Michel Chossudovsky
August 6, 2006

While Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has condemned Israel for the 
atrocities committed in Lebanon, his government remains a staunch ally of Israel
and a major military actor in the Middle East and Central Asia, with close ties 
to Washington, Tel Aviv and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

"This war is unjust... The Israeli war simply fueling hatred... It is not 
difficult to see that a terrible global war and a huge disaster await us.²", 
said Erdogan  at the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in 
Kuala Lumpur, in early August

In a cruel irony, Turkey, through its military alliance with Israel and the US, 
is a de facto partner in the "terrible global war" alluded to by Prime Minister 

The Turkish head of government's apparent indignation responds to strong 
anti-Israeli sentiment within Turkey and the Middle East. His Justice and 
Development Party (AKP), which dominates the ruling coalition is considered to 
be a "pro-Islamic political entity". Yet beneath the gilded surface of Turkish 
party politics, the ruling AKP coalition government led Prime Minister Erdogan 
is complicit in Israeli war crimes.

Turkey's condemnation of Israel is in blatant contradiction with the substance 
of its longstanding military cooperation agreement with Israel, which the ruling
AKP government has actively pursued. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not
only supported Israeli interests, he had also developed a close personal rapport
with (former) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The contradictions underlying Turkey's foreign policy also relate to complex 
divisions within the ruling coalition as well as between the government and the 
Military hierarchy, which historically  has maintained a close rapport with the 
Pentagon and NATO. While the alliance with Israel may be the source of political
contention in the Turkish parliament, it has, nonetheless, been accepted and 
endorsed, since the mid-1990s, by successive government coalitions.

The Israeli-Turkish Military Alliance

A significant turnaround in Turkish foreign policy occurred in the immediate 
wake of the Cold War, which contributed to redefining the Turkey-Israel 
relationship. Initially forged under the helm of Prime Minister Tansu Çiller, 
the Israeli-Turkish military pact is characterized by the landmark 1994 Security
and Secrecy Agreement (SSA). This strategic realignment of Turkey with Israel 
was part of Washington's post Cold War agenda in the Middle East, which was also
supported by US covert intelligence operations. In 1997, Mrs. Ciller was accused
of having been recruited by the CIA and "of accepting money from foreign 
governments [the US] to work against Turkey's national interests". (Voice of 
America, 17 July 1997)

The 1994 Security and Secrecy Agreement emulates a defunct secret agreement 
between Israel and Turkey formulated in the late 1950s at the height of the Cold
War, entitled the "Peripheral Pact":

"By 1958, however, a fascinating secret agreement, sometimes referred to as the 
"peripheral pact", had emerged between the two nations. It¹s conceptual 
framework can be traced back even before the founding of the state [of Israel] 
to the ideology of Baruch ŒUzel [Uziel], an Israeli leader who would later 
become a member of the Liberal Party.

Notably, exact details of the alliance remain hidden in numerous classified 
Israeli documents, and are obscured by Turkish secrecy, classified documents, 
and insistence that there was no actually documented pact between the countries.
Nonetheless, it seems the alliance had three fundamental tenets. The diplomatic 
tenet involved joint public relations campaigns to influence general publics. 
The military aspect allegedly involved the exchange of intelligence information,
joint planning for mutual aid in emergencies, and Turkish support in the 
Pentagon and at NATO for an improved Israeli military. Some also say that 
³highly sensitive² scientific cooperation as well as the export of Israeli 
military equipment to the Republic occurred. (See Washington Institute)

This 1958 bilateral military cooperation agreement, however, was short lived. In
the course of the 1960s, Turkey pursued a rapprochement with both the Soviet 
Union and the Arab countries. (Ibid).

A protocol on Defense Cooperation was established in 1992 under the government 
of Süleyman Demirel, followed two years later by the signing of  the 1994 
Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA). Necmettin Erbakan succeeded  Tansu Çiller 
as Prime Minister in 1997 in  "an Islamic center-right coalition" with  Ciller's
True Path Party.

