General François Lecointre and Eurafrica

General François Gérard Marie Lecointre, the now retired French Army Chief of Defence Staff. Eurafrica image by Francisca Roseiro. 

In an interview uploaded onto the YouTube channel of Le Figaro in April 2024, General François Lecointre, the former Chief of Defence Staff of France, made controversial remarks which were interpreted by many as meaning that he desired the recolonisation of Africa. Lecointre appeared to suggest that France needed to invade and militarily reconquer its old colonial territories including those from which France has recently been unceremoniously ejected. In doing so, he was in fact alluding to a long-held geopolitical concept known as “Eurafrica.” This idea, which has found expression in Herman Sorgel’s “Atlantropa” and in Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-Europa Movement, is one in which the destinies of the continents of Europe and Africa have been inextricably interwoven. In earlier years, Eurafrica, which was developed during the age of the colonisation of the African continent by European powers, was explicitly paternalistic and exploitative in its exposition. But even in more recent times, its theoretical enunciations through terms such as “partnership” do not hide its extractivist raison d'etre: That Europe requires untrammelled access to Africa’s mineral resources. This has been the demonstrable modus operandi of Eurafrica’s institutionalised application: Via France-Afrique, the device through which France managed its shadow empire in post-independence Francophone Africa, and also through the workings of the European Union. For unknown to many Eurafrica lay at the very heart of the creation of the European Economic project in the 1950s. Indeed, the Eurafrica-based relationship between the EU and African states persists to this day, a state of affairs which from the European perspective is threatened by resource-starved China’s expanding presence on the African continent.

During his interview General Lecointre said the following:

We must return and help these African countries. Rebuilding state structures, restoring administrations, and fostering development are all crucial steps.

Many interpreted the word “return” as a direct reference to the recent expulsions of the French military from the Sahelian states of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, implying that a resurrection of French power could only be achieved in the foreseeable future by military force. Further, his use of the word “help,” despite its link to fostering development did not strike critics as being predicated on philanthropic motives. Instead, his language, given a paternalistic import, was suggestive of the sort which has been used in the context of an enduring concept which fuses the destinies of Europe and Africa in a political and economic union.

The original concept of Eurafrica was a political project through which African colonies would be merged prior to the process of European integration. The resultant entity would serve as a counterweight to competing continental blocs in the Americas and Asia. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the man who created and led the Pan-European Movement, believed European technical advancement and "high culture" would merge with the "primitive” vitalism of Africa to create a geopolitical power bloc. Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote that “Africa has become our closest neighbour and its destiny a part of our own destiny.” He also argued that “the future of Africa depends on what Europe makes of it.” It is therefore not difficult to see Lecointre’s choice of words as forming a continuum of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s approach of the twinning of destinies in an enterprise combining a latter day insistence on a sphere of influence with a modern Mission civilisatrice.

However, what Lecointre did not specifically address was the underlying motivation for returning to Africa, which of course is about France regaining and maintaining access to a continent which is abundant in crucial raw materials. It is important therefore to explain France’s two-tier application of Eurafrica as a national endeavour and as part of a supra-national enterprise. This refers respectively to France’s relations with its former colonies through France-Afrique, as well as the relationship between the European Union and Africa. In the post war years, Eurafrica was a central tenet of France’s foreign policy strategy aimed at reconciling French efforts in integrating with Europe while maintaining a hold on its African empire. This strategy was clear to one American analyst who stated in the early 1950s that France envisioned an economic link between Europe and Africa “with Paris in control.”

France-Afrique, an expression coined by Felix Houphouet-Boigny of Côte d’Ivoire in 1955, formed the basis through which France’s extraction model was perfected. The Communaute Francaise ensured that France maintained access to a range of natural resources produced by its former colonies including oil, bauxite, tin and uranium. France was able to maintain control of what was a shadow empire in the areas of economics, security and culture. These would be strengthened over the decades through various formal and informal agreements. A key feature of the economic stranglehold France had over most of Africa’s Francophone states was through monetary union. The creation of two sets of currencies, the Communauté Financière Africaine in West Africa and the Coopération Financière en Afrique centrale in Central Africa, each set of which France is responsible for printing, provided a formidable device for controlling a collection of satrapies.

The CFA has been referred to as a “colonial currency” not only because of the restrictive terms under which it operates, but also because of its effect of stultifying the economic development of participant nations. For instance, the pegging of the currencies to the French Franc in yesteryears and today to the Euro is for African states a debilitating arrangement given the strength of both Franc and Euro. Right from the outset of the creation of CFA in 1945, its overvaluation in French colonies meant that while African countries had the purchasing power to buy products from metropolitan France, they were restricted in their ability to export. But they were for the most part purchasing products processed from the raw materials they had sold. France at the same time was granted special access to vital raw materials from its colonies in regard to which it had a right of first offer. This arrangement was extremely helpful in reviving the French economy which had been devastated during the Second World War. French control of CFA would also enable it to access raw materials in Africa in its own currency, in the process bypassing the US dollar which had become the de facto world reserve currency.

The CFA system is also an affront to the sovereignty of African subscriber states who do not participate in the process through which monetary policies are decided. The free transferability of the regional currencies was not part of an equal bargain since each nation was for many decades obliged to deposit at least 50 per cent of their foreign exchange reserves with the French treasury, a rule which has been abrogated in West Africa but still applies to the Central African CFA zone. Free transferability also negatively impacts on African nations tied to the monetary system because French individuals and companies who invest in these countries can just as easily divest and repatriate their profits.  

Although President Franklin Roosevelt was strident in his insistence that the European powers break up their empires after the end of the Second World War, his successors did not oppose the neocolonial features of France-Afrique because it served as a bulwark against the spread of communism in the Cold War era. France was careful to deploy French military forces in each of the countries and it employed economic leverage against recalcitrant political leaders.

The man who “enforced” French hegemony among its former colonies was Jacques Foccart. Known as President Charles de Gaulle’s Monsieur Afrique, Foccart was the co-founder of Service d'Action Civique (SAC), a Gaullist militia that specialised in undertaking covert operations in Francophone Africa. He was also influential in the conduct of clandestine operations undertaken by the French foreign intelligence service, once admitting that the French secret service was responsible for assassinating Felix-Roland Moumie, the Cameroonian Marxist leader in Geneva, while the French state was orchestrating a “dirty war” in that country.

Foccart oversaw  “Operation Persil” after President Sekou Toure of Guinea refused to join Communaute Francaise, famously declaring that Guineans would prefer “freedom in poverty to riches in slavery.” Toure proceeded to create a central bank and a new currency. In retaliation, France withdrew its civil servants and technical staff during which equipment was destroyed. Then Foccart ordered the SDECE (Service de documentation extérieure et de contre-espionnage) to sabotage the Guinean economy by covertly flooding the country with fake currency. Operation Persil ultimately failed.

