The Crimes of Israel, and their Puppet Master the U.S.
Conversations with Professor Michael Lynk and Professor Michel Chossudovsky
“On October 7, two (Israeli) babies are killed. It was dreadful! It was appalling! At the end of August when the Gazan Health Ministry published detailed figures, the first fourteen pages, 701 names were taken up with children under the age of one… It’s very, very likely that in the end, the total number of dead and injured in the Gaza Strip will be more than a quarter of a million people. There is just no comparison between the two!”
– Richard Sanders [1]
a
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
It is too difficult to look at the ongoing carnage besieging Gaza in 2024.
Here are the latest statistics, courtesy of Gaza’s Ministry of Health:
-
Killed in Gaza: at least 42,847 people, including nearly 16,765 children
-
Injured in Gaza: more than 100,544 people
-
Missing: more than 10,000
Israel’s military attacks have destroyed:
-
More than half of Gaza’s homes (damaged or destroyed)
-
80 percent of commercial facilities
-
87 percent of school buildings
-
Healthcare facilities so 17 of 36 hospitals are partially functional
-
68 percent of road networks
-
68 percent of cropland
And according to the Committee to Protect Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists, more than 125 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, 2023. [2]
The good news is that people in America and the Western world are waking up to the horrors and continue to plague the political class who continue to apologize for the slaughter as “defence against terrorism.” The bad news, however, is that there is far too much attention paid to the small bully in the Middle east, and not enough on the “Big Boss” that is the U.S.
This week, on the Global Research News Hour, we thoroughly analyze Israel-Palestine and attempt to arrive at a solution to the humanitarian mess that holds hope for the people who say with determination, “Free, free Palestine!”
In our first half hour, our guest, Canadian Professor of Law Michael Lynk, the former Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, expands his own assessment and of the likely route that will have to be taken to secure a just peace in the land formerly known as Palestine. And in our second half hour, Professor Michel Chossudovsky talks about how the United States uses Israel, like many other countries, to do their “dirty work” for them.
Michael Lynk is emeritus Professor at the Faculty of Law, Western University, in London, Ontario. In January 2015, Professor Lynk was named to the Mayor of London’s Honours List for his work on humanitarian issues. In March 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed Professor Lynk as the 7th Special Rapporteur for the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the founder and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization and its website globalresearch.ca. He is Professor (Emeritus) of Economics at the University of Ottawa and the award-winning author of 13 books including America’s War on Terrorism (2005), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011) and The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015.)
(Global Research News Hour episode 446)
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
Transcript of conversation with Professor Michel Chossudovsky, October 17, 2024
Global Research: We have arrived at a major crossroads in world history. So saith Michel Chossudovsky. One of the points he raises, however, is that the U.S. is not only refusing to stand up to Israel, the genocidal war is fully supported by the U.S.
The U.S. is not following Israel. It’s the other way around. We will delve into this subject and the consequences down the pipe for Lebanon and Iran and more.
Of course, Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, professor of economics emeritus at the University of Ottawa, founder and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal. He’s also the editor of Global Research. Welcome back to the Global Research News Hour, Professor Chossudovsky.
Michel Chossudovsky: Thank you very much, Michael. It’s good to be with you. I must say that what is lacking in the understanding of the peace movement, of the solidarity movement with Palestine, is the fact that Israel is a de facto member of NATO.
And every single action that it takes goes through the command structures of the United States. The Pentagon, it goes to Central Command headquarters for the Middle East, and it also goes up to Nebraska to U.S. Strategic Command. So there may be flexibilities there, but when they go and kill the head of Hezbollah or when they bomb Lebanon, it is all orchestrated and it is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
That is absolutely clear. Any government or any group which supports the Israeli government in waging genocide is complicit, under Articles III and IV of the Genocide Protocol, Geneva Convention. They are complicit.
It’s Article III and Article IV. And I suggest that people read these articles. They’re very easy. It’s very straightforward.