In 1997, the Erbakan government was forced to resign as result of pressures 
exerted by the Military in what was described as "a post- modern coup d'État".

The US sponsored 1994 Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA) implemented by the 
Çiller government, essentially set the stage for a firm and close relationship 
between Israel and Turkey in military and intelligence cooperation, joint 
military exercises, weapons production and training. The SSA is far-reaching in 
its implications. It also requires the exchange of military intelligence in what
is described as the "guaranteed secrecy in the exchange and sharing of 

From the outset in 1992, the Israeli-Turkish military alliance has consistently 
been directed against Syria.  A 1993 Memorandum of Understanding led to the 
creation of (Israeli-Turkish) "joint committees" to handle so-called regional 
threats. Under the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed "to 
cooperate in gathering intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet 
regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries' 
military capabilities."

Turkey agreed to allow IDF and Israeli security forces to gather electronic 
intelligence on Syria and Iran from Turkey. In exchange, Israel assisted in the 
equipping and training of Turkish forces in anti-terror warfare along the 
Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian borders." (Ibid)

In 1997, Israel and Turkey launched  "A Strategic Dialogue" involving a 
bi-annual process of high level military consultations by the respective deputy 
chiefs of staff. (Milliyet,  Istanbul, in Turkish 14 July 2006).

The 1994 SSA was followed in 1996 by a  Military Training and Cooperation 
Agreement (MTCA). Also in 1996, Turkey entered into a Military Industry 
Cooperation Agreement with Israel, which was in turn instrumental to the signing
of  "a secret agreement" with Israel Military Industries to update its tank 
division, modernize its helicopter fleet and its F-4 and F-5 combat planes 
(Ibid). In turn, the two countries entered into negotiations with a view to 
establishing a Free Trade Agreement, which came into operation in 2000.

On the official agenda of recent Israeli-Turkish talks are joint defense 
projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense    
and Popeye II missiles. The latter, also known as the Have Lite, are advanced 
small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes.

Israel's Arrow II

More recently, the Eastern Mediterranean corridor, from the Red Sea, through 
Lebanon and Syria to the Syrian- Turkish border has, both from a strategic and 
economic standpoint, become an important factor in the evolving Israel-Turkey 
military alliance. It is intimately related to the proposed Ceyhan-Ashkelon oil 
pipeline project (to be implemented by Turkey and Israel), which would link the
Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan  pipeline to Israel's Ashkelon-Eilat pipeline. (Michel 
Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, July 2006)

The war on Lebanon ultimately seeks to establish joint Israeli-Turkish military 
control over a coastal corridor extending from the Israeli-Lebanese border to 
the East Mediterranean border between Syria and Turkey. What this militarization
of the coastal Lebanese-Syrian corridor would signify is the control of almost 
the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline by Turkey and Israel under the terms 
of the Israeli-Turkish military alliance. (Ibid)

Water is also part of this strategic relationship. Under a 2004 agreement, 
Turkey was to sell some 50 million cubic meters of water per annum to Israel 
over a 20 year period. In recent developments, the agreement has been revised. 
The water would to be channeled to Israel via an Israeli-Turkish water pipeline.

The NATO-Israel Security Agreement

In April 2001,  Israel entered into "a security agreement" with NATO as part of
NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue:

"This security agreement provides the framework for the protection of classified
information, as defined by all 19 member countries, and is signed by countries 
that wish to engage in cooperation with NATO."

