November 7, 2005

Sorry, but I am going to have to interrupt your viewing of Desperate Housewives.

Roughly fifty years before Jesus Christ would be betrayed by a Jewish oligarchy that feared his preachings of forgiveness and compassion, Julius Caesar stormed through Gaulish France.

Gaul was ruled by the Arvernii, the Aquitanii, the Belgii, the Suebii and other tribes.

Vercingetorix, who may be listed as the first European to fathom ideas of unity for the continent, united the above tribes along with the Parisii (now you know where Paris comes from) in a revolt against Rome's authority.

Together they almost brought Caesar to his knees. The latter, cunning and resourceful, went about using divide and conquer to subjugate the Gauls. He used economics and intimidation to force some Gaulic and Germanic tribes to his side (Ubii, Adeuii).

Gauls and non-Romans were now fighting one another. When Vercingetorix surrendered at the Battle of Alesia, the Gaulish tribes broke off from the revolt. Some remained loyal to a free Gaul while others fell in line behind Caesar.

Having divided Gaul so completely, Caesar was able to pick off the tribes who resisted him - one by one.

Why is this relevant today?

Because that is the scene in Iraq since the illegal invasion and occupation in March 2003.

Tribal tensions exist, sectarian divisions exist, political ideologies clash and there are Iraqis working with the occupation against other Iraqis. And, of course, there are Iraqis resisting the occupation by attacking the occupier and their local collaborators.

Divide and conquer Caesar employed so that the Gauls would never threaten the authority of Rome.

Divide and conquer the ruling cabal in Washington employ so that the Arabs will never again threaten the authority of whom?

Writing in The Washington Post, Peter Galbraith says it is better to divide Iraq and stop trying to keep it whole than face a civil war.

A former ambassador to Croatia, Galbraith has acted as an advisor to the Kurds. The Kurds want Iraq split. If they tell you otherwise, it is merely to bide for time.

Would not, then, his service to the Kurds color his judgment on Iraq or indicate a bias?

In fact, in the late 1980s, Galbraith compiled a report on the Anfal campaign which removed Kurds from their northern homes and resettled them in the south.

He has written about chemical weapons being used against the Kurds, urged Congress to slap Iraq with sanctions, and has alleged he is in possession of 15 tons of documents of Iraqi crimes against the Kurds.

Iraqi crimes against the Kurds? Does this statement indicate that the Kurds are distinct from Iraqis?

We Iraqis embrace all our differences and celeberate the fact that we are not all alike. Our differences make our nationhood the stronger and better.

But here Galbraith is indicating Kurds are not Iraqis.

Divide and conquer?

In fact Galbraith has openly criticised US hopes of building a democracy in Iraq saying the only likely outcome is a breakup with the Kurds gaining independence.

In fact, Galbraith has written dozens of articles and appeared on several news shows advocating the breakup of Iraq.

Furthemore, in a March 2, 2003 interview with The New York Times, Galbraith said: "A unified and democratic Iraq is an oxymoron. The important point about the north is that the Iraqi identity is disappearing there."

Once more, is Galbraith saying those who live in the north - the Kurds - are not Iraqi?

Why this infatuation with the north and the belittling of the rest of Iraq? Favor for the Kurds, disfavor for the Arabs.

As we all know, Ahmed Chalabi is about to visit Washington ahead of the December 15 elections. Many believe he is the next leading man in Iraq and he is going to Washington to receive his "marching orders".

In 2004, Galbraith opined about Chalabi:

"Most likely, his legacy is that he is the Moses of Iraq: he got to see the Promised Land, but not to taste the fruit."

If Chalabi is Moses, who is he delivering from Pharoah? Who is Pharoah in this case? And what is the Promised Land? Is it a divided Iraq?

And why the reference to the Israelites?

Hmmm ...

But Galbraith is merely repeating what he has been told to circulate. There are others like him.

For example, Leslie Gelb, former chairman of the Unites States Council on Foreign Relations, also advocates the partition of Iraq.

Gelb tries to veil his idea for partitioning Iraq by disguising it in the necessity to remove US troops from Iraq and the insult the occupation inflicts on Iraqis.

So his scenario after having entered Iraq is to slice it up into three parts and leave.

But does this not cause an imbalance in the Middle East?

It divides Iraqis who are mixed across sectarian and ethnic lines and leaves three weak cantons.

Why?

Consider Pat Buchanan:

"For whose benefit are these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud."

Consider this from James Bennet in The New York Times:

"Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week that after Iraq, the United States should generate "political, economic, diplomatic pressure" on Iran. "We have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after" a war, he said."

Great interest, indeed.

From Bennet:

Uzi Benziman, a journalist and author of a biography of Mr. Sharon, wrote in the newspaper Haaretz, "Israel is looking for Ares, the ancient Greek god of war, to play the part of the deus ex machina in this drama."

And ...

The top Israeli official said the quartet might prove a "casualty" of an Iraqi war. "The idea of using the quartet as the great instrument of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — there are people in Washington who are going to say, `What do we need these people for?' " he said.

My, my, the Iraq war sounds better and better.

So, did Gelb and Galbraith really get a template on Iraq's division from Israelis?

Consider:

In 1982, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz said the ideal solution for Israel's mideast problems was the "dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982).

Consider:

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, by Oded Yinon.

Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab worldincluding Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military powero f those states serves as the primary short term target.

Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo ...