Kronik: Apropos anerkendelsen af Jerusalem som Israels hovedstad  

KRONIK: Følgende kronik er en ultrakort indføring i Israel-Palæstina-konflikten, som lider under en stærk mytedannelse. Blandt andet om ’et palæstinensisk folk’, skriver Lone Nørgaard og Torben Hansen.

[Der er rettet i teksten d. 18.01.2018 - se evt. nederst.]

 

Af Lone Nørgaard og Torben Hansen
Hhv. lektor, cand.mag. og hovedstyrelsesmedlem i Dansk Samling og historiker

San Remo Konferencen i 1920
Da Det Osmanniske Rige (forgænger til vore dages Tyrkiet) gik i opløsning efter Første Verdenskrig, blev dets besiddelser i det nordlige Mellemøsten delt mellem sejrsmagterne Storbritannien og Frankrig.

Det skete ved San Remo Konferencen i 1920. Her fik Storbritannien og Frankrig tilkendt hver deres områder, som de skulle administrere, indtil den indfødte befolkning var i stand til at styre sig selv. San Remo-erklæringens artikel 22, paragraf 4 lyder: ”(…) indtil befolkningerne kan stå på egne ben” (jvf. Søren Harslund: Israel – kampen for staten, 2014, Ordet og Israel, Scandinavia, s. 82).

Frankrig fik Syrien plus Libanon, og Storbritannien fik Irak og Palæstina (Vestjordanland), hvortil Storbritannien i året 1921 føjede Østjordanland. Det blev et selvstændigt emirat – reelt et britisk protektorat.

Sammen udgjorde de ’det britiske mandatområde Palæstina’, indtil Østjordanland – som kongeriget Jordan – blev selvstændigt i 1946. I håbet om at standse arabisk kritik – og arabisk vold – lukkede Storbritannien for jødisk indvandring øst for Jordanfloden allerede i 1922.  

Det hjalp ikke, og Storbritannien overdrog resten af Palæstina-mandatet (dvs. Vestjordanland) til FN i 1947. I november 1947 vedtog FN en deling af Palæstina i en jødisk og en arabisk del. Jøderne accepterede, men araberne nægtede at acceptere resolutionen og angreb med våbenmagt.

Flygtninge til og fra Israel – befolkningsudveksling
Araberne tabte, og mange af dem flygtede. Tallene er usikre. Ifølge FN-kommissær Folke Bernadotte var tallet 330.000, men der har også været langt højre tal på bordet – mellem en halv og en hel million – idet arabere fra nabolandene også meldte sig som flygtninge for at få del i hjælpeorganisationernes ydelser. Flugten begyndte allerede i december 1947, og et ofte nævnt og formodentlig troværdigt tal for årene 1947-48 er 538.000 arabiske flygtede.

Resten af araberne i det område, der tilfaldt Israel – 160.000 – forblev, hvor de var. Efter seksdagskrigen i 1967 flygtede yderligere nogle arabere fra Vestbredden. Det var hovedsagelig jordanske tilflyttere, eller folk som allerede var noteret som flygtninge i Jordan.

I perioden 1948–57 flygtede der til sammenligning 567.000 jøder til Israel fra de arabiske lande, og yderligere 250.000 jøder flygtede til Israel i årene 1958-72. Hvilket giver 817.000 i alt. Myrderier i Irak under Anden Verdenskrig plus et antal fredelige emigrationer fra hovedsalig Marokko og Libanon bringer tallet op på 873.000.

Af de oprindelige 880.000 jøder i de arabiske lande og Iran i 1945 er cirka 7.000 tilbage i dag. Altså langt flere jødiske flygtninge fra arabiske lande end omvendt. Selvom tallene ikke helt går op, har der med andre ord været tale om en befolkningsudveksling a la den mellem Grækenland og Tyrkiet i 1923 og den mellem Indien og Pakistan i 1947, der begge skete som følge af krigshandlinger.

Denne befolkningsudveksling har imidlertid ikke bragt fred. En af hovedgrundene er FN, hvis Generalforsamling er styret af 48 muslimske lande plus deres olieafhængige klienter (jf. argumentationen nedenfor for FN's markante slagside).

Medierne har i mange år fortiet og fordrejet begivenhederne. Det er opportunt for venstrefløjen at henvise til det store antal arabere, der flygtede i 1947 og 1948 – og fortie massakrer og etnisk udrensning af jøder i de fleste arabiske lande.

Venstrefløjen mener, at arabere/muslimer er ofre – UNDTAGEN kristne arabere. Med afsæt i offermyten sværtes Israel som imperialistisk skurk, skønt israelske tropper gang på gang blev trukket ud af besatte områder – eksempelvis fra Gaza i 2005.

FN har vedtaget, at Gaza og Vestbredden er ”besatte områder”
FN har vedtaget, at Gaza og Vestbredden er "besatte områder". Men nøgternt set er Gaza og Vestbredden ikke mere besatte end de 210.000 kvadratkilometer, som Sovjetunionen erobrede under Anden Verdenskrig, hvoraf Rusland nu har arvet 108.000. Uden at blinke har FN besluttet, at disse områder er en del af Rusland, så de er ikke besat. Men hvorfor er de ikke det, når Vestbredden og Gaza er? Hvorfor er for eksempel Sydslesvig, Alsace-Lorraine, Sydtyrol og Transsylvanien ikke besatte?

Israel og Jordan sluttede fred i 1994, og Jordan afstod fra ethvert krav på "Vestbredden" (Judæa og Samaria).

Der er tale om en himmelråbende forskelsbehandling, når man sammenligner Sovjetunionens fremfærd i 1945 med Israels i 1948. I begge tilfælde var der krig med en efterfølgende flygtningestrøm, som for arabernes vedkommende officielt nu tæller hele fire millioner. Dette skal ses på baggrund af, at Sovjetunionen i 1944-45 fordrev cirka 15 millioner tyskere, polakker og finner. Og det er blevet til... ja, netop: Nul flygtninge, fordi alle er blevet optaget og integreret i de lande, som de flygtede til. Men det er ikke sket med araberne.

Hvorfor?

Svaret finder man hos FN-organisationen UNRWA – The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Selvom organisationen spiller en nøglerolle i konflikten, er den næsten ukendt for de fleste. Hvilket er ikke så lidt ironisk, fordi netop UNRWA har store aktier i at holde heksekedlen i Mellemøsten i kog.

Flygtninge og UNRWA
UNRWA blev oprettet i 1949 og var tænkt som en midlertidig foranstaltning til gavn for arabiske flygtninge. Men organisationen består endnu, og i stedet for at få de flygtede arabere integrerede i andre arabiske lande dyrker UNRWA dem som martyrer med ganske særlig status – som oftest i tæt parløb med de arabiske lande.

Palæstinenserne har nemlig fået rettigheder, som ingen anden flygtningegruppe har, og derfor vokser deres antal, mens alle andre flygtningegrupper efterhånden bliver mindre og mindre på grund af naturlig afgang og assimilation.

Ingen anden flygtningegruppe udover palæstinenserne har fået en "right of return" (hjemvendelsesret), som ifølge araberne selv inkluderer tilgiftede og ikke kun flygtninge og deres fælles efterkommere. Der er absolut ingen "right of return" for de ovennævnte tyskere, finner og polakker og heller ingen for de millioner af hinduer, der måtte flygte til Indien, da Pakistan blev til i 1947 et halvt år før Israels oprettelse.

Kun én gruppe flygtninge i verden har af medierne og politikerne fået blåstemplet deres ret til tilbagevenden, og det er palæstinenserne. "Hvornår fjernes det særlige arabiske privilegium, som gør flygtninge fra 1947-48 til permanente flygtninge, mens alle andre flygtninge fra alle andre af denne syndige jords konflikter integreres for at få et normalt liv?", spurgte professor Bent Jensen engang, og her er han inde på noget, som medierne af uransagelige grunde altid undlader at fortælle os. Hvorfor? Er de lige så interesserede i at forlænge krisen, som UNRWA tydeligvis er det?

Hundredetusinder af palæstinensere og deres efterkommere har nu jordansk statsborgerskab, men UNRWA betragter dem stadig som flygtninge. Børn, børnebørn, oldebørn og tipoldebørn af palæstinensiske flygtninge i Libanon kan ikke – selv efter næsten 60 års ophold – få libanesisk statsborgerskab, må ikke eje eller erhverve fast ejendom og må ikke arbejde i en række professioner. Alt sammen stik imod de konventioner, som blandt andet Danmark følger.

Men i stedet for at arbejde for deres optagelse, tilpasning og integration i de nye værtslande dyrker UNRWA de palæstinensiske flygtninges forurettethed, så det nedarvede had kan holdes i kog.

Arabere fordriver palæstinensere
At palæstinensere løbende er blevet fordrevet fra de arabiske lande og endda i store antal, synes ingen at hæfte sig ved. I artiklen Kuwait Expels Thousands of Palestinians i Middle East Quarterly Fall 2012 sætter Steven J. Rosen tal på. Det er tæt på antallet af arabere, der flygtede fra Israel.

Situationen er blevet til en labyrint uden udgang og forværres konstant af FN via dens underorganisationer, først og fremmest UNWRA. Organisation har mere end 30.000 ansatte (flere end nogen anden FN-organisation) og vokser stadig. "De fleste UNRWA-ansatte er selv flygtninge," har organisationen stolt forkyndt på sin hjemmeside, og det billede lader vi stå et øjeblik.

De fleste UNRWA-ansatte er altså selv palæstinensere, og i oktober 2004 indrømmede UNRWA- kommissær, den danske cand. scient. pol. professor Peter Hansen, for første gang, at han havde Hamas-medlemmer på sin lønningsliste – og ildevarslende nok især i undervisningssektoren.

Men det, mente han ikke, var noget problem, fordi "ikke alle Hamas’ folk er militante". Så samarbejdet fortsætter, og det er bestemt ikke uskyldigt.

UNWRA har ansat terrorister
Et godt eksempel på et ikke-uskyldigt samarbejde er en vis Awad al-Qiq, der var ansat som kemi- og fysiklærer på en UNRWA-skole. 

Efter mange års ansættelse blev han forfremmet til leder af Rafah-drengeskolen, altså en ikke uvigtig stilling. Ved siden af sin lærergerning var al-Qiq en førende bombemager for Islamisk Jihad, og han blev dræbt under en inspektionsrunde på en bombefabrik ikke langt fra skolen. Det vil sige, at han byggede bomber tæt på en skole til anvendelse mod Israels civile befolkning, samtidig med at han indoktrinerede sine elever til at gøre det samme. Islamisk Jihad behøvede ikke at betale ham, for det gjorde FN via UNRWA.

Israel har således ikke blot Hamas og det meste af den muslimske verden imod sig. Landet har også en skjult og mægtig fjende i FN, der enten i Generalforsamlingen eller via underorganisationer jævnligt slår på Israels påståede brud på alle konventioner med anklager, der har meget lidt med virkeligheden at gøre.

Det drejer sig især om FN’s Sikkerhedsråd og Human Rights Council. Sikkerhedsrådet sendte 131 resolutioner, og Human Rights Council 45 fordømmelser. Hvor ofte har FN fordømt magthaverne i for eksempel Sudan, Saudi-Arabien, Libyen og Algeriet? Her har der været – og foregår stadig – enorme massakrer på arabere. Men tys-tys – skal ikke nævnes.