In 2004, the decision was taken to "elevate" the 2001 Mediterranean Dialogue "to
a genuine [military] partnership and to launch the Istanbul Cooperation 
Initiative (ICI) with selected countries [including Algeria, Egypt, Israel, 
Jordan. Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia] in the broader region of the Middle 
East." The mandate of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, is to:

"contribute to regional security and stability, by promoting greater practical 
cooperation, enhancing the Dialogue¹s political dimension, assisting in defense 
reform, cooperation in the field of border security, achieving interoperability 
and contributing to the fight against terrorism, while complementing other 
international efforts." (NATO, emphasis added)

The Initiative "offers a 'menu' of bilateral activities" consisting of  "defense
reform, defense budgeting, defense planning and civil-military relations; 
military-to-military cooperation to contribute to interoperability through 
participation in selected military exercises and related education and training 
activities,..."  ; cooperation in the fight against terrorism, including through
intelligence-sharing; cooperation in the Alliance's work on the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction ...  (NATO, The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative)

In practical terms, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) neutralizes 
Israel's potential adversaries in the Arab World. It essentially grants a green 
light to Israel and its indefectible Turkish ally. It ensures that other member 
States (frontline Arab States) of the NATO sponsored ICI, will not intervene in 
a Middle East conflict instigated by Israel. This is the main purpose of the 
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI): paralyze the Arab States at the 
diplomatic and military levels, to ensure that they will not act in any 
meaningful way against US-Israeli interests in the Middle East.

By late 2004, the "enhanced" Mediterranean Dialogue (Istanbul Cooperation 
Initiative), had evolved into a more cohesive military cooperation agreement. 
The member countries met in Brussels in November 2004. Senior Israeli IDF 
officers held discussions, under NATO auspices, with the top military brass of 
six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, 
Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. The hidden agenda of this 
meeting was essentially to set the stage for a full-fledged NATO-Israel 
partnership, with the tacit consent of the frontline Arab States.

This partnership relationship was firmed up in bilateral NATO-Israel talks held 
in Tel Aviv in February 2005.

Joint NATO-Israel Military Exercises

In early 2005, the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern 
Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria, which were followed by NATO military 
exercises with Israel, which included several Arab countries.

These joint war games were then followed in February 2005, by NATO's Secretary 
General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's visit to Israel.  De Hoop Scheffer had talks 
with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, Defense 
Minister Shaul Mofaz and the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) 
Lt. General Moshe Ya¹alon. (NATO Press Release, 24 February 2005).

The purpose of these meetings pertained to "possible ways of expanding current 
cooperation, particularly in the areas of military co-operation, the fight 
against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

The ongoing relationship between NATO and Israel was confirmed in NATO's 
Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer's  February 2005 speech in Tel Aviv:

"...At NATO¹s Istanbul Summit [June 2004], we agreed, in close consultation with
Israel and other partners in this process, to try to move our relationship to 
another level ­ in short, to move from dialogue to partnership. We want to 
further intensify our political dialogue; to promote greater interoperability 
between our military forces; and to encourage greater cooperation on defense 
reform, as well as in the critical fight against terrorism. ...

... Israel has ... stepped forward with a list of concrete proposals for 
enhancing our cooperation. These proposals cover many areas of common interest, 
such as the fight against terrorism or joint military exercises, where Israel¹s 
expertise is very much valued. They underline your country¹s desire for a 
strengthened relation, and we are looking forward to working with Israel in the 
framework of an individual action programme. (NATO website, 24 February 2005, 
click for complete transcript of speech) (emphasis added)

These military cooperation ties were viewed by the Israeli military as a means 
to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies 
threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria."

It is worth noting that in February 2005, coinciding with the NATO mission to 
Israel, the government of Ariel Sharon dismissed General Moshe Ya'alon as Chief 
of Staff and appointed Air Force General Dan Halutz. This was the first time in 
Israeli history that an Air Force General was appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri 
Avnery, February 2005).

The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff  was 
considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right man at 
the right time." In retrospect, his appointment has a direct bearing on the 
planning of the air campaign directed against Lebanon, although at the time Maj 
General Halutz was slated to undertake the planning of possible aerial bombing 
raids on Iran, as part of a planned US-Israeli operation. These planned bombings
on Iran would be coordinated by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) in liaison 
with Israel, Turkey and NATO. (See Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005, February 2006,
Jan 2006 ).