In July 1973, President Francois Tombalbaye of Chad led a demonstration in the capital city Fort-Lamy (later N'DJamena in protest against what he alleged to be French interference in the internal affairs of his country. Foccart was reported to have told friends that he intended to "save" Chad and predicted that Tombalbaye's government would not survive beyond December 1973. He was assassinated in 1975 during a coup d’etat. But France-Afrique, later pejoratively spelt as Franceafrique, because of its inherent neocolonial basis, weakened over the course of time because of France’s growing commitment to the European Economic project, and the deaths of key figures such as Foccart.

The key tenets of Eurafrica nonetheless survived in France’s relationship with most of its former colonies and persists in the European Union’s relationship with the African continent. For as the Swedish professors Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson explained in their book Eurafrica: the Untold History of European Integration and Colonialism, the foundation of the original European community of states which evolved into the European Union, was predicated on the principles theorised by Coudenhove-Kalergi. Key to this was the extractivist relations between a group of integrated European nations and the African continent. The rationale for European integration was, Coudenhove-Kalergi effectively argued, to exploit Africa as efficiently as possible. “Africa,” he said, “could provide Europe with raw materials for its industry, nutrition for its population, land for its overpopulation, labour for its unemployed, and markets for its products.” The unity of Europe as a precondition to the effective exploitation of the African continent was explicitly articulated by French Prime Minister Guy Mollet when he met with US President Dwight Eisenhower in February 1952. Mollet stated that he wanted Africa to be integrated into the European project through French and German capital, Italian labour, American and German machinery and French administrative expertise.

Both academics have thus challenged what they refer to as the Immaculate Conception narrative of the EU’s founding. This holds that tired of cyclical wars often centred on the rivalry between France and Germany, a group of Western European states grouped together to form an economic association of states which would “unite for peace, freedom and democracy.”

But there were clues that the creation first of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, and then of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Commission (EURATOM) in 1957 were not simply a peace project. For instance, at the time of the EEC’s establishment in 1957, a headline in the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed the development to be a “First step towards Eurafrica”.

There were many other similarly worded headlines. One, a short dispatch from Rome by a correspondent for the International News Service (INS) which was published in The Rockland County Journal News on March 26th, 1957, reflected Kalergi’s twin idea of a union with Africa being predicated on mineral resource exploitation and the formation of a geopolitical bloc able to hold its own against rival continental power blocs. Titled “Signing of Unity Treaties Seen Step Toward Eurafrica”, the writer reflected the former by stating “...the pacts contain the seeds of an even bigger dream, a ‘Eur-Africa’ pooling of European and African marketing and political schemes”, and the latter which noted that “one aim of the two pacts is to raise the level of manufacturing methods in all of the nations in all so that ‘Little Europe’ and its 160,000,000 population will be able to compete on equal terms with the United States and Russia.”

As Jean-Michel de Lattre wrote in Politique etrangere in 1955: “It is in Africa that Europe will be made”.

France and its vast colonial empire in Africa would be central to this. In an article written 5 years earlier in the May 16th edition of the Edmonton Journal, which was titled “French Idea Of Eurafrica”, George W. Herald expounded on the meaning of Eurafrica. It meant, he wrote, “that the French would like to link colonial Africa to the forthcoming Federation of Europe.” And given that France controlled most of these colonies, Herald continued, “If that area and a federated Europe could be welded into one supra-national community, they say, unprecedented new vistas would be opened to future generations.”

He stressed that geological experts had asserted that the “mineral wealth buried south and west of the Sahara is virtually inexhaustible.” These he informed his readers included gold, diamonds, uranium, copper, lead, zinc, mercury, iron ore, phosphate and sulphur. It was also clear that at this stage France was not at all keen to pursue a course of decolonisation and was actively opposing independence movements in Tunisia and Morocco. It also did not appear to Herald to be enthusiastic about embarking on what he termed a “share-the-wealth” programme with other European states. The reluctance to embark on decolonisation and the unwillingness to give up the primacy of French access to the mineral wealth of her African colonies of course went against the key tenets of Eurafrica established by Coudenhove-Kalergi including that which insisted that those European states such as Germany which had been dispossessed of its African colonies would be granted access to African resources in order to solidify the unity of a future European Union. France of course relented by granting its colonies independence under the stringent condition of joining the Communaute Francaise.

In an era of decolonisation, the purveyors of Eurafrica needed to portray the concept as being one which was far removed from the naked exploitation of Africa as had been the motive behind the division of the continent at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. The members of the Common Market, as the EEC was often referred, were quite conscious of the colonial backdrop to their formation and were at pains to explain that the relationship with Africa was not the story of a one way street of exploitation which socialist and communist ideologues were often keen to assert. Thus, in July 1962 it was announced in Brussels that associated African states would receive $1,000 million in development aid which would double the amount that they had received since its inception in 1957. The overall package which included guarantees related to price stabilisation for African raw materials and unrestricted, tariff-free access for African products to the Common Market one newspaper reported had “great political significance in counteracting communist propaganda that (the Common Market) is an instrument of neocolonialism.” 

While as mentioned earlier, the burdens associated with increased integration in the European project weakened France-Afrique, the European Community, as it then was styled, nonetheless continued to plot an economic path that bound it to Africa and also to other nations which today are referred to as the “Global South” in preference to the previous designation of “Third World”.

First, was the Yaoundé Convention of 1963, which was signed between the EEC and the Associated African States and Madagascar. A second Yaoundé Convention was signed in 1969 which included Mauritius, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Prior to this in 1966, the military government of Nigeria signed an agreement with the EEC which granted it the status of an Associate Member State. And building up on this the Lome Conventions of 1975 and 1979 were signed with the ACP Group consisting of African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

All these agreements reflected the extractivist model, with the Lome Convention aiming to transform the economies of the African and other states into “quasi-industrialised” ones. Although the combined agreements signed in Yaoundé and Lome were essentially dismantled following American claims that the provisions were incompatible with those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU, Hansen and Jonsson remind, continues to aggressively exploit minerals on the African continent including the oilfields of Libya, the goldmines of Ghana, and the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of Africa’s most minerally endowed countries.

The idea of Eurafrica is being brought back to public consciousness because of the rise of China as an economic power and an increasingly multipolar world. Although European trade and investment far outstrips that of China in Africa, the EU has been rattled by the challenges posed to its access to African raw materials by raw material-hungry China’s increasing presence on the continent. This has been magnified by the increased animus between resource-rich Russia and the EU which has imposed an extraordinary range of sanctions on the country over its conflict with Ukraine.

The European Commission’s Raw Materials Initiative launched in 2011 was a response to what is perceived as the threat posed by China, a country on which it was heavily dependent on rare earth minerals, lithium and magnesium. The idea behind this is to create a list every three years of designated Critical Raw Materials (CRMs) which are utilised in energy transition and digital technologies. This enables an assessment to be made of those which are at risk of short supply or of disruption in the supply chain. The European Critical Raw Materials Act came into force in May 2024. The Act acknowledges that the EU "will never be self-sufficient in supplying such raw materials and will continue to rely on imports for a majority of its consumption.”