Kritikken er altid skæv. Når Hamas bevidst affyrer skud fra skoler, hospitaler og moskéer i håb om, at Israels svar vil ramme civile, har NGO'erne en vane med at vende det blinde øje til, så disse menneskerettighedsovertrædelser sjældent bliver nævnt. 

Hvad der heller ikke bliver nævnt i mainstream-medierne, er konfliktens egentlig årsag: Arabernes ønske om hævn på et folk, de gennem mere end 1000 år har betragtet:

1.  Som Guds fjender (den religiøse grund)

2.  Som foragtelige undermennesker (den etniske grund)

"Det gnaver i vore sjæle, at et så lille land som Israel med kun syv millioner indbyggere kan slå de arabiske nationer med 350 millioner. Det ydmyger vores kollektive ego."
– Al Jazeeras redaktør Ahmed Sheikh til Die Weltwoche, citeret af Thomas Friedman i NY Times.

Det er med andre ord ønsket om hævn, der er konfliktens egentlige drivkraft, og derfor kan den kun løses ved, at Israel besejres og opløses, og denne holdning deles ifølge meningsmålinger af hovedparten af arabere. Uanset hvor de kommer fra. Det handler om arabisk/islamisk skam og ære, som er nøglen til analyse. Se link 1 & link 2.

(Teksten er skrevet på baggrund af bidrag fra Geoffrey Cain, Ole Groth-Andersen, Bernard Gilland og Torben Snarup Hansen.)

-----------

Redaktionen har fjernet et afsnit, hvor der blev fremsat anklager mod Folkekirkens Nødhjælp for at betvivle Israels ret til at eksistere.   

 

Forrige artikel Debat: Hype om persondata er gået over gevind Debat: Hype om persondata er gået over gevind Næste artikel Thyra Frank: Ældremaden afslører menneskesynet Thyra Frank: Ældremaden afslører menneskesynet
  • Anmeld

    Jesper Ørsted

    Israel er en apartheidstat

    Israel er en stat, der aldrig nogensinde burde være dannet. Den er skabt ved at fordrive palæstineneserne fra deres eget land og den fortsætter til den dag i dag efter salamimetoden, hvor apartheidstaten til stadighed opretter nye ulovlige bosættelser på Vestbredden. Garvede ANC-kæmpere fra Sydafrika, der har levet under apartheids åg og som har besøgt Israel og de besatte områder, siger samstemmende, at det er apartheid. At begynde at sammenligne det med f.eks. den sovjetiske landlam efter Anden Verdnesskrig er whataboutery af værste skuffe. Palæstinenserne har mistet deres hjem, den der lever i selve Israel har et 2. klasses statsborgerskab, Ezrahut(nationalitet), mens jøder har et 1. klasses borgerskab, Le'um(statsborgerskab).

  • Anmeld

    Erik Pedersen · "

    Manipulering af begge parter

    Så vises endnu én bevidst, manipulering bare for Israel og imod arabiske befolkninger.
    1.
    Hvilken og med hvilken begrundelse er staten Israel oprettet endda med overvældende magt og religiøs både fordrivelse og vanvid af sejrherrerne af 2 vk??
    2.
    Som løsning for de store krigsmagter Sovjet,USA og englænderne der absolut ikke gjorde noget seriøst tværtimod, da de styrede områderne som var og er besatte områder ved og med alle forfølgelser nedværdigelse osv, kun mod de arabiske mennesker der boede og levede i de engelske besatte områder.
    Og at såvidt vides, både FN og sejrherrerne af deres " interne jøde problematikker "brugte magten til at placere denne problematik og udgave af religiøst vanvid og med " klasse skellene",som den jødiske som religion og religions særstillinger også altid påberåber sig at have "fortrins retten ensidigt" for og til "deres" tilhængere eksklusivt
    For bare at sætte problematikken, så er desværre alle løsninger af og med religiøs art og baggrund, aldrig løst hverken demokratisk, som netop religionerne aldrig har accepteret , kun når der var større magt besiddelser bag og stadigvæk aldrig fuldtud accepteret af nogen religiøs, uanset om de er påståede eller "troet". Men altid problematiske, da også som nærmest i alle demokratier skaber og er problematiske for ethvert demokratis land og dets samlede befolkning.
    Eks som Danmarks. Som accepteres som et af de fredeligste, men alligevel selv med en såkaldt "kristelig", som stats religion.
    Hvor præster ansættes som tjeneste ansatte og betalt af den danske befolkning,, men har tiltvunget sig friheds betingelser som ingen "tjeneste gruppering" i det danske samfund har eller har haft

    Og dette er mangedoblet og virkende fuldtud også af "sær rettighederne" med undertrykkelsen af alle andre i samfundet i især Israel af alle, og bla en vis Søren Espersen fra df med og stadig også med fuld støtte fra partiet, påstår at Israel er et demokrati.
    Trods både forbud og forskels behandling i Israels love, af og med race ulighed, som en lovmæssig del af et demokrati.
    Jae hvor "himmel og himmelvendte" disse endda lovbefalede religiøse særrettigheder kan og er lovlige i demokratiet.
    Og desværre fortsætter disse fake News, uden nogen hverken protestere eller tager fællesskabet som eneste styrke der kan benyttes som kampen mod disse religiøse vanvittige tilstande
    Og Heller ikke denne artikel af såkaldte eksperter ønsker eller hør det trods at eksperterne selv lever i et nogenlunde fungerende demokrati, med en vis form af frihed, dog beskåret også af religiøse særrettigheder som dog tilsyneladende løsnes lidt efter lidt i Danmark.
    Men så absolut ikke er fri endnu trods af religiøs vanvid selv i vort demokrati i Danmark

  • Anmeld

    Bertel Johansen · Maskinmester

    Til Jesper Ørsted m.fl.

    Situationen i Mellemøsten er ikke køn, men skal vel ses i en helhed og bedømmes ud fra de givne præmisser. Og præmissen er, at jøder og kristne i 100 år har levet i et "apartheidstyre" i arabiske lande og i milliontal har måttet lade sig fordrive eller slå ihjel, så disse lande nu vel i praksis er "jøde-og kristenfri." Og det har så sammen med jødepogromer i Rusland, Østeuropa og Tyskland i 1900-tallet skabt staten Israel, som i dag er den eneste velfungerende retsstat i hele Mellemøsten.

    Man skal være usædvanlig blind for historien for på det grundlag at beskylde Israel for noget som helst. Sagen er jo, at alle ulykkerne starter og holdes i gang af interne arabiske stridigheder, hvor jøder og kristne så er blevet prygelknaben.

    Lad så være at jordanflodens Vestbred i dag repræsenterer det eneste reelt uløste folkeretslige problem, men da situationen er et resultat af den arabiske angrebskrig imod Israel, må det vel være rimeligt at indrømme Israel en hovedrolle i enhver løsning.

    Som sagen faktisk foreligger, kan et udsagn som "Israel er en apartheidstat" kun karakteriseres som direkte ondskabsfulgt, vendt imod den eneste faktisk fungerende demokratiske stat i hele regionen, og brugt som støtte til de ødelæggende antidemokratiske kræfter i den arabiske verden.

  • Anmeld

    Helle Baldersbæk

    Når man gentager en løgn ....

    Ligesom racismetemplet er blevet brugt g især misbrugt gennem de sidste 30 år og derfor ikke længere virker, ryster man på hovedet og trækker på skulderen over den maniske gentagelse om apartheidstaten Israel. Og man bliver også lidt vemodig over, at der stadig er ubefæstede sjæle, der gladelig køber en myte og en løgn. Jeg er sikker på, at de også er glade aftagere af billigere strøm, sikkerhedssystemer som intet forsikringsselskab til give rabat for og den med, at kode øl og isvafler slet ikke feder - nærmest det modsatte - fordi kroppen skal bruge kalorier til at varme de kolde lækkerier op og endda flere kalorier, end det kolde indeholder, så i virkeligheden er flødeis og portere diætkost for de fede.
    Tilbage til apartheid, så så vi det for fuld hammer i Sydafrika, hvor man jo ikke fandt sorte på fremtrædende og magtfulde poster. For et par år siden læste jeg, at Israel havde udnævnt en praktiserende muslim som højesteretsdommer. Ikke fordi han var muslim, men fordi han på det tidspunkt var den bedst kvalificerede.
    Med hvilken begrundelse blev Israel oprettet, spørges der. Tja, hvorfor og med hvilket formål blev Irak oprettet, eller Syrien, eller Jordan, eller Libanon? Eller Spanien, der jo opstod i asken efter en muslimsk besættelse.
    De, om ikke bryder sig om, at der eksistereren selvstændig jødisk stat på lidt af det område, der altid har levet jøder og hvor de knap kan skrabe i jorden med en skosnude, uden der vælter oldtidsfund op af jorden - ofte med inskriptioner på deres eget sprog, bliver altid flommede i mælet og henviser til FN. Den samme organisation, der den 29. november 1947 med et flertal vendte tommelen op for dannelsen af Israel.
    Man vendte såmænd også tommelen op for en palæstinensisk stat, men araberne ville ikke have nogen, og det vil de stadig ikke.
    I øvrigt er det ret sigende, at de empatiske med menneskesyn, der elsker muslimer og foragter jøder og som har besættelser på hjernen, forholder sig helt og aldeles tavse om det faktum, at muslimske Tyrkiet i 1974 besatte hele den nordlige del af det kristne Cypern og sejlede en stor gruppe af sit pjalteproletariat til øen, hvor de siden har givet de i rollen som cyprioter.

  • Anmeld

    Erik Pedersen

    Demokrtai og funktion

    At kalde en stat der er grundlagt af et behov der ikke er andet end en forflytning til et landområde,, så langt uden for døren så at sige ,,,som det var mulgt for sejrherrene i,og af 2 vk ,er slet ikke nævnt eller overhovedet med i dette spil og udgydelser, mod samme område også af europærene med disse totalitære ønsker,,,som ER en del af deres politiske doktriner i vor frie demokratier, som de meget gerne og endda som i Israel ,forsøger at fastholde med ikke bare ? våbenmagt i et demokrati ???,men med samme isoleringer af både sprog ogkultur,,,for andre end de trosfællesers,, som OGSÅ med de mest yderligt gående i egne rækker, har det næsten mere end svært med, at styre også.
    Ikraft af den anti-demokatiske styreform som ISRAEL, har og fortsat fastholder ( og ikke bare forsøget på at fastholde) med bla støtte fra en SØREN ESPERSEN ,fra dansk folkebedrags forenings bestyrelse, i Danmarks frihed demokratisk til denne pestllens i vort demoktratis frihed for og til os alle,,med misbruget som de fremadrette også skal dømmes for og med dete sidste nylige foretagne forsøg på at styre alt og alle ,kun efter deres småtskårne egoismer og racismer.
    Som en vis HENRIKSEN forsøger mod et dansk slagteris og deres ledelse, som med stort demokratisk og medmenneskelighed ,,,selv forsøger at imødegå dettet partis regulære fanatisme,facisme og racisme,, ved at fastholde og ikke mindst udføre den selv bestemmelse og ikke ledelses retten med de lovfæstede love,som har i andre behandlinger, af de ansattes vilkår og især hvor der NETOP intet fælleskab er.
    Som jo netop disse "formere" af diktatur,, med DF som spidsen af disse anti demokratiske angreb mod friheden for os alle ,i vort og det i det danske demokrtai,, gang på gang,, også med ofg dirkete imod vort EU og fælleskabet i det,,, forsøger at overtage magten med deres rascismer og egoismer,
    Som også i slagteri sagen ,heldigvis mødes af en ,,både handle kraftig og bevidst ledeles,,TOTALT imødegås mde NETOP den frihed vi i Danmark anser som absolut,, når den vendes netop mod de ansatte,,, som deres egen "restautør "gør det mod hans ansatte ,,,som er helt uden fælles aftaler osv ,og reelt dermed rettgihederne,,,da de påstået af vedk
    ,men nu bevist IKKE har samme vilkår og løn,,,også her forsøger sig med den og disse former tyrranier/magt udøvelser,, direkte mod ansatte,ledere osv ,, og særligt hvor det er FOR , og direkte MOD forbedringer af både løn niveauer og opholds sikkerheder/tilladelser osv ,iDANMARK
    Som for dette bedrags parti absolut ingen betydning har,selvom de også forsøger at manipulere sig til at være,, de svagste beskyttere ,som vi så udmøntes i ,,,bad debatten og ekstra milliarden til vore ælder osv
    Som absolut intet gavnede ,,andet end besværet med at EKSTRA adminstrere,og det var de efterflg ,,, SØRME SELVFØLGELIGT ikke klar over i dansk folkebedrags forening,,,trods de mange advarlser fra faglige personer og organisatioener i sektoren.
    Så desværre ,,bertel johansen maskinmester;;;;; er det ,,,, jae sæt selv navn på dit indlæg,, BERTEL JOHANSEN ,, af den beærede maskinmeste skole ???