You said, if you are supporting the genocide in any particular way, whether it’s through weapons or even promotion or media coverage, you are complicit. And the media is complicit.
GR: So it’s not just the United States that’s complicit.
You’ve got France, Germany, Canada, and even the Canadian media that are providing cover for this operation of genocide.
MC: Well, absolutely. But they’re mostly members of NATO.
They’re member states of NATO, most of which are member states of the European Union. These are “allies” of the United States, even though they’re also victims of U.S.-led economic warfare. But that’s another matter.
It is important that our peace movement, first of all, understand that this is not simply an action against Palestine. It’s an action against the entire region. And all the actions against Lebanon and Iran and Syria and so on, indicate that the United States and NATO members are complicit in genocide.
GR: Professor Chossudovsky, so you basically say that the United States is essentially using Israel to carry out, I guess, geopolitical maneuvers in their favour. It’s kind of like the way the Ukraine government is kind of a proxy in the war, NATO-orchestrated war in Russia, or for that matter, the ISIS and al-Qaeda, as you’ve argued, that they are being used to orchestrate efforts, again, in U.S. interests. Are the interests around the world different, or are there, I mean, depending on the different orientation?
MC: Well, first of all, I should mention the war against Iran has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since 1979.
And that coincides with the return of Ayatollah Khomeini. It was a CIA operation, he comes back to his homeland, to Iran, and he’s welcomed. And his function was there, it was a CIA op, was to destabilize the civilian and secular government, which had displaced the Shah, Shah Pahlavi. But I don’t want to get into the complexities, but what happened, if I give a chronology, and that’s very important, as of 1983, the United States launched something which was diabolical.
It had official relations with Iraq, saying, if you fight against Iran, we will fund your weapons.
They were giving weapons to Iraq in the same way as they’re giving weapons to Israel today, to go and fight against Iran.
Now, in turn, you had another component, in that they were also covertly, and that was a CIA op, they were also covertly supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran in weaponry against Iraq.
So, they take these two countries, and they trigger warfare, and that is where some people will remember Oliver North, and the CONTRAS, okay? Oliver North and the CONTRAS, well, what it was, was there was a money laundering process there, but it was essentially an operation which consisted in selling weapons to Iran undercover, and Iran would be paying for these weapons, and with the money, then they would support the CONTRA rebels in Nicaragua, which were there fighting against the government, namely an elected government of the Sandinista movement. It was a coalition government, and they were fighting against that government with a view to toppling it, in other words, destroying it.
I was actually in Nicaragua in 1984 at the height of the CONTRA attacks, and then you had John Negroponte he was behind this, and he was at the embassy in Honduras, with the role to support the CONTRAS,
The U.S., never wanted to have a leftist government in Nicaragua, so that was it.
And so that Oliver North was there coordinating a project which was consisted in funding the CONTRA, with the proceeds of the weapons sold to Iran so that they could fight Iraq.
Iraq was receiving weapons also from the United States, and they were fighting one another, and the objective was there to destroy both countries.
Now, that’s really very important because it just shows how diabolical U.S. military doctrine is, one country was an ally and the other country an enemy, and then they fund the enemy, and they fund the ally, and the objective was to destroy both countries.
The Iran-Iraq war was from about 1982 to 86, and then after that, one date which is very important, which I mentioned in my writings, is 1995.
Central Command Headquarters, in consultation with Strategic Command Headquarters in Nebraska, they put together a statement. I’ll read it you: This is U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
“the NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran, as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, … ”
Now, they don’t pose any threat to the United States. The United States is thousands of miles away, and then they say that this is a process of dual containment, which is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region, but what is very important there is that, and I quote,
“the purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused by the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interests in the region, uninterrupted, secure U.S. allied access to Gulf oil.”
This has always been a war for oil and gas, always, and it is still today.
GR: The gas there seems to be at least one major aspect to this genocidal campaign.
MC: Well, absolutely. I’ve itemized in my article the following, but pretty much under the heading, United States’ vital interests in the region, uninterrupted, secure allied access to Gulf oil.