Given the drift of geopolitical currents, it has been clear for some time to many political and economic analysts that the historical criticality of the EU’s relationship with Africa needed to be re-emphasised. This was reflected in the headline of an article in The Economist in September 2018 which was titled “The rebirth of Eurafrica” (“Why Europe should focus on its growing interdependence with Africa” in its online edition). 2018 also saw the launching of the Africa-Europe Alliance for Sustainable Development and Jobs and in the following year, the European Commission stressed that Africa was the EU’s global priority. Under the new president, Ursula von der Leyen, a policy paper titled “Comprehensive Strategy with Africa” was presented. Using words which resonated with past enunciations of Eurafrica, Josep Borrell, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said “A part of Europe’s future is at stake in Africa. To face our modern challenges, we need a strong Africa, and Africa needs a strong Europe.”

Yet, despite these positively expressed sentiments, including former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pledged commitment to launching “a Marshall Plan for Africa,” the aura of an exploitative motive remains. For example, in 2021 when speaking of the need for the EU to become “a more active global player” in formulating a strategy to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), von der Leyen remarked that “It doesn’t make sense for the EU to build that perfect road between a Chinese-financed copper mine and a Chinese-financed harbour.”

Her words, Peo Hansen, argues encapsulate the Eurafrican mentality and expose that “agency, sovereignty and autonomy are alien to the EU concept of Africa.” It is such attitudes particularly those predicated on the exploitative mechanism of Franceafrique which have caused the military regimes in Sahelian West Africa to boot out the French. It is also the reason many African states have been turning to China and Russia, both presently building BRICS as an alternative to the EU and other Western institutions which they assert are not respectful to the specific needs and interests of Africans.

Eurafrica in both its theory and application is the antithesis of the spirit of multipolarity in which, in contrast to the hegemonic and neocolonial models of the EU and Bretton Woods institutions, is predicated on an equal partnership and respect for national sovereignty.

It is also worth noting that the EU has often not lived up to its concept as a peace project. For while the EU has succeeded in keeping the peace as far as wars among its member states are concerned, it chose to be silent and inert while the Algerian war raged. Oil and gas rich Algeria was at the time of the uprising of the Front de libération nationale (FLN) considered to be part of Metropolitan France, but no voices were raised in Brussels over the widespread atrocities including massacres and torture committed by the French armed forces. What is more, French state-sponsored terrorism was brought to European soil by “La Main Rouge” (The Red Hand), a terror group which was actually a covert arm of the French state. Under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Red Hand assassinated several key Algerian figures in the FLN, as well as West German arms dealers suspected of supplying weapons and munitions to the FLN.

The EU has also served to give cover to the illegal military adventures embarked upon by NATO, a military organisation to which most of its member states belong. This has included the destruction of the Libyan state which was led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The voices of independent spirited political leaders such as the Austrian Bruno Kreisky and the German Willy Brandt, both of whom Peo Hansen noted “spoke in the name of Europe,” are virtually non-existent.

This clarification of the colonial origins of the EU and its fundamentally extractivist relationship with the African continent needs to be correctly understood by Africa’s political leaders and the policymakers who have uniformly pursued the resource rental model as the default basis of running their economies. Contentment with an arrangement in which African states possess no ambition further than selling their minerals and raw materials to developed countries and supra-national entities such as the EU only serve to relegate them to the permanent state of unequal partners. It not only places limits on their ability to exercise economic statecraft, but it also sets a perpetual barrier on maximising national prosperity. There cannot be a future in leasing mining rights to their resources when they would be infinitely better off by extracting their resources and developing such resources into products that can then be sold on the world market under a single currency regime.

Eurafrica would be a much sounder concept if it were shorn of its neocolonial trappings. But for Africa and Europe to operate in genuine equal partnership, much of the onus in achieving this state of affairs will be on Africans who must embark on a quest to transform their consumer orientated, resource-based economies into productive ones by developing for themselves industrial base economies.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2024).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He has an interest in both history and geopolitics.

A note:

The origins of the EU are both fascinating and multifaceted. But the official narrative of it being guided to birth by the efforts of Robert Shuman whose plan was inspired by the ideas of Jean Monnet is incomplete. The bringing to fruition of the dream of a federated Europe owed a great deal to the covert efforts of the United States through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and its precursor the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) both of which funded the post war European Movement. This has been backed up by scholarly research. The United States believed that a united Europe would serve as a bulwark to the spread of communism and provide a means for rehabilitating the successor state to Nazi Germany. It was envisaged as a means through which the United States could control Europe in an age of US global domination.

However, despite its foundational association with the idea of Eurafrica, the claim that it was purposefully set up to engineer the genocide of white Europe is one without any basis in fact. While Coudenhove-Kalergi, himself of mixed European and Japanese descent, predicted the development of a Eurasian-Negroid race with an appearance similar to that of the Ancient Egyptians, this was not an integral component of his specific project to unite Europe in a mission to exploit Africa. That Eurafrica was not a concept inexorably attached to racial interbreeding is clear from the fact that the British fascist leader Oswald Mosley incorporated his own vision of Eurafrica as part of his “Third Position.” At its inception, the Common Market acted with stealth and decisiveness in ensuring that Muslim Arab Algerians, as mentioned earlier then citizens of a country considered as Metropolitan France, did not have the same rights as other citizens in the European Economic Community.

Select sources.

Books:

Hansen, Peo and Jonsson, Stefan. Eurafrica: the Untold History of European Integration and Colonialism. Bloomsbury, 2014.

Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard N. Pan-Europe. Knopf, 1926.

Journal Articles:

Thorpe, Benjamin J. “Eurafrica: A Pan-European Vehicle for Central European Colonialism (1923–1939,” European Review, Cambridge University Press, Volume 26, Issue 3, June 2018.

Aldrich, Richard. “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60,”  Diplomacy & Statecraft, Frank Cass, Volume 8, Number 1, March 1997.

De Lattre, Jean-Michel. “Les grands ensembles Africains,” Politique etrangere, Volume 20, Number 5, 1955.

News Magazine:

“The new scramble for Africa,” The Economist, March 7th, 2019.

“The rebirth of Eurafrica” (Online title: “Why Europe should focus on its relationship with Africa”), The Economist, September 22nd, 2018.

Newspaper Articles:

Fleming, Sam and Khan, Mehreen. “EU proposes new infrastructure programme to rival China,” The Financial Times, September 15th, 2021.

“Eurafrica Concept Gets Another Boost,” National Post, July 28th, 1962.

International News Service. “Signing of Unity Treaties Seen Step Toward Eurafrica,” The Rockland County Journal News, March 26th, 1957.

“Nations Seek Strength in Economic Unions: Will Dream of ‘Eurafrica’ Come True?” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, March 24th, 1957.