The Role of NATO in Relation to the War on Lebanon

NATO cannot under any circumstances play a "neutral stabilizing" role in 
Lebanon. NATO's involvement would be dictated by the precise terms of the 
"NATO-Israel partnership". A NATO "stabilization force", pursuant to a UN 
Security Council Resolution would side with Israel against Lebanon.

The NATO-Israel partnership establishes NATO's "responsibilities" in relation to
its ally Israel: Israel is under attack and has "the legitimate right to defend 
itself".  The terms of the NATO-Israel agreement as defined in the February  
2005 consultations in Tel Aviv, specifically point to "the fight against 

The 2005 Israel-NATO agreement is all the more important because it requires 
NATO, in the context of the Israeli led war on Lebanon, to support Israel. It 
also means that NATO would be involved in the triangular process of military 
consultations and planning, which link Tel Aviv to Washington and Ankara.

Meanwhile, the NATO-Israel partnership reached in 2005 was also viewed by the 
Israeli government as an opportunity to strengthen its military alliance with 
Turkey in relation to its main regional enemies (Syria and Iran) as well as 
boost the shattered image of Israel:

The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt 
to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that 
aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to
take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel
and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. 
Given Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to 
both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and when it 
sees the need, could gain considerable strength. "

(Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, )

New Pro-Israeli Turkish Chief of Staff

Another crucial and related development --which has a direct bearing on the 
current situation in Lebanon-- is the timely appointment by the Erdogan 
government of a new Chief of Staff. Ground Forces Commander General Yasar 
Buyukanit's is slated to succeed Gen. Hilmi Ozkok in late August.

General Yasar Buyukanit

General Buyukanit is pro-Israeli. He is a US approved appointee, firmly 
committed to America's "War on Terrorism". His timely appointment at the outset 
of Israel's military campaign in Lebanon bears a direct relationship to the 
evolving Middle East war theater.

The appointment of General Buyukanit as Chief of Staff has been in the pipeline 
since December 2005, when he visited Washington for consultations with his US 
counterparts. At the Pentagon, General Buyukanit met the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace,  Army Commander General Francis Harvey Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman.

General Yasar Buyukanit also had discussions at the American Enterprise 
Institute (AEI), a Neo-conservative think tank with close ties to the Pentagon. 
AEI's military analyst Thomas Donnelly was responsible for outlining and 
drafting the 2000 Neo-conservative military blueprint entitled "Rebuilding 
America's Defenses" published by the Project of the New American century (PNAC).

The decision by the Turkish cabinet led by Prime Minister Erdogan, to appoint 
(with some relcutance) General Buyukanit as Chief of Staff, was ratified by 
President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in early August at the height of a judicial 
procedure, indirectly implicating General  Buyukanit,  in the alleged 
organization of  state-sponsored death squads targeting Kurdish rebels in 
Turkey's southeastern region (The Independent, 21 April 2006).

Coinciding with General Buyukanit's appointment as Chief of Staff, Prime 
Minister Erdogan's government had already formulated the contours of Turkey's 
participation in "an international force for stability in Lebanon" in 
anticipation of a UN Security Council resolution, which was being prepared by 
France and the United States.

Under the helm of General Buyukanit, the Turkish military could come play a more
active role in the Israeli sponsored conflict. This role would be based on the 
terms of the military alliance between Israel and Turkey as well as on Israel's 
partnership with NATO.

Meanwhile, General Buyukanit's appointment as Chief of Staff is likely to be 
followed by purges within the Military, with a view to weeding out anti-Israeli 
sentiment among Turkey's senior military brass. The first target of this 
streamlining could be Deputy Chief of Staff General Isik Kosaner, who refused to
attend the bi-annual "Strategic Dialogue" with his Israeli counterparts in Tel 
Aviv in mid-July.