  • Anmeld

    Torben Snarup Hansen · demokratisk påvirkningsagent

    fantasi og opspind

    Citat om betingelserne under det britiske mandat: "Alt i alt fik den arabiske befolkning en så stærk og social fremgang at det i sig selv virkede som en magnet på fattige arabere i nabolandene. Resultatet var, at ikke kun den jødiske, men også den arabiske befolkningsgruppe voksede ekstremt hurtigt i disse år i kraft af den store indvandring. Set under ét voksede den jødiske befolkningsgruppe med ca. 375.000 mellem første og anden verdenskrig, mens de øvrige befolkningsgrupper voksede med ca. 380.000 i samme periode" (s. 100 i Søren Harslund: "Israel, kampen for staten", Scandinavia, 2014). Arabere strømmede til området PÅ GRUND AF JØDISKE IVÆRKSÆTTERE. Hvornår siver det ind? Hvornår begynder medier, politikere og andre polemikere at undersøge fakta?
    Atter og atter påståes det, at "jøderne erobrede landet og fordrev arabiske bønder fra deres jord!" Men da Israel var oprettet i 1948 var under 7 % af jorden ejet af jøder. Det meste var opdyrket ørken og tørlagte sumpe, som til eksorbitante beløb blev købt fra "absentee landlords" - de s.k. "effendier". Den zionistiske bevægelse bestræbte sig på at undlade at tvinge arabiske bønder til at forsvinde fra den jord, de dyrkede, og henstillingen blev stort set fulgt. Men et lille antal klagede til mandatmyndigheden, som dog måtte afvise de fleste henvendelser, da der manglede skøder på ejendommene. "Die Juden sind schuld" ?? - Nej, heller ikke her!
    Om det moderne Israel gælder, at intet andet sted har arabere så mange borgerrettigheder, så høj levestandard og så lang gennemsnitlig levetid. Det er uberettiget at bruge ordet "apartheid", når israelsk politi kontrollerer Vestbreddens arabere på vej til arbejde i Israel.
    Tusinder af unge muslimske arabere - plus druzere - melder sig nu frivilligt til israelsk militær. De afskyr korrupte og terroristiske mafiaer som PLO og HAMAS.

  • Anmeld

    Bjørn Asser Hansen

    Hvad nu hvis Malmø daglig sendte raketter m.m. mod Amager?


    Inden debatten om Lone Nørgaard og Torben Hansens indlæg har lagt sig, kan vi med sikkerhed regne med utallige forbitrede unuancerede angreb af antisemitisk karakter rettet mod Israel! Som modvægt og med rettidig omhu vil jeg overfor Israel beklage, at danske letvægtspolitikere og repræsentanter for den socialistiske og autonome venstrefløj tillader sig at kritisere Israels politik over for palæstinenserne og de arabiske stater, når de i samme åndedræt helt ser bort fra, at netop palæstinenserne og de arabiske stater i 70 år har gjort hvad de kunne for at udslette Israel - og hensigten er ikke ændret. Derudover har araberne dræbt og fordrevet hundredtusinder af kristne og jøder (jøder alene 800.000) fra de arabiske lande i de samme 70 år. Det er pinagtigt at danskere solidariserer sig med aggressorerne. Når regnebrættet gøres rationelt op har Israel ubetinget fortjent vores solidaritet. Som jeg ser det, har palæstinensernes og de arabiske staters hensigter og handlinger været bestemmende for den politiske jernhånd, Israel nødvendigvis har måtte føre, alternativet er israelernes kollektive selvmord. Politikere uden realitetssans mener, at man skal presse Israel til at indgå en aftale om oprettelsen af en palæstinensisk stat med eller uden Gaza. Indtil videre forekommer ”land for fred” på Vestbredden, at være et af den slags naive projekter, baseret på idealistisk ønsketænkning, som vil komme til at koste hundredetusinders liv og førlighed, (medmindre man for alvor skulle tro, at Hamas ikke vil sætte sig på og drive terror fra hele Vestbredden).
    Allah Nakba!

  • Anmeld

    Georg Julin · Journalist

    Hvem er oprindeligt palæstinenserne? pro et contra

    Måske et provokerende spørgsmål, men vigtigt, som alle de andre historiske elementer og detaljer omkring "Mellemøstkrisen", som alt for få har reel indsigt i. Interessant at læse kommentarer med udgangspunkt i godt 100 års mest refererede historie. Der vil helt sikkert komme mange flere kommentarer, pro et contra, afhængig af, hvor man har sin sympati, og har fået den fra via informationer, fortrinsvis fra de seneste godt 100 år. Godt at Altinget tør tage denne aldeles væsentlige debat op, for rigtig mange fakta mangler i den daglige debat, fordi ufatteligt få har sat sig ind i, hvad "krisen" i virkeligheden har udgangspunkt i. Min anbefaling er, at hver enkelt debattør sætter sig grundigt ind i fakta via litteratur der rækker århundreder tilbage. Der er en ufattelig mængde data i både videnskabelige og journalistiske artikler, pro et contra, men ikke mindst fakta om f.eks. oprindelsen af det "palæstinensiske folk", den historiske baggrund for landet Palæstina og Israel, og mange andre overraskende oplysninger der hører med til "hele historien" hvis man vil "deltage skråsikkert" i debatten. For over tolv år siden - ved et tilfælde, men også af journalistisk nysgerrighed - begyndte mit studium af hele den historiske situation der ligger bag "konflikten", og det er svært i dagens Danmark at tale med ret mange om "Mellemøstkrisen", da det er ufatteligt få der har sat sig ind i HELE historien. Både når det angår "lægmænd og lærde". Samtalen stopper desværre brat, enten på grund af følelser og holdninger, og oftest, viser det dig, fordi der ikke er samme vidensgrundlag. Det vil overraske mange, som det virkelig gjorde mig første gang jeg stødte på udtalelser, litteratur og beviser for en anden historie end den vi til dagligt bliver forholdt af medier - pro et contra. Jeg er ved at planlægge sidste detaljer af et foredrag om situationen, og håber ikke at jeg skal bære skudsikker vest undervejs. Det er situationen for alvorlig til - pro et contra. Tiden er inde til "real news" - pro et contra.

  • Anmeld

    Jørgen V. Casse · MA historie

    Et par mangler og fejl

    Sydslesvig/Nordslesvig har en meget unik status som grundlag. Delingen af Slesvig-Holsten blev foretaget på baggrund af Præsident W.Wilsons (USA) ide om folkenes selvbestemmelsesret. Ved den tyske besættelse af Danmark d. 09.04.40 ønskede hjemmetyskerne i det der var blevet til Sønderjylland at Det Tyske Rige skulle flytte grænsen tilbage til der hvor den var før 1920. Fra tysk side kom svaret "Grænsen ligger fast". Da besættelsen ophørte d. 05.05.45, tilbød englænderne Danmark, at det kunne få hvad det ville af nordtyskland, Danmark skulle blot sige hvormeget. Svaret fra den danske regering til den engelske var "grænsen ligger fast". Det var der to grunde til, 1) man ønskede ikke et stort mindretal af tyskere indenfor den danske grænse, der nok i den givne situation var villig til at blive danske, men som på længere sigt kunne tænkes at ville tilbage til Tyskland, det ville give problemer, og 2) en frygt for tysk revisionisme.
    Problemerne i Mellemøsten mellem Israel og de arabiske stater, er en strid om ord. i 1922 skriver Balfour en deklaration der bærer hans navn, i hvilken han forpligter hans majestæts regering til at hjælpe jøderne til et "homeland". Balfour nævner intet om begrebet "stat" kun "homeland". På engelsk er der en forskel mellem "homeland og stat". Det valgte jøderne at ignorere eller skal vi sige at fortolke anderledes, man ønskede staten Israel, og satte lighedstegn mellem "homeland" og "stat". Jøderne startede en indvandring til Palæstina. Efter andenverdenskrig øges denne indvandring til Palæstina i sådan en grad at England ser sig nødsaget til at oprette et kvotesytem. S/S Exudos blev et eksempel på problemet med denne kvote ordning. Jødernes bombning af Hotel King David, blev udløseren for oprettelsen af staten Israel, med Ben Gurion som dens første leder.
    Men det er Balfour's deklaration der den dag i dag er grundlaget for de stridigheder der er mellem staten Israel og de arabiske nabo stater. Israel er anerkendt af FN som medlem, dermed anerkendt af verdenssamfundet som en legitim stat.
    Alle krigene mellem Israel og de arabiske atter er en krig over et enkelt ord "homeland"

  • Anmeld

    Kaj Jensen · Pensioneret sømand

    En lille Palæstina Quiz

    01 Hvornår blev landet "Palæstina" grundlagt og hvem var landets grundlægger.?

    02.Hvor var landets grænser?

    03.Hvad var landets hovedstad?

    04 Hvad var landets største byer?

    05.Nævn mindst een af "Palæstinas" ledere ...... FØR Yassir Arafat

    06.Hvilket sprog blev der talt i landet "Palæstina"?

    07.Hvad var den fremherskende religion i det ældgamle "Palæstina"?

    08.Hvad var navnet på landets valuta?


    09.Vælg hvilken som helst dag i historien og fortæl hvad den omtrentlige vekselkurs var på "Palæstinas" valuta overfor USD - BRPD - DM - Yen - Yuan.!

    10.Siden der ikke er noget land der hedder "Palæstina" idag, hvornår holdt det så op med at eksisterer? - Og hvad skyldtes det?

    11.Hvorfor forsøgte palæstinenserne aldrig at blive uafhængige, før de arabiske landes knusende og altødelæggende nederlag i 6-dages krigen i 1967?

  • Anmeld

    Erik Pedersen

    Manipulering eller ønsker om magt?

    Nu er så igen "erobrerne" atter på krigsstien.
    Med hvad og hvis såfremt osv
    Thjae vore egne besiddelser og erobringer, da tabene via disse er betalt og fortsat betales i deres folkebedrags forenings forsøg på via manipuleringerne og bedrag af den danske befolkning.
    Thjae hvad Skåne Halland og Blekinge, for ikke at omtale resten i Norden samt de engelske og franske
    Thjae hvilken farce,, hvis ikke denne adfærd og manipulering relt var den Hitler mfl bla misbrugte med og via samme metodiske egoismer tiltvang sig magten.
    Og beviste at dét kun er via fællesskab og samarbejde at disse sort manipulerende frygtelige teorismer blev overvandt som også dette såkaldte manipulerede TUSIND års rige blev det, som også alle andre hidtil er overvundet af fællesskabet selv blandt modstandere der kunne forenes, men som ved krigsafslutningen stadig var og ernærede og fortsat ernæres med samme "foder" 😌 af lige dele egoisme og magt begær.

  • Anmeld

    Jørgen V. Casse · MA historie

    Palæstina

    Palæstina er hjemmehørende i oldtiden, det er et område der stort set omfatter Jordan og Israel plus de såkaldte besatte områder, og lidt af Libanon. i 1299 kommer det ind under det Osmanniske rige, for efter 1920 at blive engelsk mandatområde. Kernen i Palæstina (Jordan/Israel) bliver delt i 1921, i Transjordanien (emirat) og Palæstina styret af England frem til 1947 hvor Israel oprettes. Resten af spørgsmålene besvares af ovenstående. Statsdannelser er noget der fremkommer lang senere, i Danmark først med Gorm den Gamle. Kristendommen regnes fra år 1 e.v.t., muhamedanismen først omkring 600 e.v.t.!
    Spørgsmålene er meget sjove til og med sig 10, men kan ikke rigtig besvares rationelt. Sig, 11. se artiklen.

  • Anmeld

    Ivan Dybdal · sociolog

    Præcis og dækkende historisk faktabaseret redegørelse

    Sandheden er ilde hørt også om dette emne blandt venstrefløjens (post-)kommunister og -do-marxister. De bliver nok ved deres tros artikler nogle år endnu, desværre.

  • Anmeld

    Stine Leth-Nissen · Freelancejournalist

    Hvad laver Altinget på den galej?

    Totalt useriøs og propagandistisk version af verden set fra en isrelsk bosætters synsvinkel.

    Denne "kronik" var Altinget ikke sluppet levende fra at bringe - inkl forfalskede tal, angreb osv - hvis det handlede om danske forhold.
    Jeg betragter ellers Altinget som en seriøs formidler, men her accepterer I så lav en standard, at alt håb lades ude. Pinligt.

  • Anmeld

    Bertel Johansen · Maskinmester

    Bemærkninger til Stine Æeth-Nielsen

    Du kalder dig selv freelancejournalist, hvilket forekommer besynderligt når Du tillader dig at drage åbenbare facts om Mellemøsten i tvivl, og endda mener, at Altinget ikke "var sluppet levende fra at bringe det" hvis det havde handlet om danske forhold.

    Nu kan en artikel om Mellemøstlige forhold jo ikke så godt handle om Danske forhold, men din teoretiske forudsigelse om konsekvensen i så fald taler jo sit tydelige sprog om uformåenhed og uvidenhed erstattet af trusler. Noget der jo i øvrigt er en ret arabisk fremgangsmåde.

    Nå, men hvis Du er journalistisk uddannet, og fra journalisthøjskolen i Aarhus, er Du jo undskyldt, idet de jo der reklamerer med, at uddanne studerende der "tegner udenfor stregerne" præcis ligesom Du gør i din kommentar.

  • Anmeld

    Birte Bune Smith · cand jur

    "Palæstina"

    Hvis det ikke var så sørgeligt, ville det være til at grine ad, som når den første kommentator påstår, at Israel er skabt ved at fordrive palæstinenserne fra deres eget land. Der står ganske vist ikke, hvem der har "fordrevet" dem, bare at det er sket, men ellers svarer det helt til den måde, de små palæstinensiske børn blir hjernevasket på, at - ikke israelerne, ej heller zionisterne men "JEHUD har stjålet VORES land". Der er lidt for meget religion og følelsesfnidder og for lidt kendskab til områdets historie, når nogen kan slynge den slags påstande ud. Det land, der blev Israel, var IKKE "palæstinensisk", og de, der boede der, var ikke dem, der i sidste halvdel af 1960'erne blev opfundet og navngivet af to ægyptere (Nasser og Arafat), og som alle, der ikke har sat sig ordentlig ind i områdets historie, gerne vil tiltro ejerskab til området. Selv en PLO-official har jo åbenlyst sagt, at der ikke findes palæstinensere, det er ægyptere m fl, som man af taktiske grunde har kaldt palæstinensere. Men selvfølgelig, forleden udtalte - eller snarere udbrølede - en minister fra PA, det palæstinensiske selvstyre, om Jerusalem, at byen i 5000 år havde været "vores", og ikke "jeres", og at israelerne bare kunne tage og pakke deres kuffert og forsvinde. Det skal der nok være nogen, der tror på, fx nævnte kommentator.
    Den form for argumentation er lige så latterlig- og desværre også farlig, for nogen tror på det og videregiver det - som at påstå, at sydafrikanere mener, at der bedrives apardheid i Israel, når man selv har været vidne til at det modsatte synspunkt er gjort gældende fra ANC-side.
    Når man er så gammel som mig, at man har oplevet det hele, er det trist at bemærke, hvordan kendsgerninger fordrejes eller direkte negeres pga det, jeg vil tillade mig at kalde antisemitisme.Ingen kat havde jo gøet, om Jerusalem i 1940'erne var blevet overdraget til pavestolen.
    Derfor er det glædeligt, at læse, at journalist Julin har brugt tid og kræfter på at sætte sig ind i forholdene og forhåbentlig også har studeret de daværende kilder og ikke blot de senere med deres mere eller mindre skjulte dagsorden.

  • Anmeld

    Birte Bune Smith ·

    anonymitet

    Det er beklageligt, at Altinget tillader anonyme indslag. Men forståeligt, at den pågældende ikke vil vedstå sit rablende vås.

  • Anmeld

    Michael

    Birte Bune Smith : Hamas ER grundlagt af staten Israel,


    som en opposition til Arafat, som en splittelse af den arabiske opposition.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb3vF6Vcjr0

    Som altid , sandheden kommer ud mellem sidebenene.

    Jeg går ud fra at du ikke er istandt til at forholde dig til det åndelige indhold.

    Det er i danske medier ofte den største ros at blive kaldt "vås".

  • Anmeld

    Michael

    Washington Post: Hvordan Israel bidrog til at skabe Hamas

    It also obscures Hamas's curious history. To a certain degree, the Islamist organization whose militant wing has rained rockets on Israel the past few weeks has the Jewish state to thank for its existence. Hamas launched in 1988 in Gaza at the time of the first intifada, or uprising, with a charter now infamous for its anti-Semitism and its refusal to accept the existence of the Israeli state. But for more than a decade prior, Israeli authorities actively enabled its rise.

    At the time, Israel's main enemy was the late Yasser Arafat's Fatah party, which formed the heart of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Fatah was secular and cast in the mold of other revolutionary, leftist guerrilla movements waging insurgencies elsewhere in the world during the Cold War. The PLO carried out assassinations and kidnappings and, although recognized by neighboring Arab states, was considered a terrorist organization by Israel; PLO operatives in the occupied territories faced brutal repression at the hands of the Israeli security state.

    Meanwhile, the activities of Islamists affiliated with Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood were allowed in the open in Gaza — a radical departure from when the Strip was administered by the secular-nationalist Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Egypt lost control of Gaza to Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which saw Israel also seize the West Bank. In 1966, Nasser had executed Sayyid Qutb, one of the Brotherhood's leading intellectuals. The Israelis saw Qutb's adherents in the Palestinian territories, including the wheelchair-bound Sheik Ahmed Yassin, as a useful counterweight to Arafat's PLO.

    "When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake," one Israeli official who had worked in Gaza in the 1980s said in a 2009 interview with the Wall Street Journal's Andrew Higgins. "But at the time nobody thought about the possible results."

    Higgins's article is worth reading in full. He goes on to outline the type of assistance the Israelis initially gave Yassin, whom the PLO at one time deemed a "collaborator," and Gaza's other Islamists:

    Israel's military-led administration in Gaza looked favorably on the paraplegic cleric, who set up a wide network of schools, clinics, a library and kindergartens. Sheikh Yassin formed the Islamist group Mujama al-Islamiya, which was officially recognized by Israel as a charity and then, in 1979, as an association. Israel also endorsed the establishment of the Islamic University of Gaza, which it now regards as a hotbed of militancy. The university was one of the first targets hit by Israeli warplanes in the [2008-9 Operation Cast Lead].

    Yassin's Mujama would become Hamas, which, it can be argued, was Israel's Taliban: an Islamist group whose antecedents had been laid down by the West in a battle against a leftist enemy. Israel jailed Yassin in 1984 on a 12-year sentence after the discovery of hidden arms caches, but he was released a year later. The Israelis must have been more worried about other enemies.

    Google oversat:
    Det skjuler også Hamas nysgerrige historie. I en vis grad har den islamistiske organisation, hvis militante fløj har regnet raketter over Israel de sidste par uger, takket for dets eksistens. Hamas blev lanceret i 1988 i Gaza på tidspunktet for den første intifada eller oprør, med et charter nu berygtet for dets antisemitisme og dets afvisning af at acceptere eksistensen af ​​den israelske stat. Men i mere end et årti før aktiverede israelske myndigheder aktivt sin stigning.

    På det tidspunkt var Israels største fjende den sene Yasser Arafats Fatah-parti , som dannede hjertet af den palæstinensiske befrielsesorganisation (PLO). Fatah var sekulær og kastet i formen af ​​andre revolutionære, venstreorienterede gerilla-bevægelser, der førte til vækkelser andre steder i verden under den kolde krig. PLO udførte mord og kidnappinger, og selvom de blev anerkendt af de nabolande arabiske stater, blev det betragtet som en terrororganisation af Israel; PLO-operatører i de besatte områder blev udsat for brutal undertrykkelse i hænderne på den israelske sikkerhedsstat.

    I mellemtiden blev islamisternes aktiviteter tilknyttet Egyptens forbudte muslimske broderskab tilladt i det åbne i Gaza - en radikal afgang fra, da striben blev administreret af den sekulært-nationalistiske egyptiske regering af Gamal Abdel Nasser. Egypten tabte kontrollen over Gaza til Israel efter den arabiske-israelske krig fra 1967, som så Israel også gribe Vestbredden. I 1966 havde Nasser henrettet Sayyid Qutb, et af broderskabets førende intellektuelle. Israerne så Qutbs tilhængere i de palæstinensiske områder, herunder den kørestolsbundne Sheik Ahmed Yassin, som en nyttig modvægt til Arafats PLO.

    "Når jeg ser tilbage på begivenhedskæden, tror jeg, vi har lavet en fejl", sagde en israelsk embedsmand, der havde arbejdet i Gaza i 1980'erne i et interview med Wall Street Journal Andrew Higgins i 2009 . "Men på det tidspunkt tænkte ingen på de mulige resultater."