Herald, George W. “French Idea Of ‘Eurafrica’,” Edmonton Journal, May 16th, 1952.

Pearson, Drew. “Mollet Emphasizes Eur-Africa,” The News Herald, February 26th, 1952.

Video:

“Crazy or Laughable? Why The EU (Still) Thinks It Rules The World | Professor Peo Hansen,” Neutrality Studies YouTube Channel, uploaded April 21st, 2024.

“Sahel, Russie, Ukraine... Le Général François Lecointre se confie,” Le Figaro YouTube Channel, uploaded April 14th, 2024.

“Nigeria Becomes An Associate Member State Of The EEC | Brigadier Ogundipe Signs Deal | July 1966,” Adeyinka Makinde YouTube Channel, uploaded July 2nd, 2023.

“Eurafrica: The Colonial Origins of the European Union,” Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley YouTube Channel, uploaded March 19th, 2021.

Podcasts:

EURO—VISION / “📢 Colonial Currencies & Other Investment Stratagems — a conversation with Ndongo Samba Sylla,” Episode 3, April 21^st, 2021.

. Listen also at Soundcloud.

. Read Pdf transcript.

EURO—VISION / “📢 EURAFRICA — a conversation with Stefan Jonsson and Peo Hansen,” Episode 2, April 6th, 2021.

. Listen also at Soundcloud.

. Read Pdf transcript.

EURO—VISION / “📢 The Curse of Berlin – a conversation with Adekeye Adebajo,” Episode 1, April 1st, 2021.

. Listen also at Soundcloud.

. Read Pdf transcript.

Blogs:

Hansen. Peo. “The colonial origins of European integration,” European Politics and Policy Blog, London School of Economics, October 31st, 2023.

Makinde, Adeyinka. “From Hegemony to Multipolarity: How Post-Cold War U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Russia is Creating a Modern Eurasia,” Adeyinka Makinde, Writer Blog, March 23rd, 2023.

Makinde, Adeyinka. “Rethinking the Legacy of Ahmed Sekou Toure of Guinea,” Adeyinka Makinde, Writer Blog, September 10th, 2022.

My article "The Bonny Landing: The anatomy of Black Africa’s first amphibious operation, July to September 1967" has been published in the August 2024 edition of The Mariner's Mirror, the international journal of the Society for Nautical Research

 

Using artificial intelligence and digital artistry to bring to life the 'real' people depicted in the carvings of ships figureheads.

Still from the video created by Jamie Whyte (2021).

Video description of the Mariner's Mirror Podcast: "In this video, using artificial intelligence and digital artistry we have brought to life the 'real' people depicted in these remarkable carvings.

This has never been done before and inevitably has been a bit of a hit and miss process! We have experienced a number of failures (some hideous, some hilarious) as the computer program has struggled to identify certain facial features or clothing (especially hats), but we have had success with 11 – and they are fabulous.

When the surviving figureheads are studied one of the immediately striking factors is the diversity of humanity depicted in these carvings. Although the societies that made them were dominated by white men, the figureheads show a huge range of people – both men and women and from a huge variety of indigenous populations.

This serves as a powerful reminder of the colonial activities that many of these ships would have taken part in – including of course, the buying and selling of humans in the slave trade and the appropriation of vast tracts of land occupied by indigenous peoples."

Listen to Rear Admiral David Pulvertaft, an expert on figureheads, discuss with Dr. Sam Willis the 300-year long custom practised by shipbuilders in placing carvings of humans and animals on the bows of their ships.

© Mariner’s Mirror Podcast (2021).

Zionism and the British Military Officer: Colonel Richard Kemp and Rear Admiral Chris Parry

Britain's foremost pro-Zionist retired military officers: Colonel Richard Kemp (left) and Rear Admiral Chris Parry.

The ongoing conflict in the Gaza strip between the armed forces of Israel and several Palestinian militias, most prominent of which are the al Qassam Brigades of Hamas, has elicited such a high level of intense public debate in both national and international spheres that it may be comfortably designated as the foremost moral issue of the age. This discourse is a continuum of the divide in global opinion between those who consider that the Jewish people have an inviolable right to a homeland in the Levant and those who decry the modern state of Israel as a racist colonial settler state guided by the ideology of Political Zionism which is inextricably predicated on the objective of purging indigenous Palestinians from what its adherents designate as the Land of Israel. Britain was intimately involved in the build up to the establishment of Israel because it originated the Balfour Declaration and subsequently administered Palestine under the auspices of the League of Nations. While the British administration during the early period of the Mandate era facilitated mass immigration to Palestine by mainly eastern European Jews and cooperated with Jews in combating Palestinian insurgencies, the latter stages of the Mandate were dominated by the efforts of the British to curtail Jewish immigration, as well as its having to contend with terrorist attacks and threats by Jewish insurgent groups directed at British statesmen and members of the security apparatus. Britain was also on the receiving end of hostile acts after the establishment of the State of Israel. This experience of been at the receiving end of Zionist terror makes it all the more remarkable to discover the uncritical support of two retired British military officers for the Zionist State of Israel.

The legacy of the relationship between the British military and Zionism is a mixed one. At first it was based on cooperation. This was most pronounced during the Arab Revolt of 1936 to 1939 when the Special Night Squads (SNS) established by Captain Orde Wingate were used to put down the insurgency. Comprised of British infantry soldiers and the Jewish Supernumerary Police (JSP), Wingate’s lessons in the strategy and tactics of waging an often brutal counterinsurgency were well taken by JSP members who included Moshe Dayan and Yigal Allon, both of whom became pioneer figures of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

Jews in Palestine would also benefit from the British military by joining each of the branches of the British armed forces during World War 2. Many did so while having misgivings about British state policy which as World War 2 approached was decidedly turning anti-Zionist. The White Paper of 1939, a policy paper on future British steps proposed limits on Jewish immigration for five years after which any further immigration would be determined by the Arab majority. The objective was to realise an independent state of Palestine within which Arabs and Jews would have their interests protected.

This was unacceptable to the Zionist Jews whose leader in Palestine David Ben Gurion stated: “We will fight with the British against Hitler as if there was no White Paper and fight the White Paper as if there was no war.” The latter part of this statement hinted at Zionist resolve to defy Britain over its immigration policy, as well as to delay a reckoning over the long-term British goal of establishing an Arab majority state in Palestine.

Ben Gurion’s reservations were not reflected by another key Zionist leader, Chaim Weizmann, who wrote to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in September 1941 beseeching him to approve the formation of Jewish fighting units within the British Army. In return, Weizmann pledged to work towards employing the support of American Jews in facilitating the intervention of the United States on Britain’s side in the war against Nazi Germany. American Jews, he reminded, had “effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain” during the First World War.

The positions of Ben Gurion and Weizmann stood in contrast to that of far right Zionists such as Avraham Stern, leader of the terror group known as Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), in short Lehi, and which is better known by the British designation ‘The Stern Gang.’ Formed in 1940 after Stern’s release from British custody, the group broke away from the Irgun which decided to suspend its anti-British activities.