If the Lebanon war were to escalate into a broader conflict involving Syria, 
Turkish ground troops could be deployed under the terms of the Israeli-Turkish 
military alliance. It is worth mentioning that prime ministers Recep Erdogan and
Ariel Sharon in a 2005 meeting in Tel Aviv decided to set up a "Hotline for the 
exchange of intelligence" as part of their evolving military alliance. What this
suggests is that Turkey is a potential partner in the ongoing war on Lebanon.

"Triple Alliance": US, Israel, Turkey

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance 
between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This "triple alliance", which is
dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military 
command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle 
East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey 
with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel 
Aviv and Ankara. Amply documented, Israel and Turkey are partners in the US 
planned aerial attacks on Iran, which have been in an advanced state of 
readiness since mid-2005. (See Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005)

US-Turkey: "Shared Vision"

In recent developments, on July 6, barely a week before the bombing of Lebanon, 
a  so-called "Shared Vision" document was signed by the US and Turkey, which 
essentially confirms the "Triple Alliance". Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah 
Gul was in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the 
signing ceremony.

The "Shared Vision" agreement describes the relationship between Turkey and the 
United States as: "characterized by strong bonds of friendship, alliance, mutual
trust and unity of vision. We share the same set of values and ideals in our 
regional and global objectives: the promotion of peace, democracy, freedom and 
prosperity." more significantly, it implies Turkey's unbending support of the US
"war on terrorism".

In practice, the document requires the Ankara government to endorse Washington's
foreign policy stance with regard to Israel's right to "self defense" . This 
commitment was ratified barely a week before the onslaught of the war on 
Lebanon. According to Zaman (Istanbul) (July 6, 2006), the "Shared Vision" 
document is aimed at ensuring that:

" Turkey remains aligned with the United States and the West in strategic and 
tactical terms, adding that Ankara in turn wants to be part of the political 
planning processes in the Middle East rather than a 'blind implementer' of 
policies determined by global players."

The document defines Turkey's strategic and military alignment in the broader 
Middle East-Central Asian region as defined in Washington's "Greater Middle East

"[The Shared Vision agreement] will encourage democracy and stability in Iraq, 
the Black Sea, Caucasus, Central Asia and Afghanistan [as well as support] 
"international efforts aimed at resolving the Middle East conflict; boosting 
peace and stability through democracy in the Greater Middle East Initiative; 
ensuring energy security; strengthening transatlantic relations; and enhancing 
understanding among religions and cultures.( Turkish Daily, 6 July 2006)

Escalation and Military Build-up

Israel is involved in a major military operation with the full deployment of its
air force and ground forces. The target of the Israeli-led military operation is
not Hizbollah but the destruction an entire country and the impoverishment of 
its population.

Israel is meeting fierce resistance not only from Hizbollah but from an armed 
civilian movement. The Israeli government has issued an order to mobilize as 
many as 40,000 additional reserve soldiers (Patrick Martin, July 2006)

In  contrast to the "shock and awe" March 2003 Blitzkrieg over Iraq, the 
Israelis have aimed systematically and almost exclusively civilian targets. 
Moreover, Lebanon is defenseless. It does not possess an air defense system and 
the Israelis know it. The number of declared targets is staggering, even when 
compared, for instance, to the 300 selected strategic targets identified in the 
1991 Gulf war.

The civilian infrastructure has been destroyed: water, telecommunications, 
bridges, airports, gas stations, power plants, dairy factories, etc. Confirmed 
by the British press, in towns and villages across Lebanon, schools and 
hospitals have been targeted with meticulous accuracy. In an utterly twisted 
logic, the Israeli government has casually blamed Hizbollah for using the 
schools and hospitals as hideouts or launch pads to wage their terrorist 
activities. (ABC Australia, interview with Israeli Ambassador to Australia, Nati
Tamir, 21 July 2006).