    Higgins artiklen er værd at læse fuldt ud. Han fortsætter med at skitsere den type bistand, som israelerne oprindeligt gav Yassin, som PLO på et tidspunkt betragtede som "samarbejdspartner" og Gazas andre islamister:

    Israels militærstyrede administration i Gaza så positivt ud på den paraplegiske præst, der etablerede et bredt netværk af skoler, klinikker, et bibliotek og børnehaver. Sheikh Yassin dannede den islamistiske gruppe Mujama al-Islamiya, som officielt blev anerkendt af Israel som en velgørenhed og derefter i 1979 som en forening. Israel tilsluttede sig også oprettelsen af ​​det islamiske universitet i Gaza, som det nu betragter som et hotbed of militancy. Universitetet var et af de første mål, der blev ramt af israelske krigsfly i [2008-9 Operation Cast Lead].

    Yassins Mujama ville blive Hamas, som det kan hævdes var Israels Taliban: en islamistisk gruppe, hvis antecedenter var blevet lagt ned af Vesten i en kamp mod en venstreorienteret fjende. Israel fængslede Yassin i 1984 på en 12-årig sætning efter opdagelsen af ​​skjulte våben caches, men han blev løsladt et år senere. Israelerne må have været mere bekymrede over andre fjender.

  • Anmeld

    Michael

    Hamas opfyldte sit formål : At forhindre oprettelsen af en Palæstenensisk stat.



    Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation

    Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".



    Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of the Islamist movement in Palestine, returning from Cairo in the seventies, established an Islamic charity association. Prime Minister Golda Meir, saw this as a an opportunity to counterbalance the rise of Arafat’s Fatah movement. .According to the Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit (October 1987), "The Islamic associations as well as the university had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority" in charge of the (civilian) administration of the West Bank and Gaza. "They [the Islamic associations and the university] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad."

    The Islamists set up orphanages and health clinics, as well as a network of schools, workshops which created employment for women as well as system of financial aid to the poor. And in 1978, they created an "Islamic University" in Gaza. "The military authority was convinced that these activities would weaken both the PLO and the leftist organizations in Gaza." At the end of 1992, there were six hundred mosques in Gaza. Thanks to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks) , the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression.

    In 1984, Ahmed Yassin was arrested and condemned to twelve years in prison, after the discovery of a hidden arms cache. But one year later, he was set free and resumed his activities. And when the Intifada (‘uprising’) began, in October 1987, which took the Islamists by surprise, Sheik Yassin responded by creating the Hamas (The Islamic Resistance Movement): "God is our beginning, the prophet our model, the Koran our constitution", proclaims article 7 of the charter of the organization.

    Ahmed Yassin was in prison when, the Oslo accords (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government) were signed in September 1993. The Hamas had rejected Oslo outright. But at that time, 70% of Palestinians had condemned the attacks on Israeli civilians. Yassin did everything in his power to undermine the Oslo accords. Even prior to Prime Minister Rabin’s death, he had the support of the Israeli government. The latter was very reluctant to implement the peace agreement.

    The Hamas then launched a carefully timed campaign of attacks against civilians, one day before the meeting between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, regarding the formal recognition of Israel by the National Palestinian Council. These events were largely instrumental in the formation of a Right wing Israeli government following the May 1996 elections.

    Quite unexpectedly, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered Sheik Ahmed Yassin to be released from prison ("on humanitarian grounds") where he was serving a life sentence. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, together with President Bill Clinton, was putting pressure on Arafat to control the Hamas. In fact, Netanyahu knew that he could rely, once more, on the Islamists to sabotage the Oslo accords. Worse still: after having expelled Yassin to Jordan, Prime Minister Netanyahu allowed him to return to Gaza, where he was welcomed triumphantly as a hero in October 1997.

    Arafat was helpless in the face of these events. Moreover, because he had supported Saddam Hussein during the1991 Gulf war, (while the Hamas had cautiously abstained from taking sides), the Gulf states decided to cut off their financing of the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, between February and April 1998, Sheik Ahmad Yassin was able to raise several hundred million dollars, from those same countries. The the budget of The Hamas was said to be greater than that of the Palestinian Authority. These new sources of funding enabled the Islamists to effectively pursue their various charitable activities. It is estimated that one Palestinian out of three is the recipient of financial aid from the Hamas. And in this regard, Israel has done nothing to curb the inflow of money into the occupied territories.

    The Hamas had built its strength through its various acts of sabotage of the peace process, in a way which was compatible with the interests of the Israeli government. In turn, the latter sought in a number of ways, to prevent the application of the Oslo accords. In other words, Hamas was fulfilling the functions for which it was originally created: to prevent the creation of a Palestinian State. And in this regard, Hamas and Ariel Sharon, see eye to eye; they are exactly on the same wave length.

    google oversat;
    Takket være Mossad, Israels "Institut for Intelligens og Specialopgaver", fik Hamas at styrke sin tilstedeværelse i de besatte områder. I mellemtiden blev Arafat's Fatah-bevægelse for national befrielse samt den palæstinensiske venstrefløj underkastet den mest brutale form for undertrykkelse og intimidering

    Lad os ikke glemme, at det var Israel, der faktisk skabte Hamas. Ifølge Zeev Sternell, historiker ved det hebraiske universitet i Jerusalem, "troede Israel, at det var et klogt trick at presse islamisterne mod den palæstinensiske befrielsesorganisation (PLO)".



    Ahmed Yassin, den åndelige leder af den islamistiske bevægelse i Palæstina, der kom tilbage fra Kairo i 70'erne, etablerede en islamisk velgørenhedsorganisation. Premierminister Golda Meir, så dette som en mulighed for at modvirke stigningen i Arafats Fatah-bevægelse. Ifølge den israelske ugentlige Koteret Rashit (oktober 1987) var "de islamiske foreninger såvel som universitetet blevet støttet og opmuntret af den israelske militærmyndighed" med ansvar for den civile administration af Vestbredden og Gaza. "De [de islamiske foreninger og universitetet] fik tilladelse til at modtage pengebetalinger fra udlandet."

    Islamisterne oprettede børnehjem og sundhedsklinikker samt et netværk af skoler, workshops, der skabte beskæftigelse for kvinder såvel som system for økonomisk støtte til de fattige. Og i 1978 oprettede de et "islamisk universitet" i Gaza. "Militærmyndigheden var overbevist om, at disse aktiviteter ville svække både PLO og de venstreorienterede organisationer i Gaza." Ved udgangen af ​​1992 var der seks hundrede moskeer i Gaza. Takket være Israels efterretningsagentur Mossad (Israels Institut for Intelligens og Specialopgaver) fik islamisterne til at styrke deres tilstedeværelse i de besatte områder. I mellemtiden blev medlemmerne af Fatah (bevægelsen for den nationale befrielse af palæstina) og den palæstinensiske venstre underkastet den mest brutale form for undertrykkelse.

    I 1984 blev Ahmed Yassin anholdt og dømt til tolv år i fængsel efter opdagelsen af ​​et skjult våbencache. Men et år senere blev han fri og genoptaget sine aktiviteter. Og da Intifada ('oprør') begyndte i oktober 1987, som overraskede islamisterne, reagerede Sheik Yassin ved at skabe Hamas (Den Islamiske Modstandsbevægelse): "Gud er vores begyndelse, profeten vores model, Koranen vores forfatning ", forkynder artikel 7 i organisationens charter.

    Ahmed Yassin var i fængsel, da, Oslo-aftalerne ( principerklæring om Interim selvstyre ) blev underskrevet i september 1993. Hamas havde afvist Oslo kategorisk. Men på den tid havde 70% af palæstinenserne fordømt angrebene på israelske civile. Yassin gjorde alt for at underminere Oslo-konventionerne. Allerede før premierminister Rabins død havde han den israelske regerings støtte. Sidstnævnte var meget tilbageholdende med at gennemføre fredsaftalen.

    Hamas lancerede derefter en omhyggelig tidsbegrænset kampagne mod angreb mod civile, en dag før mødet mellem palæstinensiske og israelske forhandlere om den nationale palæstinensiske rådets formelle anerkendelse af Israel. Disse begivenheder var i høj grad medvirkende til dannelsen af ​​en højrefløjs israelsk regering efter valget i maj 1996.

    Helt uventet beordrede premierminister Netanyahu, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, at blive frigivet fra fængslet ("af humanitære grunde"), hvor han tjente en dødsstraf. I mellemtiden satte Netanyahu sammen med præsident Bill Clinton pres på Arafat for at kontrollere Hamas. Faktisk vidste Netanyahu, at han igen kunne påberåbe islamisterne at sabotere Oslo-konventionerne. Endnu værre: Efter at have udvist Yassin til Jordan, tillod premierminister Netanyahu ham at vende tilbage til Gaza, hvor han blev tiltrukket triumferende som en helt i oktober 1997.

    Arafat var hjælpeløs i lyset af disse begivenheder. Desuden havde golfstaterne besluttet at afskaffe deres finansiering af den palæstinensiske myndighed, fordi han havde støttet Saddam Hussein i løbet af Golfkriget i 1991 (mens Hamas forsigtigt afstod fra at tage sider). I mellemtiden kunne Sheik Ahmad Yassin mellem februar og april 1998 rejse flere hundrede millioner dollars fra de samme lande. Budgettet for Hamas siges at være større end den palæstinensiske myndighed. Disse nye finansieringskilder gjorde det muligt for islamisterne effektivt at forfølge deres forskellige velgørende aktiviteter. Det anslås, at en palæstinensisk ud af tre er modtageren af ​​økonomisk hjælp fra Hamas. Og i den forbindelse har Israel ikke gjort noget for at bremse pengestrømmen ind i de besatte områder.

    Hamas havde bygget sin styrke gennem sine forskellige sabotagehandlinger i fredsprocessen på en måde, der var forenelig med den israelske regerings interesser. Til gengæld søges sidstnævnte på en række måder for at forhindre anvendelsen af ​​Oslo-konventionerne. Med andre ord opfyldte Hamas de funktioner, som den oprindeligt blev oprettet for: Forebyggelse af oprettelsen af ​​en palæstinensisk stat. Og i denne henseende ser Hamas og Ariel Sharon øje til øje; de er nøjagtigt på samme bølgelængde.

  • Anmeld

    Birte Bune Smith ·

    "Til en vis grad" - ja, men uhyre indirekte og bestemt uagtsomt

    Det er ret ondskabsfuldt at påstå, at fordi Israel støttede en velgørende organisation, der skulle hjælpe befolkningen, så er de ansvarlige for, hvad den udartede sig til senere,
    Iøvrigt byggede de også Bir Zeit Universitetet i Selvstyret. Det er de sikkert heller ikke glade for i dag, når man ser, hvad det har udviklet sig til. Alt
    skabt i den bedste mening for at hjælpe befolkningen på den bedst mulige måde. Men den begrundelse kan nok ikke anerkendes. Israel skal helst dæmoniseres.
    Hvorfor ikke også påstå, at Israel skabte PLO - for det ville ikke have eksisteret, hvis ikke Israel havde eksisteret. Dårlig sammenligning? Det synes jeg ikke.

  • Anmeld

    Michael

    Lige rettigheder under Trump ........ Men det er ondskabsfuldt at påstå,


    at Israel er ansvarlig for Hamas handlinger. For det er der ingen, der skriver.

    Fakta er at staten Israel SKABTE Hamas, intet andet, i et "råddent" taktisk spil om at undgå at palæstinenserne fik deres ret via PLO og Arafat.
    Det gav bagslag, måske fortjent, men reelt ved vi ikke hvilken rolle Mosad idag spiller i Hamas.?!