Stern refused to suspend anti-British operations unless the British recognised the claim for a Jewish state on both sides of the River Jordan. He was contemptuous of liberal democracy and sought alliances with Britain’s wartime enemies Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany because he believed that only the defeat of Britain in the Middle East by an outside power would bring about a Jewish state. After being rebuffed by Italy, he proposed a pact with the Nazis in which he offered to “actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.” The objective would be he stated the “establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis” in a new order in which there would be “cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed Volkish-national Hebrium.” Written in 1941, the document was found among files in the German embassy in Ankara after the war. Also, documents found in the Haganah archives revealed that members of the group had been collecting information on British military dispositions which were intended to be passed over to the Axis if Rommel’s forces had prevailed against the British in North Africa. Stern was killed in February 1942 by a member of the British CID. His gang’s activities initially consisted of carrying out robberies and bombings, but it came to specialise in targeted assassinations.

The onslaught of Israel’s armed forces on Gaza following the operation by Palestinian militias to take Israeli captives from bordering kibbutzim has elicited polarising responses in Britain, the state which issued the Balfour Declaration 1917. Many self-described British nationalists and patriots have adopted a pro-Israeli stance regarding the present Hamas-IDF conflict, preponderantly basing their views on a predisposed animus towards Islam. The rationale of this line of thinking is that the Israel-Palestine conflict is based not on the central issue of land dispossession, but on the perception that Israel is a Western-like state which is the first line of defence against Islamic jihadism and terrorism. Moreover, the presence of many Muslim protesters at rallies held in cities around Britain, although mirroring widespread global protests against the slaughter in Gaza, has only served to underscore their predisposition to anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment.

The irony of course is that as the British Mandate drew to a close in Palestine, the face of terrorism was not Islamic but in fact Jewish, for as World War 2 began to near its end the levels of Zionist terrorism intensified and began to be directed at the British state. This resulted in the deaths of a total of 748 British security personnel and civilians in Palestine, as well as the issuing of threats and the actual commission of acts of terror on British soil.

Despite this blood-filled, anti-British context, it is noteworthy that among the uncritical and strenuously pro-Zionist stances are those taken by two retired military figures: Colonel Richard Kemp, a British Army infantry officer, and Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a naval warfare officer.

Kemp, who served for 29 years in theatres such as Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Afghanistan, is the head of the UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel's Soldiers (UK-AWIS), the British branch of an Israeli organisation managed by the Israel Defense Forces, while Parry, a veteran of the Falklands War who served from 1972 to 2008, is a strategic forecasting consultant who frequently ruminates on culture wars issues on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and GB News. He has also written for the Jewish Chronicle. Despite each man’s background, the dark history of Zionist assassinations of British servicemen does not feature in any of the discourses entered into by both men.

This was apparent when Britain commemorated Remembrance Day in November 2023, just over a month after the Hamas’ attack. Both Kemp and Parry joined the largely pro-Israel British media in denouncing the "insensitivity" of protesters organising marches in response to the developing Gaza genocide, while conveniently forgetting that it commemorates all fallen servicemen in Britain's major wars and British-directed counterinsurgencies, the latter of which include the hundreds of British security officials killed while on active duty in Mandate era Palestine.

While not calling for a ban on the march, Parry opined that it included supporters of Hamas and what he termed “noxious” activists. Writing in an article published in the Daily Express on November 16th, Kemp expressed his frustration that in the preceding weeks “we have seen hundreds of thousands protesting against Israel’s defence of its people from murderous terrorist gangs”.

In the 1940s, the “murderous terrorist gangs”' were of the Zionist stripe and were targeting the British military and state officials. While Lehi had continued its anti-British violence for the duration of the war, those belonging to Irgun had their ranks bolstered by the return to Palestine of Jews who had fought in British units against Nazi Germany. The spate of reports which reached MI5 as the World War drew to a close that the Irgun and the Stern Gang would not limit their activities to Palestine but would launch attacks in Britain would come to pass. The enemy was now Britain which they perceived as being committed to denying the Jews a state. The result was the nightmare come true for those who had been reluctant to absorb Jews from Palestine into the British military because of fears that they would use the combat and technical skills acquired to facilitate a rebellion against British rule in Palestine.

Among the more notorious acts of terror were the murder by Lehi assassins of Lord Moyne, Britain's Middle East Envoy, in Cairo in 1944 and the bombing of the King David Hotel by the Irgun in Jerusalem in 1946 which claimed 91 lives. Then in 1947, the Irgun hanged two NCOs of the British Army intelligence corps, Sergeants Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice. Their booby-trapped corpses were left hanging from trees in a eucalyptus grove near the town of Netanya which meant that the already darkened and bloodied bodies were mutilated by the detonating of the hidden incendiaries. After news of the murders was received, British troops and policemen rioted in Tel Aviv, killing five Jews and injuring others. The deaths of the sergeants also sparked off anti-Jewish rioting in some British cities.

But the Jewish terrorists would take the fight to British soil. According to files released by the National Archives in 2011, MI5 discovered that one of Lord Moyne’s assassins proposed following up the deed by assassinating a number of “highly placed British political personalities, including Mr. (Winston) Churchill.”

Mainstream press coverage of the 2023 Remembrance Day commemoration failed to mention that 77 years earlier in November 1946, security had been bolstered at the state opening of Parliament because of threats made by Lehi to assassinate the British Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, War Minister and Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. Extra precautions were taken to protect King George VI and his family. One typical headline was one run by the Australian Goulburn Evening Post on Tuesday, November 12th, 1946, which read BIG PRECAUTIONS TAKEN TO GUARD KING AND QUEEN. It was subtitled “Threats of Jewish Violence Prompt Security Measures.”

The reason Montgomery had been earmarked for assassination was that he had resisted the calls from British Zionists to remove Lieutenant General Evelyn Barker from his position as the General Officer Commanding British Forces in Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Barker had been inside the King David Hotel at the time of the atrocity but was uninjured. Enraged, he issued an order which designated all Jewish establishments as “out of bounds” for all British soldiers who were also forbidden from conducting any form of “social intercourse” with Jews. He also stated that Britain would punish the Jews by "striking at their pockets and showing our contempt of them." Decades later, it was discovered that an Irgun cell had sought to assassinate Barker in 1947 by placing a mine in the road outside his home in England. Among the conspirators was Ezer Weizman, the future head of the Israeli air force. The group aborted their plans after attracting the suspicions of Scotland Yard.

That year, 1947, the Zionist terror gangs endeavoured to bring terror to the streets of Britain. They planted a bomb at the Colonial Club near St. Martin's Lane in London, which injured several servicemen. After that attack, the Colonial Office building in London was fortunate not to suffer the fate of the King David Hotel when an enormous bomb failed to explode. There was even a plan later in the year to drop bombs on London. Rabbi Baruch Korff, a confederate of Lehi and Irgun, hired Reginald Gilbert, a decorated American pilot, to drop 10,000 Zionist propaganda leaflets over London which was to be followed by the dropping of bombs.

Korff, a community activist who later became a confidant of President Richard Nixon, was among many American Jews who were sympathetic to the orchestrators of the deadly campaign. The Hollywood screenwriter Ben Hecht who supported the anti-British terror groups wrote the following in May 1947:

Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British railroad train sky high, or rob a British bank, or let go with your guns and bombs at the British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.

Twenty-nine British soldiers were killed in February 1948 after Lehi detonated a bomb on the Cairo to Haifa train at Rehovot. Three months later, Britain  relinquished its Mandate over Palestine on May 15^th, 1948.

Even after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, British military personnel have at certain junctures been killed directly or indirectly by Israel. For instance in January 1949, 22-year-old Pilot Officer David Crossley Tattersfield was one of two RAF personnel killed by Israel while flying reconnaissance missions between Egypt and Palestine.

Some decades later, the State of Israel supplied Skyhawk fighter jets, weapons (including air-to-air missiles and missile radar alert systems), spare parts and long range fuel tanks to Argentina during the Falklands War, a conflict in which Parry had participated as a young naval lieutenant. The prime minister at the time was the ex-Irgun leader Menachem Begin, the man who masterminded the King David Hotel bombing and the execution of the intelligence corps sergeants. Begin had also been prepared to sell signals intelligence for use on Argentinean spy planes. Begin, who at one time had been top of the British wanted list in Palestine, was motivated by the idea of revenging the British clampdowns during the Mandate era, as well as the execution of his close friend Dov Gruner in regard to whom Lieutenant General Barker had signed a death warrant in 1947.

The systematic murder by Israeli forces on April 1st, 2024, of three British ex-servicemen charity workers while working in Gaza as a security team for World Central Kitchen (WCK) exposed the limitations of the patriotism and objectivity of both Parry and Kemp. Each man, James Kirby, an ex-army sniper; James Henderson, an ex-Royal Marine; and John Chapman, an ex-naval special forces operative, was along with the other four dead, systematically picked off by an Israeli drone on a route which they had agreed on with the Israelis and on which they were travelling in clearly marked vehicles. Three WCK vehicles sustained consecutive hits along a 1.5 mile stretch of road in the Deir al-Balah area. Survivors of the first attack had attempted to take cover in a second car, but this was also bombed. They moved to a third car which was destroyed by a precision hit.

But Parry and Kemp readily accepted the Israeli explanation that the killings had been a mistake conducted under the fog of war. When asked in an interview on Talk TV on April 3rd, 2024, whether Israel’s explanation that it had been a “tragic mistake” was “plausible”, Parry replied that it was “more than plausible” and in fact “entirely correct”. He also took it upon himself to assert that the IDF was bound to undertake drastic actions because they were fighting what he termed “pretty sub-human, sub-state actors.” On April 6th, Kemp told a gathering at St. John’s Wood Synagogue that while it had been a terrible event, “war is hell…war is complicated.”

Kemp’s views are not surprising since he effectively works as a quasi-spokesperson for the IDF. In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle in a January 2020 article titled “The British soldier who won't stop defending Israel”, Kemp described himself as a Christian and a Zionist “but not a Christian Zionist”. Yet, it is difficult to differentiate his conduct from those whose attitudes have been shaped by Christian Zionist beliefs.

He doubtless believes that he is doing the work of God as much as did the aforementioned Orde Wingate, the fervently pro-Zionist army officer who organised the counterinsurgency which quelled the Arab revolt in the 1930s. However, the British authorities came to view him as a security risk and after being posted out of the region, his passport was stamped “NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER PALESTINE.”

No such restrictions of course apply to Kemp but there are those who feel that when he is introduced as an expert on military affairs and terrorism, his associations with Israel and the IDF should be brought to the attention of the reading, listening and watching public.

Kemp frequently lauds the IDF for being the “world’s most moral army” which goes at great lengths to preserve innocent human life even though the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. Israeli military doctrine has been perpetually embedded with the objective of targeting civilians, something that has been alluded to by successive political leaders, high-ranking military officers and military analysts.

It was Ben Gurion who in his Independence War Diary that Israel "must strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise the action is inefficient. At the place of action there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent.” This fundamental approach to warfare has been underscored by the utterances by the likes of Menachem Begin, Abba Eban, and Lieutenant General Mordechai Gur. It has also been enshrined in the doctrines governing the conduct of war with Lebanon (the Dahiya Doctrine) and Gaza (Mowing the Grass).

It is a merciless approach which has been adapted to Israel’s methods of policing and has cost the lives of Western civilian volunteers providing help to Palestinians under Israeli occupation. These victims have included Rachel Corrie, an American, and Tom Hurndall, a Briton, both of whom were killed in 2003. It was while explaining to The Times in November 2023 how the methods employed by Israel’s security forces succeed in killing innocent people that Hurndall’s father stated that Israel will lose Western support if it continues its “fundamentally unethical and inhuman attitudes.”

The views and stances of Kemp and Parry in many ways mirror the evolved thinking of the British political establishment among whom a large percentage belong to the “Friends of Israel” lobbies all of which have the stated objective of maximising support for the State of Israel within the major political parties of Britain.

While Kemp has argued that the British Foreign Office still retains what he terms as an “institutional opposition” to Israel, the overall policy attitudes of both Conservative and Labour leaderships have been unreservedly supportive of Israel’s conduct during the Gaza conflict. Criticism by senior politicians in relation to the statements of genocidal intent by Israeli leaders and the deliberate massacres of innocent Palestinian civilians by the IDF have been muted or non-existent.

The reluctance or even fear of criticising Israel on the part of British government officials was reflected in the reaction to the killings of the WCK workers which quickly evolved into a non-newsworthy event. Indeed, so beholden to Israel do British politicians appear to be that it is difficult to foresee the sort of reactions made by the British state in the past when the Zionist perpetrators of British deaths have been given state honours.

Back in 1975, the British government protested at honours bestowed by the Israeli state on Lord Moyne's assassins Eliyahu Hakim and Eliyahu Bet-Zuri (who had entered Egypt under the names Moshe Cohen and Itzak Charles Salzmann). Both men were buried with full military honours at Mount Herzl. James Callaghan, then the Foreign Secretary, ordered his ministry to issue a formal protest "to make it clear to the Israeli government that the British government very much regretted that an act of terrorism be honoured in this way." And in 2006, 64 Members of Parliament tabled a motion condemning Israel for celebrating the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel. The event was attended by many prominent members of the Knesset including Binyamin Netanyahu.