Today would be Gulf oil and gas.
That is, in fact, America’s promised land. It’s not Israel’s promised land.
What do we have? Iran, third largest reserves of oil worldwide, after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
After Russia, Iran is the second country in terms of natural gas reserves, together with Qatar, and it has a partnership with Qatar, so that, in fact, you look at Russia, Iran, and Qatar, all together they have something of the order of 54% of the world’s reserves of natural gas, which is approximately 10 times the gas reserves of the United States.
Well, let’s assume that there is a phoney climate CO2 narrative which prevails. I would say: what we should be doing is to close those oil and gas countries down because they are triggering global warming.
Why on earth would they be going after Iran and Russia? What we have to do is to close them down so that they don’t produce oil anymore. You can see that all the wars for oil and gas are ongoing despite the alleged threat of CO2)
GR: When you’re looking at the situation now, it seems as if the United States dominates NATO and people who are members of NATO, they’re actually serving the United States.
They’re under, essentially, the exploitation of the United States.
MC: Well, absolutely. Let me just answer the question that you put forth about Gaza.
There is another unspoken objective, and that is the Eastern Mediterranean coastline of Gaza, starting in Egypt and going right up to northern Syria, which is a corridor of maritime natural gas reserves, Wirth billions and billions of dollars.
What they want is to take control of the maritime corridor of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria.
Now, with regard to what you said, NATO does not have any kind of decision-making procedures, even in terms of command structures.
It all goes through the very complex decision-making of U.S. military and intelligence, and of course the propaganda apparatus.
I’d like to quote Vice President Dick Cheney, who pointed out, and that was in 2005, it was in the second term of the Bush administration, and of course, they were still at war.
It was in the wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Vice President Dick Cheney said, I’m paraphrasing, “Israel will do the dirty work for us.”
Now, he wasn’t joking there. Now, I’ll quote exactly what he said.
“The Israelis might decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess.”
Then you had the media headlines. This was, I think, the Washington Post that said, “Bush should not push Israel to do dirty work in Iran.”
Now, what this “dirty work” concept signifies, is that all or most of America’s allies are potentially involved in dirty work.
You have Germany who’s sending weapons to Ukraine,
You’ve got France sending soldiers to Romania,
And then you’ve a Western countries, member states of the EU which are sending weapons to Israel.
While it’s obvious that in Israel’s war against Palestine, most of these imported weapons are dysfunctional because then they’re not meant to fight against a resistance movement, which is essentially working with Kalashnikovs and small arms and so on.
The fourth military power in the world, is categorized as being Israel.
But in fact, it’s an extension of the US military apparatus, which is sitting in the Middle East.
Dick Cheney mentioned the “dirty work” referring to Israel, but in fact, I would say that all the NATO member states with some exceptions are doing the dirty work and on behalf of America’s hegemonic agenda.
Of course, it’s the powerful interest groups which are behind this war. It’s also the fact that it’s ultimately the financial establishment and so on, which are calling the shots. At the same time, these allies are also the target and the victims of US-sponsored warfare or economic warfare.
GR: What would you say is basically the end game with all of these shady dealings? You mentioned Oliver North, all of the tactics of using Israel and other people doing their dirty work.
What exactly is their end game? Is it basically to take over the entire earth, kind of like Hitler, only with more of a nice kind of public relations or something like that?
MC: Well, I think there is certainly a hegemonic agenda, which is a uni-polar world.
It’s not totally independent from other components, such as the COVID-19 crisis, as well as the vaccine.
The COVID-19 crisis was, let’s say, the lock-down was imposed on 190 countries from one day to the next, with instructions to close down the economy.
We know that if you confine the labour force and you freeze the workplace, which was part of the instructions to 190 countries, that’s economic warfare.
Then we have the whole debate on the vaccine, that people are taking the vaccine.
We have ample evidence to that effect that the vaccine is deadly and is resulting in an upward trend in mortality.
But the tendency here is to create some form of a dichotomy in one’s understanding of the new world order.