Israeli Stockpiling of  WMD

Recent developments in the war theater point towards escalation both within and 
beyond the borders of Lebanon. The Israeli government has confirmed that it is 
in for a "long war". Patterns of weapons stockpiling by Israel support the long 
war agenda.  To meet shortfalls in current stockpiles of WMD, Israel's IDF is to
take delivery of an emergency shipment of precision guided bombs, including US 
made GBU-28 bunker buster bombs produced by Raytheon.

The proposed shipment is described by military observers as somewhat "unusual". 
Israel already has a large stockpile of precision guided weapons. In addition to
its own stockpiles, the IDF took delivery in 2005 of some 5000 US made "smart 
air launched weapons" including some 500 "bunker-buster" bombs.

While the report suggests that "Israel still had a long list of targets in 
Lebanon to strike", the history of these deliveries of bunker buster bombs to 
Israel since 2004, suggests that they may be intended for use in the broader 
Middle Eastern region, including Syria and Iran.

The Broader Middle East War

The war in Lebanon is an integral part of the US Middle East war agenda. Over 
the last two years, US military documents and national security statements point
quite explicitly  to Syria and Iran as potential targets of US military 
aggression. Escalation in relation to Syria is a strategic scenario, 
contemplated by US, Israeli and Turkish military planners.

In their  July Joint Press Conference at the White House, President George W. 
Bush and Prime Minister Tony  Blair renewed, in no uncertain terms, their 
threats against Syria and Iran. These threats are now backed by concrete 
military plans:

"The message is very, very simple to them. It is that, you have a choice. Iran 
and Syria have a choice. And they may think that they can avoid this choice; in 
fact, they can't. And when things are set in train like what has happened in 
Lebanon over the past few weeks, it only, in my view, underscores the fact they 
have this choice. They can either come in and participate as proper and 
responsible members of the international community, or they will face the risk 
of increasing confrontation. (White House, 28 July 2006)

This and other statements point to escalation, where Lebanon is slated to be 
used as a casus belli, a "just cause" for war on Syria and possibly Iran, due to
their alleged support of Hizbollah.

On the other hand, the Syrian government has intimated that if Israel launches 
an all out invasion of Lebanon beyond the southern region, it would have no 
choice but to intervene in the conflict:.

"Syria issued a stark warning that an Israeli invasion of Lebanon would drag it 
into the spiraling Middle East conflict and called for an immediate ceasefire.

'If Israel makes a land entry into Lebanon, they can get to within 20 km of 
Damascus,' Information Minister Moshen Bilal told the Spanish newspaper ABC.

'What will we do? Stand by with our arms folded? Absolutely not. Without any 
doubt Syria will intervene in the conflict.'" (AFX, 26 July 2006)

Moreover any encroachment or movement of Israeli troops inside Syrian territory 
could trigger the entry of Syria into the conflict. Syrian troops and air force 
are currently deployed and are "in an advanced state of readiness".

If Syria were to be brought into the war, in all likelihood Turkey would 
intervene in accordance with the terms of the Israel-Turkey military alliance. 
NATO would send troops pursuant to its 2005 military partnership agreement with 

Meanwhile, the Bush administration in close liaison with Britain is pushing for 
a UN Security Council Resolution on Iran's nuclear program, which could lead in 
the months ahead to punitive bombings directed against Iran.

In relation to Lebanon, Iran's president Ahmadinejad intimated at  the very 
outset of the bombing campaign that Iran would intervene if Syria is attacked:

Mr [Mahmud] Ahmadinezhad expressed grave concerns over the Zionist military's 
attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. He described the aggressions as 
the sign of weakness on the part the illegitimate regime. He said despite what 
the Zionist officials may think, such actions cannot save the regime.

Commenting on the recent Israeli threats against Syria, the president said that 
the regime's ever increasing aggressive measures would be interpreted as an 
attack on the whole of the Islamic world, adding that it would meet with a 
strong response.(Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, in Persian, 14 
July 2006)

As the Middle East war escalates, the Resistance movements in the various 
countries will move closer together. Already a solidarity movement in favor of 
Hizbollah has developed in Iraq. In Lebanon, sectarian boundaries are breaking 
down between Sunni and Shiite.  Muslims and Maronite Christians are joining 
hands to defend their Homeland.

The US and Israel will not be able to handle this resistance on the ground 
without destroying the entire country with aerial bombardments. If Syria is 
brought into the war and Turkey intervenes, the entire Middle East will flare 
up. Turkey has a formidable military arsenal (with 393,000 ground troops,  
56,800 Air Force and 54,000 Navy personnel). Yet at the same time, there is a 
very strong anti-Israeli sentiment in Turkey to the extent that the Erdogan 
government may have to present Turkey's role to public opinion as part of a 
limited "peace-keeping" or humanitarian mandate under UN auspices.

The Anti-war Movement

The geopolitics behind the war on Lebanon must be addressed by the Antiwar 
movement. We are not dealing with a limited conflict between the Israeli Armed 
Forces (IDF) and Hizbollah as conveyed by the Western media. The Lebanese war 
theater is part of a broader US military agenda, which encompasses a region 
extending  from the Eastern Mediterranean into the heartland of Central Asia. 
The war on Lebanon must be viewed as "a stage" in this broader "military 

The structure of military alliances is crucial in understanding the evolution of
the US sponsored Middle East war. The war on Lebanon is not strictly an Israeli 
military project, it is part of a coordinated military endeavor by Israel's main
partners and allies including the US, Britain, Turkey, and the member states of 
the Atlantic Alliance.

War Crimes

While Israel is indelibly responsible for "Crimes against Peace" as defined in 
Article 6a of the Nuremberg Charter: for  "the planning, preparation, initiation
or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international 
treaties", the same Article 6a  also extends to Israel's military partners and 

Israel is responsible for "War Crimes" under Article 6b of the Nuremberg Charter
.through the "plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of 
cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;" 
(Art. 6b). It is responsible for "Crimes against Humanity" through the 
perpetration of acts of : "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and 
other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during 
the war..."  (Article 6c).

Those Western heads of State and heads of government who overtly support 
Israel's air raids and illegal occupation of Lebanon, are complicit in "war 
crimes" and "crimes against humanity." This pertains specifically to those 
Western political leaders who, at the outset of the war, turned down the "cease 
fire" proposal, which would have led to a halt to the Israeli aerial 
bombardments, largely directed against the civilian population.

The legitimacy of the main political and military actors and corporate sponsors
must be the target of a consistent anti-war movement which goes beyond the 
expression of anti-war sentiment and the holding of large public antiwar 
rallies. Under the Nuremberg Charter, Article 6,  Western leaders who support 
and/or pay lip service to Israel's war crimes are categorized as accomplices:

"Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the 
formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the 
foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in 
execution of such plan."

The latter clause also applies to the permanent members of Security Council, who
uphold Israel's right to "self defense". Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter 
stipulates that "the official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State 
or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as 
freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment."

There is a sense of urgency in reversing the tide of war.

Reversing the tide of war can not be limited to a critique of the US war agenda.
What is at stake is the legitimacy of the political and military actors and the 
economic power structures, which from behind the scenes control the formulation,
and direction of US foreign policy.

A war agenda is not disarmed through antiwar sentiment. One does not reverse the
tide by asking President Bush or Prime Minister Olmert: "please abide by the 
Geneva Convention" and the Nuremberg Charter. Ultimately a consistent antiwar 
agenda requires unseating the war criminals in high office as a first step 
towards disarming the institutions and corporate structures of the New World 

To break the "war on terrorism" consensus, we must also break its propaganda 
apparatus, the pervasive structures of media disinformation, the fear and 
intimidation campaign, which galvanize public opinion into accepting the 
legitimacy of the Anglo-American military project.

This can only be effectively implemented by unseating the war criminals from the
positions of authority which they quite legitimately occupy. It is this 
legitimacy of "war criminals" in high office in our respective countries, which 
has to be broken.

Sanctions against Israel

Sanctions against Israel must be adopted by member countries of the United 
Nations. And if they are not adopted or ratified by the relevant government or 
inter-governmental authorities, then the officials representing those 
authorities should be held responsible for "war crimes" under the Nuremberg 
Charter. If the national legislatures of UN member countries uphold governments 
which condone Israeli war crimes, then those members of parliament must also be 

A UN Security Council resolution cannot override or erase the fact that Israel 
has violated international law and has committed extensive crimes. Moreover, the
veto exercised by a permanent member which might temporarily uphold Israel's 
actions, including its illegal occupation of Lebanon, has no legitimacy and 
cannot override the UN Charter and the tenets of international law (Nuremberg 

In other words, if  appropriate sanctions against Israel are not adopted by the 
UN Security Council, due the encroachment of the one or more permanent members 
of the Security Council, the heads of State and heads of government of those 
permanent member countries of the Security Council (e.g. US, UK, France) should 
be considered, under the Nuremberg Charter, accomplices of Israeli "crimes 
against the peace", " war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". (Article 6).

Similarly, the adoption of a bogus "consensus" UN Security Council resolution 
brokered by the US, France and Britain, which protects the interests of Israel 
and/or upholds the illegal occupation, while calling for the disarmament of 
Hizbollah, does not alter the fact that Israel has committed those crimes. 
Moreover, it should be clear that if such a  resolution were to be adopted, 
those members who voted in favor of the resolution would, under Article 6 of the
Nuremberg Charter, be considered accomplices of Israeli crimes. Ultimately what 
such as bogus resolution signifies is the "criminalization" of the United 
Nations Security Council.

But the more crucial and complex relationship to be addressed by the antiwar 
movement pertains to the powers operating behind the scenes: the Anglo-American 
oil giants, the so-called "defense contractors" which produce Weapons of Mass 
Destruction in the real sense of the word, the media conglomerates which 
fabricate the news and constitute an instrument of war propaganda, and the 
powerful financial institutions, whose interests are served in a profit driven 

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The 
Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of 
Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on
Globalization, at . He is also a contributor to the 
Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His most recent book is entitled: America¹s "War on 
Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

To order Chossudovsky's book  America's "War on Terrorism", click here.

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading 
the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war.

Related article on the War Lebanon:

"Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, by Michel 
Chossudovsky - 2006-08-06



click her for complete text

Article 6.

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for 
the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis 
countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the 
interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members 
of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of
a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the 
accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such 
violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or 
deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or
in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on
the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton 
destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by 
military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, 
deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, 
before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious 
grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction 
of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country 
where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the 
formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the 
foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in 
execution of such plan.

Article 7.

The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible 
officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them 
from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Article 8.

The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a 
superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in 
mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

Article 9.

At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal 
may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be 
convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member 
was a criminal organization.

After the receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as it 
thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such 
declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the 
Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal
character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject 
the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what 
manner the applicants shall be represented and heard.

Article 10.

In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the
competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring 
individual to trial for membership therein before national, military or 
occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or 
organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.

Article 11.

Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military 
or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime 
other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may,
after convicting him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional 
to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal 
activities of such group or organization.

Article 12.

The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged 
with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not 
been found or if the Tribunal, for any reason, finds it necessary, in the 
interests of justice, to conduct the hearing in his absence.

Article 13.

The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall not be 
inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of 
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on 

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at grants 
permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or
any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title 
are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink 
address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright 
note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or 
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: •••@••.••• contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such 
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social 
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair 
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2006

The url address of this article is:

© Copyright 2005
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005

Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
  cyberjournal forum  
  Achieving real democracy
  for readers of ETM  
  Community Empowerment
  Blogger made easy