While criticism of Israel and its guiding ideology, Political Zionism, is most appropriately founded on its abrogation of the universal moral order, it is nonetheless perplexing to note the unquestioning support given to Israel by both Colonel Kemp and Rear Admiral Parry given the legacy of violence directed at the British military by Zionist terror groups. It is after all the unspoken reason why Queen Elizabeth II, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces while both Kemp and Parry were in service, never visited Israel during her over 70-year reign.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2024).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Why Hezbollah Fights Israel

An all-out war between the armed wing of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia political party, and the armed forces of the State of Israel is considered by many geopolitical analysts to be inevitable. Such a conflict would cause not only the infliction of a high level of destruction on both Lebanon and Israel, but it would also invite a regional conflict involving both the United States and Iran. The Western mainstream media often portrays Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organisation which functions as the “proxy” of Iran. But the implication that Hezbollah operates on a rationale of Jew hatred and that it exists solely to menace Israel on behalf of Iran is a misguided one. Hezbollah’s origins are inextricably rooted in Israel’s 18-year-long occupation of south Lebanon. It was born out of resistance and although now a major player in Lebanese politics, its continued existence as an independent military force is arguably justified on the basis that Israel, a nation which has refused to draw its final borders, poses a threat to the integrity of Lebanon’s borders up to the River Litani. This Zionist claim to Lebanese territory is a longstanding one which pre-dates the establishment of Israel and is one which motivates Hezbollah even though its ongoing military exchanges on Israel’s northern border are consistently couched in terms of solidarity with the cause of the Palestinian people of Gaza.

Hezbollah is designated by both the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organisation. Britain has also proscribed Hezbollah. While acknowledging that it was “formed in 1982 to resist the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon'', the British position is that Hezbollah’s External Security Organisation (ESO), remains culpable for a number of acts of terrorism - most dating back to the 1980s- which involved bombings, kidnappings and aircraft hijackings. Closer in time, although not mentioned in the official British document is the claim that Hezbollah was responsible for the assassination of Rafic Harari, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, in February 2005. A UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) concluded that there was “no evidence that the Hezbollah leadership had any involvement in Hariri's murder and there is no direct evidence of Syrian involvement.” But it also found beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack had been organised and conducted by a Hezbollah member named Salim Jamil Ayyash who was convicted in absentia.

What makes Hezbollah a peculiar political organisation is the fact that it effectively functions as a state within a state. Although Hezbollah itself is a part of the Lebanese government with national governmental functions and obligations, its formidable military capacities and the deployment of such capacities lie outside the ambit of the Lebanese state. It also runs social programmes that include health care, education and youth-related endeavours. Some of these services are extended to non-Shia communities.

But the security goal which defined Hezbollah when it began functioning as a resistance movement following the Israeli invasion of 1982, namely that of expelling Israeli forces from Lebanese soil and keeping them out remains to this day. This is because Israel still occupies the Shebaa Farms which borders the Golan Heights which was illegally annexed by Israel from Syria. Although largely recognised by the international community as being part of Syria, the Lebanese state claims it.

That aside, Hezbollah is aware that Israel, a state which has never constitutionally declared what its fixed borders are, poses an existential threat to Lebanese territory; specifically that which extends up to the Litani River. Israel covets the water resources of the Litani, and south Lebanon, populated by a substantial percentage of Shias, forms part of what in the ideology of Political Zionism is “Greater Israel.” Thus, Hezbollah is fundamentally motivated to resist any attempt by Israel to expand into Lebanon and acquire territory under the cover of war.

Such fears are in fact well grounded.

The claim to Lebanon up to the Litani River was first made before Israel’s creation by David Ben Gurion during the Paris Peace Conference after the First World War. Israel made the first of many invasions of Lebanon during the fighting with Arab armies in 1948 and occupied south Lebanon until it withdrew its forces in 1949 as part of an armistice agreement.

Nonetheless, a strategy by which Israel would eventually take over south Lebanon was set by both Ben Gurion and Lieutenant General Moshe Dayan, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli armed forces between 1953 and 1958. As Prime Minister Moshe Sharett noted in his diaries, both men felt that Israel had to play a role in fomenting trouble between Lebanon's different denominations consisting of Christians, Muslim Sunnis, Muslim Shias and the Druze. Dayan went further in conceiving the idea that Israel would cultivate the loyalty of a Lebanese Christian officer who would one day declare a Christian state in south Lebanon and that after an interval, Israel would annex the state for itself. Sharett quoted Dayan as saying the following during a 1955 meeting of Israeli defence and foreign policy officials:

The only thing that’s necessary is to find an officer, even just a major. We would either win his heart or buy him with money, to make him agree to declare himself the saviour of the Maronite (Christian) population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the necessary territory and will create a Christian regime which will ally itself with Israel. The territory from the Litani (River) southward will be totally annexed by Israel and everything will be alright.

Remarkably in the 1970s during the Lebanese Civil War, the soldier whom Dayan imagined materialised right down to the rank which Dayan had suggested. Major Saad Haddad, a Christian army officer who defected from the national army of Lebanon, formed the renegade South Lebanon Army (SLA) which in 1979 declared the "Free Lebanon State".

The declaration came the year after Israel had invaded south Lebanon as a response to an attack in northern Israel by guerrillas of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). A few months after “Operation Litani,” the Israeli military withdrew from south Lebanon, and left parts of the region under the control of its proxy, the Christian Maronite-led SLA.

Israel again invaded Lebanon in 1982 with the objective of expelling the PLO which had continued to launch operations from Lebanon. But although this was achieved after the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) fought and bombed its way to Beirut which it ruthlessly besieged, Israel continued to occupy south Lebanon after it withdrew from Lebanon’s capital city.

Although Prime Minister Menachem Begin had privately assured President Ronald Reagan that Israel “did not covet one inch of Lebanese territory”, a pledge which he backed up by declaring to the Knesset in June 1982 that Israel did not want “one square millimetre of Lebanese territory”, the threat that Israel would seek to permanently occupy south Lebanon was a real one according to a secret U.S. State Department report which was leaked to the press in September 1982.

Dated September 15th, the memo concluded that there was a danger that Israel’s “logistical operations will evolve into permanent administrative agencies”. Writing in his nationally syndicated column, Jack Anderson noted that the suspicion was that Israel was “in the process of building a military-civilian government for Israeli-occupied Lebanon” and that it was using the same pattern of “infiltration” that had been used when establishing settlements on territories within the occupied West Bank.

Indeed, reports at the time indicated that the right-wing fundamentalist Gush Emunim settler movement planned to establish settlements in southern Lebanon, the group and Major General Gad Navon, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, apparently believing that God was bequeathing south Lebanon to Israel as compensation for Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai as part of its obligation under the Camp David Peace Agreement with Egypt. But the creation of Hezbollah ensured that any Israeli designs on south Lebanon would not come to fruition. The insurgency broke the will of both the IDF and its SLA proxy force leading to Israel's withdrawal in 2000 after 18 years of occupation.

In 2006 when Israel again invaded Lebanon in response to Hezbollah’s action of killing three IDF soldiers and taking two into captivity to bargain for the release of Lebanese captives in Israel, a 34-day war ensued during which Israel was forced to withdraw its forces.

Known as the Israel-Lebanon War, the conflict saw Hezbollah's reputation and prestige surge in the Arab world. And although there were misgivings among Lebanese Shia and other denominations about Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian “Dirty War”, the attempt by outside powers including the United States, Turkey and Israel to overthrow the secular Baathist government by using Sunni Islamist proxies, its role in helping the Syrian Army contain and then defeat al-Qaeda and its off-shoots the so-called Islamic State and al Nusra were appreciated by Lebanese communities.

Many among the Maronite community viewed Hezbollah’s efforts as helping preserve Christendom in the Levant, while other communities within Lebanon’s multi-confessional society were grateful owing to the realisation that if Syria had fallen and become balkanised, Lebanon would have been the next target.

Although Hezbollah is conscious of its responsibility to keep the peace among Lebanon’s denominations, fear and suspicions persist over its activities which may bring a war with Israel that will almost certainly result in the devastation of large swathes of Lebanon. But this is arguably tempered by the collective memories the Lebanese people have of the role played by Israel in cynically fomenting trouble among its diverse groups in order to achieve its own national goals.

The Lebanese are now aware of the confirmation in Ronen Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First, that during their national civil war, Israeli military intelligence created a phantom terrorist organisation called the FLLF (Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners) which was responsible for carrying out a series of indiscriminate bombings which caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians between 1979 and 1983. Retired Mossad officers admitted to Bergman that the FLLF had been created for the sole purpose of sowing chaos, confusion and division among Lebanon’s religious groups.

It is while bearing these aspects of Lebanon’s distant and not too distant history that an objective understanding of Hezbollah’s violent opposition to the Zionist State of Israel can be understood.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2024).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

End of US-Saudi Petro-dollar Pact

While the Western mainstream media made headlines out of the Russian Federation's decision to suspend trading in U.S. dollars and Euros, the presumed non-renewal of the 50-year long petrodollar agreement between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has not been subject to widespread reporting.

The Russian decision, a reaction to the imposition of a new range of sanctions, was widely interpreted as a sign of economic weakness when in fact it was the latest of a series of developments which are sounding the death knell of the U.S. dollar as the world's de facto reserve currency.

This originated from the decision of President Richard Nixon to enter into a bargain with the House of Saud which involved the United States guaranteeing the security of the Saudi state in return for the Saudis selling oil in dollars. The arrangement, which was made possible due to Saudi dominance within the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), ensured the survivability of the U.S. dollar as the de facto global reserve currency.

A Saudi Arabian decision to sell oil in different currencies including the Chinese Yuan, the Japanese Yen and Euros will have far reaching ramifications in terms of American domination of the global economy.

Having a world reserve currency such as the U.S. dollar is objectively a useful international financial device. For one, it offers lower exchange rate risk and aids sovereign states in conducting critical transactions such as settling payments for exports and imports of goods and services between nations.

If blame has to be apportioned for the drift away from the dollar, then a substantial degree of fault must lie with the policies of successive U.S. administrations which have consistently weaponised the dollar. The antipathy shown to its main global competitors in both military and economic power have prompted the circumstances which have pushed Russia and China into an alliance of interests which has only hastened the coming to being of a multipolar world order and the trend of de-dollarisation.

The less other nations trade in dollars, the more pressure will be brought to bear on the American economy which has a frankly unmanageable level of sovereign debt.

The United States has arguably got into this predicament because of its failure to provide consistently sound moral leadership, as well as its failure to focus on promoting meaningful economic development around the world. Instead, it has opted to be partisan in global affairs and is solely concerned about maintaining a coercive form of hegemony through regime change wars and the aforementioned strategy of imposing sanctions and seizing foreign reserves of nations (including gold reserves) in regard to which it has contrived an adversarial relationship.

A decision not to renew the U.S.-Saudi pact would represent the latest chapter in a sharp descent in American power and prestige. It is widely believed that the respective decisions by the United States to destroy Saddam Hussien of Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were to an extent based on the threats by each leader to undermine the U.S. dollar. Hussein sought to sell Iraqi oil in Euros, while Gaddafi planned to launch an African Dinar, a currency that would be backed by gold and valuable resources.

It is clear that much of the world has tired of U.S. global policy, and it is up to the people of the United States who are facing formidable internal problems to pressure for change to the unchanging policies of the political class and policymakers which has caused a great diminution in American influence and moral authority on the global stage.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2024).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

The Propaganda Lies of October 7th

Colonel Golan VACH, reserve Israeli Defence Force officer who is the head of an elite Search and Rescue unit, photographed in February 2023. Photo credit: IDF Spokesperson’s Unit.

Colonel Golan Vach is the originator of the burned babies lie pertaining to the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades operation of October 7, 2023.

Many atrocity lies have been spun by the Israeli propaganda machinery. These include:

. 40 beheaded babies

. Babies baked in ovens

. Systematic rape of Jewish Israeli women

While there were acts of brutality committed by Palestinian guerrillas on October 7, the Israeli narrative spun by Western mainstream media of a wholesale massacre of innocents consistently fails to mention the following: 

. The taking out by Palestinian guerrillas of Israeli soldiers and security personnel including Special Forces troops and soldiers of the elite Golani Infantry Brigade.

AND the deaths of a large proportion of Israeli civilians and soldiers by the IDF via:

. Tank shelling of Kibbutz buildings where Hamas were holding hostages

. the use of Apache attack helicopters firing hellfire missiles at Israelis being taken to Gaza by Hamas as hostages.

Civilians, including many at the Nova music festival, were caught in the crossfire of gun battles between Hamas and the IDF.

It should be noted that the deliberate targeting of Israelis by IDF tanks and helicopters was the application of the Hannibal Doctrine which is based on a longstanding army order that soldiers in danger of being taken hostage should be killed in order to prevent such an eventuality.

One Israeli reserve officer, Air Force Colonel Nof Erez, an IDF pilot, referred to Israeli military action as "Mass Hannibal" in action.

The killing of Israeli civilians by tank shells has been corroborated by witnesses such as Yasmin Porat, while Israeli helicopter pilots have admitted firing on cars and people heading towards Gaza even though they lacked the information to distinguish between Palestinian guerrillas and Israeli captives.

It should also be noted that the charred remains of victims and burnt out cars and buildings could only have been caused by heavy armaments not in the possession of the lightly armed Palestinian attackers.

The untruths told by figures such as Colonel Vach and Brigadier General Barak Hiram, as well as Yossi Landau, the spokesman for Zaka who invented the 40 beheaded babies lie, have served two purposes: 

1. To cover up the aforementioned role of the IDF in the alternately deliberate, reckless and accidental killings of its own citizens.

2. To prepare the justification for a disproportionate response which has turned out to be a genocide.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2024).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.