Theatre wars are not considered comparable to economic warfare.
But economic warfare is what is being applied now in most countries in Western Europe.
The hikes in fuel prices, they’re not allowing us, they’re not allowing the Europeans to buy oil and gas from Russia or from Iran.
So inevitably, this leads to hikes in market prices, collapse in purchasing power.
And then there’s the usual, neoliberal agenda, which is applied now extensively in Western Europe. It’s a thirdworldization process.
And I would say that all these allies are, in a sense, they are also targets, they’re enemies.
Because if you’re in a uni-polar world, there’s only one power. Well, it’s complex.
But let’s say now, just to give people an example, Canadians in particular,
is the United Kingdom an ally of the United States? The answer is no.
No, it’s not. And the reason is the following.
Very few people in Canada know this, that starting in 1921, the US government put together a plan to invade Canada.
It’s all documented. And who was leading this military agenda? To invade Canada, to occupy Canada. It was also considered a territory of the British Empire.
They even had biological weapons, which were envisaged.
Several cities in Canada were envisaged for bombing, including Vancouver, Halifax, and Quebec City, and mainly port areas.
At that time, it was very important. And General MacArthur was there coordinating it.
General MacArthur was actively involved, it was a bit like a dress rehearsal. They didn’t invade, but they threatened Canada. It’s all on record.
GR: Given the stakes, especially this critical juncture in history, what do you expect our listeners do to stop the course, especially with the election underway?
MC: I’m going to add one extra sentence to what I’ve just mentioned about war against Canada and the British Empire. In 1939, the war against the British Empire and against Canada was shelved. And then the United Kingdom and Canada were invited to participate in the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb.
So it went from an enemy to a friend.
And that has been the strategy of the United States. You threaten your allies, and then you also incorporate your allies.
That decision by the U.S to invite the U.K and Canada to join the Manhattan project was, of course, related to the development of the atomic bomb.
Now, your question is, of course, very important, we should conclude on that. I think, first of all, we have to understand that we’re at a very dangerous crossroads in our history.
I haven’t tackled the issue of nuclear war. It certainly is an issue. And if it happens, it will not be in Eastern Europe, it will be in the Middle East.
And it would be targeting Iran. But I think at this stage, I think this is very unlikely, first of all, because the Russians have an alliance with Iran. And I assume that they also have very high tech air defence systems.
I don’t think that this is going to take place, but it’s still there.
And if it does take place, it would be with the B61-12. It’s a tactical nuclear weapon.
And what is very dangerous is that in the nuclear manuals, they say that the B61 tactical nuclear weapon, which is a mini-nuke, which has an explosive capacity between one third and 12 times the Hiroshima bomb, is safe for civilians.
Now, they say it’s safe for civilians, and it is actually permitted to be used in the conventional war theater. So, it’s not the commander-in-chief that decides, it’s the military itself that decides.
And I think that politicians don’t really understand that any kind of nuclear war, even a fraction (1/3) of a Hiroshima bomb, would potentially lead to escalation, which in turn could lead us to the the end of humanity as we know it.
I mean, this is something which is complex, on we should spend, of course, much more time discussing and debating
I’ve written two books on nuclear war, and I’m very familiar with the jargon, but with regard to the decision-making process, it’s very complex.
But the potential for making mistakes and also using artificial intelligence is there.
So, I think that what is, let’s say, to confirm, we should refrain from accusing the Netanyahu government of attacking Iran, because the Pentagon is calling the shots. And Netanyahu is a proxy.
There is no doubt that the Pentagon and the CIA are responsible for the genocide (under Art III and IV) of the Genocide Convention, they and are complicit under international law.
GR: I thank you for this exchange and dialogue.
So, thanks a lot.
MC: Thank you very much.
The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.
The programme is also broadcast weekly (Monday, 1-2pm ET) by the Progressive Radio Network in the US.
The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .
Notes:
- https://x.com/21WIRE/status/1849709066999730477
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker