The Arab Agenda

Chapter 24

What could be a probable cause of the announcement of the New Middle East map? Well there has always been colonialism in some shape of form.

The Middle East and North Africa has never entirely been free despite being sovereign states.

On July 12th, 2006, Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah went to war.

This must have been a pushing point for the protection of Israel following the fact that Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah had gathered support from Muslim's and Arabs around the world regardless of their differences.

Although a new strategy for securing the realm had been written in 1996  ten years prior to Condoleezza Rice press conference on July 21, 2006, the month long war and united front sparked the announcement of the term "New Middle East" and it was officially introduced to the world .

This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli "military roadmap" in the Middle East.

This project, which had been in the planning stages for several years, consisted in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Arabian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

We have seen the results of this today yet certain entities in society still shrug this off as a "conspiracy" theory without fully understanding the phrase so a little clarity for those who don't understand the term "conspiracy".

Conspire- To Make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act. In Hebrew they call it "Qashar".

The "New Middle East" project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of "constructive chaos."

This "constructive chaos" --which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region-- would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.

Look at the New Middle East map carefully. Arab Shia State, Sunni Iraq. - In my opinion, it will never happen.

But how could they achieve that? No one to date has dissected this point or understood the impact the war in 2006 had on Israel as a nation. And then did it really have any impact at all?

Although Israel in terms of infrastructure and economy during that period did not really have any damaging effect the underlying fact was that Israel despite western financial and military backing could not win a war against Hezbollah.

Looking at the history of Israel and the Israelis it is a common fact that they never back down or retreat or negotiate, unless they have lost. That is when and only when a white flag is raised. But then did they really lose?

Despite enormous backing, Israel with all the best military in tow, in an average person's mind really lost.

Nasrallah and basically the Arab and mainly Muslim world won, plus a major annoying factor to the Israelis was that Nasrallah had the backing and the support of Arab Street around the world.

Sunni and Shia included- at that point no one differentiated or secularized the other. Israel had been suppressing Palestinians for decades.

That surely left a bitter taste in their mouths- defeat-, especially the unity in that period of the Arab people where Nasrallah was a popular figure, one has to admit, many Arabs around the world tuned in to watch Al Manar television. Today, people feel differently towards this.

This is probably the last recorded time in Arab History where the Arab, regardless of their beliefs , really united as one and this proved how unity strengthened the Arab world, although not via governments, but via popular following.

A word on the Arab streets: "It was with unity, faith and prayers that we achieved success against the well-armed and probably most sophisticated western backed war machine."

This bitter surprise would later advance and escalate the "New Middle East" project plans by creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence across the Arab world. The unity had to be broken.

Or did it? Did anyone ever stop to address whether the Israeli Hezbollah war was as it seemed?

[Despite popular support, the Arab leaderships had a different contradicting prospective. The following comments are from the Arab nation leaders who are labeled as pro west and who spoke out against the war.

During the conflict, Nasrallah came under intense criticism from Arab governments, including Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Jordan's King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned on July 14 of the risk of "the region being dragged into adventurism that does not serve Arab interests."

The Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal called the Hezbollah attacks "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts." He went further, saying, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them."

Little did anyone expect the uprisings across the Arab world, the "Arab Spring" a few years later as and as according to the "New Middle East Plan" would set the region back more than a decade, not the Israel –Hezbollah war.

More surprising would be Hezbollah, the West and Israel's backing of the uprisings against the Sunni ruling families.

The Hezbollah, Israel war ended as it begun and it begins to raise a question as to the ends. Looking at Iraq it ended a different way. Has anyone looked for reasons why?

The West unlike the Arab world has always had a policy to work in the areas that are of interest to them and them alone, even if that includes working with Hezbollah. I don't wish to elaborate further on this point however with the recent uprisings in the Arab world the importance of Hezbollah's presence seems just as important as its destruction, if not more so.

Nasrallah also came under intense criticism from some in Lebanon. Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of the Republic of Lebanon and the most prominent leader of the Druze community, spoke out quite forcefully: "Great, so he's a hero. But I'd like to challenge this heroism of his. I have the right to challenge it, because my country is in flames. Besides, we did not agree..." Jumblatt was also quoted as saying: "He is willing to let the Lebanese capital burn while he haggles over terms of surrender." Surrender? One wonders.

Jumblatt is the leader of the Druze community. To understand the Druze, one must comprehend the beliefs of the Druze.

The Druze are considered to be a social group as well as a religious sect, but not a distinct ethnic group. Also complicating their identity is the custom of Taqiya (Taqiya is also a custom of Wilayat-el-Faqih) —concealing or disguising their beliefs when necessary—that they adopted from Shiite Islam and the esoteric nature of the faith, in which many teachings are kept secretive. Druze in different states can have radically different lifestyles. Some claim to be Muslim, some do not 33.

That's another point to be approached and considered, however a small note to understand is that they come in different guises. First and foremost they are business men. For those who are unaware of this fact a little research on these communities around the region can be researched online.