    Hamas opfyldte på daværende tidspunkt staten Israels behov for at ødelægge fredsforhandlingerne og gør det stadigvæk.

    Den endelige dumpning af 2-stats løsningen og Trumps anerkendelse har en bagside for zionisterne, som de måske endnu ikke har gennemtænkt:

    Der skal etableres en stat med LIGE RETTIGHEDER FOR ALLE, DER BOR I DET HISTORISKE PALÆSTINA FRA FLOD TIL HAVET.

    DET BETYDER LIGEBERETTIGEDE STATsBORGERRETTIGHEDER FOR "JØDER" OG "PALÆSTINENSERE". :)

  • Anmeld

    Lars Måge · Sygeplejerske

    Tak

    Tak for at der endeligt kommer en oplysende artikel der bryder med årelang tradition for løgne og i bedste fald fortielser fra den typiske presse i DK. Hvor i all verden skulle jøderne, ellers være end i deres eget land Israel? Araberne kan i princippet være i hele verden og i sær i muslimske lande, men jøderne er igennem mange år voldsomt fordrevet og jagtet, ikke bare i muslimske lande men endog i vesten. Tænk på Holocaust! Israel, det eneste rigtige demokrati, eneste land med religionsfrihed!, eneste land med fulle/lige rettigheder for kvinder, eneste land med frihed for homofile i HELE midtøsten!! Og så bliver de kaldt apartheid og okupanter? Jesus var jøde.

  • Anmeld

    Michael

    Lige rettigheder under Trump ........ Men det er ondskabsfuldt at påstå,


    at Israel er ansvarlig for Hamas handlinger. For det er der ingen, der skriver.

    Fakta er at staten Israel SKABTE Hamas, intet andet, i et "råddent" taktisk spil om at undgå at palæstinenserne fik deres ret via PLO og Arafat.
    Det gav bagslag, måske fortjent, men reelt ved vi ikke hvilken rolle Mosad idag spiller i Hamas.?!

    Hamas opfyldte på daværende tidspunkt staten Israels behov for at ødelægge fredsforhandlingerne og gør det stadigvæk.

    Den endelige dumpning af 2-stats løsningen og Trumps anerkendelse har en bagside for zionisterne, som de måske endnu ikke har gennemtænkt:

    Der skal etableres en stat med LIGE RETTIGHEDER FOR ALLE, DER BOR I DET HISTORISKE PALÆSTINA FRA FLOD TIL HAVET.

    DET BETYDER LIGEBERETTIGEDE STATsBORGERRETTIGHEDER FOR "JØDER" OG "PALÆSTINENSERE". :)

  • Anmeld

    Georg Julin · Journalist

    Hvem er oprindeligt palæstinenserne? pro et contra 2

    Interessant at læse de mange - og ofte (for) lange - indslag i debatten. Atter bliver vi præsenteret for materiale der går tilbage i en "overskuelig tid" med de mange forviklinger og konspirationer der har været, og stadig foregår, ikke mindst på grund af ofte fastlåste politisk korrekte holdninger. Det er måske interessant for de organisationer og følgere der står bag, men beskæftiger sig ikke med svar på de helt oprindelige præmisser der ligger for landet Israel og det jødiske folk - og de der har boet der i årtusinder.

    Pensioneret sømand Kaj Jensen stiller interessante spørgsmål der burde kunne besvares umiddelbart. Det kan de ikke - før man har sat sig grundigt ind i fortiden - altså tusinder af år tilbage, som man gør med al anden litteratur der beskæftiger sig med verdens befolkninger igennem historien. Som jeg skrev i indledningen vil det stadig være interessant for enkelte debattører i denne "tråd" at undersøge sandheden om hvem palæstinenserne oprindeligt er - og hvor de kom fra. Allerede der bliver det spændende. Tag grundig tid til at undersøge HELE historien om den såkaldte "Mellemøstkrise" - så vil de sidste 60-100 års historie være "en anelse uinteressant". God læselyst - der er rigeligt af litteratur - pro et contra

  • Anmeld

    Michael

    GJ


    Når du er bedre end informeret er det en omsonst ligegyldig debat vi har.

    Arrogant forekommer det mig :

    At reducere nutiden og de sidste 100 års historie som uniteressant.

    At du har patent på en viden som du ved er mere indsiderrigtigt end alle andre, og så i 2 indlæg ikke at ville løfte sløret for den.

    At påstå at du har sat dig grundigt ind i de sidste tusinder af år, som af gode grunde ikke kan gå længere tilbage end til Pherekydes ca 600 år f. kr og vedaerne som er nedskrevet ca 900 år f kr.

    Med Pherekydes opstod den første evne til egentligt at tænke!

    Så hvad er de egentlige præmisser for Kaldæa eller Palæstina, som blev forladt af jøderne efter år 70?

    Israel skal først oprettes som en åndelig stat, når Messia er fundet, hvilket han ikke er ifølge traditionalister og ortodokse indenfor jødedommen.

    At hævde at staten Israel, som fysisk stat har nogen berettigelse er en kapring af jødedommen.

    Jeg kan som du henvise til det jeg tidligere har skrevet tidligere, at jøderne og jødedommen af åndelige årsager efter Kristus måtte indforlives i al anden verdens kultur for at befrugte alle andres lande og deres befolkninger.

    Det foregribes i Markus, hvor kvinden smører Kristus ind i Nardossalve efter at have knækket alabasterkrukken.

    Alabasterkrukken som symbol på at en udvikling er nået til en ende med semitternes arbejde med at forberede den perfekte fysiske krop til Kristus inkarnation. Den fysiske styrke, livskraft, som semitterne har oparbejdet må nu deles ud i alle andre folkeslag.Alabast er som vores fysiske krop et sart mineralsk og skøbeligt stof.

    Nardossalven, frugtbarhedssalven med ingredienser helt tilbage og ude fra Indien, smøres ind i Kristus, så han i opstandelsen i al fremtid , med sit endnu jordiske legeme kan bære al den livskraft og kærligt opsamlede visdom, der er erfaret siden tidernes morgen med ind i jorden.
    Jødedommen kan såleseds ses som en forberedelse til Kristi komme.

    En stor og kærlig kristen tribut til jøderne, der som bekendt misforstås af Judas.

    Eller rettere skal misforstås af Judas, da han er den med allermest overskydende livskraft stammende tilbage fra sin sidste inkarnation, som Judas Makkabæer, én af de 5 Makkabæerbrødre, der af Kristus bliver fundet værdige, egnet som disciple i brødrenes næste inkarnation. Sammen med de 7 Mattatias brødre.

    Judas er den eneste, der har livskrafterne til at forråde Kristus, og kan holde til at optage Satan i sig, og forråde Kristus, som det er meningen.

    Så på en vis måde er Judas den ENESTE, der ikke svigter Kristus ved korsfæstelsen. De andre Galliæerne flygte bort , fornægter, eller sover sig væk i deres bevidsthed, men Judas, er den eneste med Løvemod, inkarneret ind i Løve-slægten - Judas slægten, nok til at gennemføre sin mission.

    Endnu en hyldest til Judæa og Jøderne, semitterne, bare endnu ikke forstået endnu af så mange, men bevidstheden derom vil vokse med fundet af Judasevangeliet, men selvfølgelig også modstanden og kløfterne på overfladen.

    At selvstændiggøre en jødisk verdslig, ikke åndelig stat er således et overgreb på egen religion og tro, selv når man ikke tror på Kristus , som Messias.

  • Anmeld

    Jørgen V. Casse · MA historie

    Identitet!

    Til Michael!
    Det vil i alles interesse være interessant hvid vi vidste hvem vi har med at gøre, altså vide hvem og hvad De er?

    Georg Julin er fhv. Journalist ved Danmarks Radio, det kunne måske forklare hans holdninger.

  • Anmeld

    Michael

    Tak Jørgen v. Casse


    Netop,

    FHV.

    Nu står han frit.

    Også til at eksponere sin holdning.

    Og ikke kun signalere hemmelighedskræmmeri og hemmeligholdelse af sin "bedrevidenhed."

    :):):)

  • Anmeld

    Max Tranebæk · flymekaniker

    Jeg undre mig over hvorfor alle der er imod politisk islam skal kanøfles.

    Tak for at der endeligt kommer en god og oplysende artikel, der bryder med årelang tradition for løgne og i bedste fald fortielser fra den politiske korrekte presse.
    Jeg undre mig over hvorfor alle der er imod politisk islam skal kanøfles.

  • Anmeld

    Georg Julin · Journalist

    Hvem er oprindeligt palæstinenserne? pro et contra 3

    Tak for venlig læsning af Michael Anonym og Jørgen V. Casse.

    For al klarheds skyld, drejer min interesse - IKKE holdning - og indgående historielæsning, sig IKKE om jeg er forhenværende ansat i Danmarks Radio - eller ej. Det ville aldrig komme på tale at undertrykke viden på baggrund af ansættelse - uanset hvor det skulle være. Arrogance ligger ligeledes langt fra min livsstil.

    "Bedrevidenhed" opnås jo også, som bekendt og med respekt, kun hvis man sætter sig ganske grundigt ind i det stof man arbejder med, og det er det jeg ydmygt og med mange resurser har forsøgt at gøre i de seneste mange år med større og større interesse - og med historie der går længere og længere tilbage - og dermed sætter de sidste 100 år i kraftigt relief.

    Det ville være umuligt og uden faglig mening og kvalitet at skrive en "afhandling" om de mange års research i "en tråd" som reaktion på en artikels efterfølgende kommentarer.

    Jeg har INGEN hemmeligholdelse, men en afgrænsning af spalteplads, men derfor er det så også så meget mere interessant, at der stadig ikke er konkrete og forskningsbaserede bud på de spørgsmål jeg stillede i forlængelse af pensioneret sømand Kaj Jensens ditto. Det er sigende. Michael Anonym - meld dig offentligt ind i debatten som alle andre - det vil styrke dine meninger og ikke mindst - holdninger.

    Tak for en sober tone og interesse fra Jørgen V. Casse og andre debattører der stod frem og turde komme med en holdning - pro et contra!

  • Anmeld

    Michael · Menneske

    So long til åndsaristokrater og bedrevidende, som skriver de har en holdning, men er holdningsløse.

    Mit indledende indlæg er fjernet............

    Usagligt af Altinget.

  • Anmeld

    Georg Julin · Journalist

    Hvem er oprindeligt palæstinenserne? pro et contra 4

    Kære Michael!

    Dine få ord siger rigeligt - om dig. Holdning eller ej - fra dig eller andre - der er vel blot at konstatere at der er lang vej endnu inden "den bedre viden" er tilegnet - via grundige studier - og det tager godt nok langt tid kan jeg hilse at sige.

  • Anmeld

    Michael · menneske

    Intetsigendhed og censur.


    Kære Julin,

    Dine absolut intetsigende indlæg siger rigeligt - om dig.
    der er vel blot at konstatere at der er lang vej endnu inden "den bedre viden" er tilegnet - via grundige studier - og det tager godt nok langt tid kan også jeg hilse at sige,
    men dit åndshovmodet er en form uden nogen substans, som blot må briste, når der sættes lys .

    Jeg er ingen skoledreng, som du behøver føle dig kaldet til at opdrage på,
    ellers tak.

    Jeg respekterer fuldt ud at du mener du er klogere end alle andre og ikke behøver at levere et eneste argument derfor,

    andet end du f.eks ligesom farisærerne er så belæst, at det behøver du skam ikke at redegøre for.


    Censur:

    Altinget lukker øjnene for virkeligheden og censurerer nedenstående video bort:
    Kun enøjethed er tilladt.

    Hvilken skam og udtryk for at Altinget censurerer sig selv i sin tænkning, og
    politiske korrekthed, som er udtryk for tankecensur.

    Der er intet antijødisk over videoerne, tværtimod tilføjer de en dimension, som er nødvendig at få øjnene op for at tingene ikke er så sorthvide, som f.eks zionistisk agenda stiller det op:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waIItLileq4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKplabTRuak

    Jeg havde oversat den første video, men det har altinget i sin misforståede nedvurderende holdning desværre slettet.


    Farvel til Altinget.

  • Anmeld

    Georg Julin · Journalist

    Hvem er oprindeligt palæstinenserne? pro et contra 5

    Kære Michael Anonymt Menneske

    Lad os spare Altingets aktive læsere for kolde og nedværdigende kommentarer. Det vil ikke klæde nogen af os.

    Det jeg har skrevet - er skrevet ud fra viden og oprigtighed og fordybelse i troen omkring emnet - pro et contra.

    En læser af en mail, artikel eller indlæg, vil ALTID tolke ordene ud fra sin egen opfattelse, men det er vigtigt at tolke positivt. Alt er ment positivt og objektivt fra min side - der er lang vej til målet for verdensfred (og fred i Mellemøsten) - hvis to som os ikke engang kan tolke hinanden positivt.

    ...og så et herligt citat fra en klog mand l- angt før min levetid. "Høj intelligens er ikke proportionalt med klogskab"

    Pas på dig - og lad os give læserne fred til at fordybe sig og tolke - positivt - pro et contra

  • Anmeld

    Erik Pedersen

    Demokrati ?

    Netop menings udvekslinegen uden censur,er hele demokrtaiets fundament,,at alle problematikker bearbejdes med og via dialog,ogf at vi alle akn udtrykkeos i respekt for andres meninger og hodlninger,ikke at de kan ikke´kritiseres,men gerne med argumneter og ikke personlige anti eller det modsatte

  • Anmeld

    Michael Menneske · Selvsøger

    Dine indlæg er og bliver intetsigende i sin "klogskab".


    Kære Julin,

    Nu da du fortsat insisterer på ikke at levere noget som helst :

    Syriana? Part 1
    Posted by Terry Boardman on Oct 10, 2013 in east west issues, most recent | 0 comments


    This article was first published in New View magazine No.69 Oct – Dec 2013

    The movie “Syriana” (director Stephen Gaghan; producer and lead actor George Clooney) came out in Dec. 2005. The complex, realistic, tense and dramatic multi-layered account of oil politics, terrorism and the CIA in the Middle East made for a fascinating story which also had at its heart personal transformation. I remember being intrigued by the film’s title “Syriana” – because Syria did not feature in the movie at all. The action began in Iran and also took in Lebanon, but no other Middle Eastern countries were featured apart from an unnamed Gulf State. Israel, Iraq and Saudi Arabia were entirely absent. There was no reference at all to Syria. But I did not look into the question of the name of the film until this year when the war in Syria reached an ever more critical condition. According to the film’s publicity materials, “Syriana” was “a very real term used by Washington think-tanks to describe a hypothetical reshaping of the Middle East. Director Stephen Gaghan said he saw Syriana as “a great word that could stand for man’s perpetual hope of remaking any geographic region to suit his own needs.”(1) That seems to be a very contemporary ethical theme that relates to identity – the need of people today to remake nature, either geographical/ecological or their own bodily nature to suit their own needs, according to how they define themselves. This two-part article will explore some deeper background factors in the Syrian catastrophe, behind the issue of the use of ‘chemical weapons’ in the Ghouta suburban area of Damascus on 21st August 2013, the concrete facts of which have yet to be established at the time of writing.

    Are we reacting to this current chemical weapons attack crisis in terms of crime and punishment? If so, are we certain about the facts of the crime and the identity of the murderer? Are we satisfied about the nature of the evidence? After all, in so many other aspects of our modern life we insist on valid evidence. Are we holding to the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’? It seems to many that the evidence in this case is in doubt and that it is not even paid serious attention, although in this case the consequences of ‘punishment’ will very likely result in numerous deaths. It is possible that the Syrian crisis may provoke a serious confrontation between America and Russia. Indeed, the war in Syria has been described as a proxy war between “the West” (mainly US,UK and their Arab friends) who are opposed to Iran (Syria’s ally) vs Russia and China (Iran’s supporters). If we think of the West and the East as ‘proxies’ for male and female in the human soul respectively, then we can also begin to relate to what is going on in the Middle East through our own soul life. We come into this earthly life through our mothers, the female element, which can be the East (sunrise), where earthly life begins. We leave it and return to the spiritual world through the West (sunset), through our fathers, the male element; this is especially the case in warfare, but it is also the case in the sense that old people’s bodies have become more ‘male’ i.e. hardened, linear, angular, mineral; the flowing, curvaceous watery life-giving element in them has dried-out. It may have been retained in their mental and emotional life but in their physical life it has not; it cannot be, otherwise we would continue to live physically forever. In European esoteric thought, these two poles of East and West, female and male, were symbolised by the archangels Gabriel, bearing the lily, and the armoured Michael, bearing his sword and/or scales. They stood at the respective portals of birth and death. In general, we can see in history how before Christ, in the continent of Eurasia, the Asian part was in the ascendant in terms of socio-cultural development. The name ‘Asia’ most likely comes from the Akkadian word asu(m) (rising – of the sun). But after Christ there was a gradual shift westwards, so that by 1600 Europe (the West) was beginning to take over the ascendancy. The word ‘Europe’ most likely stems from the Akkadian word erebu(m) (setting of the sun). This implies that in the long history of Eurasia, the pole of the female sensibility was long in the ascendant, whereas more recently the pole has shifted to the male sensibility. What is meant here is not male and female bodies but more in the sense of male and female psychology. When we see clashes in history between East and West, are we not actually looking at disharmonies between the male and female elements in the human soul and/or the struggle to find a balance between them, because not every conflict denotes an irreconcilable struggle. It can often be that conflicting parties in a personal relationship or in a war between peoples are in fact seeking to find a right relationship to each other.

    In the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia and US Presidential candidate in 2004, testified before Congress that some 10 days after 9/11, he had been told by a general in the Pentagon that the decision had been made to go to war against Iraq. He said he saw the same man a few weeks later and asked him: “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” the answer was: “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He was then told by this general how the Secretary of Defence’s office (Donald Rumsfeld) had passed down a memo stating that “we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” (2)

    All but two of those seven countries have been or are in the process of being ‘dealt with’ since 2003. Iraq was invaded and occupied; Gadaffi was overthrown in Libya; Sudan was broken up and a new pro-Western state, South Sudan, was created; after two decades of struggle between the USA, local warlords, Ethiopia, and Islamic fundamentalist groups, Somalia has been brought under pro-western control. Lebanon was attacked by Israel in 2006 and now the pro-Iranian Hizbollah militant movement in Lebanon has been drawn into the Syrian maelstrom; Syria itself is embroiled in a deadly insurgency and may face US attack. There have been signs of an impending American or Israeli attack on Iran for years now. Following a speech in June 2006 in Tel Aviv, Israel, by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice about “redrawing the Middle East”, a map appeared in that same month in an article in the US Armed Forces Journal which showed a future, much-changed Middle East. It was included in an article written by Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters of the Pentagon’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. Ralph Peters admits that his propositions are “draconian” in nature, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or “birth pang” in order to create the “New Middle East” that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision.(3) We can see from this map that a major change is the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, which would gain territory at the expense of Turkey, Iran, Iraq – and Syria.(4)

    But the major change for Syria would be the complete loss of its seaboard to Lebanon and this presumably, would only result from the overthrow of the current Syrian regime, led since 1970 by the Assad family, who belong to the Alawite sect of Sh’ite Islam. This loss of the seaboard would of be great significance to Russia, which would then lose its only warm water overseas naval bases at Latakia and Tartus. For centuries the Russians dreamed of being able to project naval power into the Mediterranean (more on that later), and for centuries the British and their successors the Americans have sought to block this aspiration.

    When that map appeared in 2006, Iraq was still in its post-war convulsions, the result of the American-led invasion of 2003 which, as is widely recognised today, had been brought about under false pretensions by the Neo-Con administration of George W. Bush. The thinking behind the Iraq War had been driven by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and many of the PNAC members were strongly pro-Israeli. Indeed, much of the design in that map In 2006 seemed to echo the main lines of a strategy laid out in an article which had appeared in 1982 in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the World Zionist Organization’s Department of Information.(5) The article “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980′s,” was authored by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. The article argued that increased security for Israel and the country’s transformation into a regional power could be achieved through the break-up of Arab states “into a mosaic of ethnic and confessional groupings that could be more easily manipulated” (p. 107): in other words, the old Roman technique of divide et impera. This came to be known as the Oded Yinon Plan, or just the Yinon Plan. The Yinon Plan (1982) stated that:

    …the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems…we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state….. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front…. Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. This timetable was not achieved in the 1980s, but it has been underway since 2001 and especially since the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011.

    Yinon goes on:

    Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbour, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

    It is important to realise that in the background of world events there are often blueprints and designs that have been conceived and drawn up by certain elites, and which guide their actions in a general way over decades, though they may have to work around temporary contingencies. At the end of World War One, in Europe the multi-ethnic Habsburg empire was broken up by the victorious Allies and parcelled out into small states along mono-ethnic lines in accordance with US President Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination as laid out in his ’14 Points’ doctrine. As it happened, each of these new states consisted of majorities and minorities, and the former tended to oppress the latter at least as badly as was ever the case under the Habsburgs. The multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire was taken away from the Turks and divided up along similar lines, often creating states with even larger minorities than in Europe. These states still exist. The Yinon Plan projected their future destruction and breakdown along even narrower ethnic and religious lines. We have been witnessing something like this since the Iraq War of 2003. The Yinon Plan is part of a much greater process that goes far beyond Israel and seeks to break down sovereign multi-ethnic states into mono-ethnic or mono-religious states as far as possible and then to re-combine these mono-ethnic states into notionally independent states that are in fact mere ‘provinces’ within regional economic blocs under the indirect control of the western powers. Such blocs are the Transatlantic Free Trade Area now under construction between N. America and the EU in the West, and in the East, the construction of the Trans-Pacific Partnership between western Pacific seaboard countries and the nations of Australasia and East Asia. The USA is driving the construction of these two mega-economic blocs which it intends to control. The construction of the EU out of the European Economic Community (1957) was the model for these developments.

    The Economic Struggle for Syria
    Entirely in the interests of Israeli security, then, we see staked out 30 years ago in the Yinon Plan the transformation of the Middle East. But Israel’s own economic interests are also at stake here besides mere political and security issues, and in the modern epoch, since the 15th century, it has been increasingly economic interests that have been at the forefront of world affairs, as they provide the material basis of global power for would-be global hegemons such as Britain and America. It was the need to secure for the Royal Navy a safe monopoly over the newly discovered Middle Eastern oil resources, for example, that was a major factor in Britain’s participation in the First World War. In recent years, Israel too has enjoyed an unexpected energy bonanza. In 2009 and 2010, a pair of U.S.-Israeli consortiums exploring the seabed near Haifa discovered the Tamar and Leviathan fields, which collectively hold an estimated 26 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas…. once developed, [these] could satisfy Israel’s electricity needs for the next 30 years and even allow it to become a net energy exporter.(6) Israel’s desire to market some of this energy to the region might well conflict with the intentions of Syria to make the most of its own energy advantages: In 2011, Syria announced it had discovered a promising gas field in the city of Homs, which would later see some of the fiercest battles between Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and the rebels. Oil Minister Sufian Allawi told the state-run SANA news agency that the first wells “were in the Homs governorate and the flow rate is 400,000 cubic meters per day.”(7) Obviously, new energy-based wealth for Syria would tend to strengthen Syria as a state, which would run counter to the lines laid down in the Yinon Plan that regarded Arab states as inherently weak and advocated their destabilisation and fragmentation them.

    Crossing Pipelines: Syria to Iran
    But Syria is not only a gas producer; it is now in line to become a major energy transit point: Iran, Iraq and Syria signed a deal in 2010 to construct a natural gas pipeline that would bring gas from Iran’s South Pars field to Europe via Syria. This has been dubbed “the Islamic pipeline”; perhaps it ought rather to be dubbed “the Shi’ite Pipeline”, because Iran and Iraq are both predominantly Shi’ite Muslim states, while Syria’s governing Alawite sect is a sect within the Shi’ite wing of Islam. Hizbollah, the powerful pro-Iranian militant group in Lebanon, is also Shi’ite, so one sees here the emergence of a kind of corridor of economic relations between Shi’ite states, extending from the Mediterranean Sea in Lebanon and Syria through Iraq to Iran. Turkey and Qatar, both states with large Sunni majorities, stand to lose from this gas pipeline, as they have their own competing energy projects: Turkey wants to become the main conduit for oil and gas from Central Asia via the Black Sea to Europe, while Qatar, which has its own liquified natural gas for sale, is also put out by the prospect of the ‘Shi’ite pipeline’. Both countries are known to be heavily supporting the rebels in the Syrian conflict, as is Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, mainly for religious and thus anti-Iranian reasons. Turkey and Qatar would apparently like to see the removal of Assad and his replacement by a pro-Western regime that would allow them to drive their own pipeline interests through Syria.

    How do we personally relate to these pipeline issues? Energy, of course, supports the European economy, which supports the British economy and thus our lifestyles; as long as Britain, for example, refuses to invest seriously in renewable energy, or in nuclear or in shale gas (fracking), then, as North Sea oil declines, much of Britain’s energy must also come from abroad. This means that Britain would continue to be involved in disputes in the Middle East as it has been for 100 years now.

    The Syria-Iran pipeline connection takes us onto a much larger geopolitical stage – one on which Iran has for millennia occupied a central position between the Indian subcontinent and the Mediterranean and European regions. In terms of esoteric history as described by Rudolf Steiner and others, we can recall that there was a slow but steady movement of cultural development from East to West from very ancient times until about 1600. While today the spring equinox point is in Pisces and so we say we are now in the Age of Pisces, the epoch of the Consciousness Soul (1413-3573), in which, according to Rudolf Steiner, the northern European Germanic peoples have a special role to play, long ago in the period 5067 – 2907 BC, the spring equinox point was in Gemini and in that time Iran was the leading culture. Since those ancient Zoroastrian times with their struggle between Ahura Mazda (light) and Ahriman (dark) Iranian culture been associated with dualism and thus with Gemini, the sign of the Twins, the heavenly and the earthly, and so perhaps it is not accidental that we find today the Iranians not only trying to set up an economic link with two other countries, to their west – Iraq and Syria, but also, to their east, they are trying to do the same with Pakistan and India. Dubbed the “Peace Pipeline”, “the IPI pipeline” (Iran-Pakistan-India) was first conceived 60 years ago but gathered impetus only in the 1990s. Iran has also sought to interest other countries, including China, in the project. US President George W. Bush pressurised India to withdraw from the project, offering it nuclear technology, and both the US and Saudi Arabia have repeatedly sought to tempt Pakistan to abandon participation in it, but the Pakistanis have resisted all such blandishments, and the Iran-Pakistan part of the project is due for completion in December 2014.

    However, the IPI pipeline has to pass through the province of Balochistan, and since that 2006 map referred to earlier, which showed a ‘Free Balochistan’ carved out of Pakistan, we have seen the latest wave of the long-running Balochi “independence movement” steadily growing. There have been five such waves since the 1940s; the last ended in 1977. The most recent wave began two years before that 2006 US Armed Forces Journal map, and as negotiations for the IPI pipeline were getting serious.

    afj.ralph peters_map_after

    The headquarters of most of the Balochi independence groups are in London! The resource-rich Pakistani province of Balochistan has a long coast on the Indian Ocean and a major port at Gwadar (notably shown on the 2006 map; click on above to expand) which was built by the Chinese in 2007. The Americans would prefer that the IPI pipeline does not happen and that their own companies in Turkmenistan to the north (Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Halliburton, Honeywell)(8) would pipe gas from fields in that country via Afghanistan and Balochistan out through Gwadar to the West. The US thus sees it as a political and economic ‘interest’ to tighten the US economic ‘blockade’ of Iran, frustrate Iran’s pipeline projects and increase Iran’s political isolation.

    America always tells the world that its desire to put pressure on Iran is because of its attempt to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime, it says, cannot be trusted and therefore cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons; it must be stopped from developing them. We can ask, how many nations has Iran attacked since World War II? The answer is none. In the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s Iraq, prompted and armed by the West, invaded Iran, and Iran defended itself. By contrast, how many countries has the US bombed since World War II? The answer is at least 28.(9) As with Iran, the US government is now telling the world that its threatened attack on Syria is only to block the proliferation of chemical weapons. These efforts to stop nuclear and chemical weapons proliferation might seem like laudable humanitarian goals that would benefit mankind. But there is no American proposal for a general peace deal for the entire region in which Pakistani, Indian, Iranian and Israeli nuclear weapons would all be under discussion. There is no talk of this, because in order to cloak its real motives, which invariably have to do with stark goals of political or economic power, western elites invariably like to use fine-sounding, inspiring humanitarian ideals that people will be willing to vote, fight and die for. One can think of ‘defending Belgium from brutal aggression’ in 1914, defending Poland from brutal aggression in 1939, S. Korea in 1950, S. Vietnam in 1964, Kuwait in 1990/91, to name but five cases. It is hard to motivate young men to kill and die for barrels of oil or for increased profits for transnational corporations, so something more uplifting has to be presented such as “preventing genocide” (Yugoslavia 1990s) “women’s rights” (Afghanistan 2000s) and now “upholding international law” (Syria). One of America’s greatest political scientists and economists, Joseph Schumpeter, (1883-1950) wrote in 1919 in his book Imperialism and Social Classes about ancient Roman foreign policy:

    There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest – why, then it was national honour that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbours …The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, it was manifestly Rome’s duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs.

    Here we are again confronted in our feelings. The British and American elites have for at least two centuries seen themselves as the new Romans, the bringers of law and order, civilisation and enlightenment to an unruly world. Do we also individually recognise in ourselves the need for someone to uphold law and order in society and in the world? Or do we think individual conscience alone should suffice in the modern age? Does someone not have to do this often unpleasant and difficult work? And if it is not done, how can mankind progress? Will civilisation not be overwhelmed by the forces of selfishness and savagery? We are after all, only some 500 years on in the West from the Middle Ages, and the slave trade was abolished only 200 years ago. But: if the ‘police’ are discovered to have acted unjustly on the basis of contrived evidence and false accusations because they have their own selfish ulterior motives, are we not entitled to object?

    The Eurasian Balkans and ‘the Heartland’
    Schumpeter was an academic, a theorist. Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928 – ) began as an academic and went on to become a practitioner of global politics at the heart of the US Carter administration in the 1970s. Co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission (1973), he was a man whose views directly influenced practical foreign policy at the highest level and he is still very influential today. In 1997, in his book The Grand Chessboard, which focused very much on what he called ‘Asia’s Balkans’, he wrote:

    The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia’s richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant….the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.

    Rudolf Steiner spoke about the mismatch between real motives and surface motives in the English-speaking world in the following way:

    …what constitutes the profoundest impelling forces in Western occultism is fostered by nothing more powerfully than by the development of feelings that are untrue but are sensed as in some way holy, and that can represent the people of the East and especially those of the Central countries as barbarians.(10)


    We remember the British characterisation of the Germans in 1914 as ‘the Huns’ and in more recent times of the frequent comparison of opponents of the UK and US with Hitler: Saddam Hussein, Slobodan, Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Muammar Gadaffi and now Bashar al Assad – all have been likened to Hitler and his ‘barbarism’ in an effort to motivate the peoples of Britain and America to ‘fight the good fight’ against them. Steiner went on in that same lecture to speak of ‘material occultism’ in the West – the conscious effort by secretive occultists in western countries to spread materialism for far-reaching evolutionary goals:

    The potentialities of material occultism… are fostered by the attitude of mind constituting the so-called crusading temperament in America. This consists in the feeling that America is called to spread over the whole earth freedom and justice and I know not what other beautiful things. Of course, the people there believe that. What I am saying here has nothing to do with fault finding. The people believe that they are engaged in a crusade… (10)

    General Eisenhower used the phrase ‘The Great Crusade’ to motivate his troops on D-Day in 1944, and President George W. Bush on 16th September 2001 said that “We haven’t seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time….This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while”, and on 16 February 2002, speaking of Canadians, he said: “They stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren.”

    But in that same lecture Steiner insisted that the English-speaking peoples carry the main burden of the development of the modern epoch (since the 15th century), which is that the individual is to learn to stand on his own spiritual feet, as it were, and become spiritually autonomous, free of any ‘tribal’ impulses. However, the English-speaking peoples, he says, express this individualistic impulse in an instinctive manner. It is, as it were, given to them rather than them having to struggle for it. It is not hard to understand what this means when one reflects that the home of the English-speaking peoples was originally a small island, and that, rightly or wrongly, they came to define themselves as a people beset by hostile continental enemies. However, the modern epoch is only 600 years old, not long in evolutionary terms, and that ‘standing on one’s own feet’ occurs, to begin with at least, in a self-seeking way, as it very often does with adolescents, which is why, says Steiner, politics and economics in the English-speaking world have been necessarily self-seeking, whether for the individual citizen, the individual company, individual party or individual country. This is notably the nature of Anglo-American capitalism, for example. This is not a question of blame; it has simply been the reality. We can hope that in the distant future, this sense of individuality and autonomy that has been developing since the 15th century and which Steiner referred to as the evolution of the Consciousness Soul (the self-defining individual, conscious of who he really is) will mature to something that is not self-seeking but understands its interrelationship with earthly nature, with its fellow human beings and with the spiritual world. Indeed, the seeds of that maturity are already appearing in our time in many ways, but they are still but seeds in the grand scheme of things. When we see how the fruits of Darwinist natural selection in the natural sciences are so readily applied in the English-speaking world to business, politics and the social sciences and thus only serve to amplify this instinctive self-seeking in this early phase of the development of the Consciousness Soul, then we can understand how Steiner could say:

    The really important fact is that in groups in the West who keep their knowledge secret the greatest pains are taken to see that things shall develop in such a way as to insure under all circumstances the mastery of the West over the East…. the goal striven for is to establish a caste of masters in the West and a caste of economic slaves in the East, beginning with the Rhine and extending eastward all the way into Asia. This does not mean a caste of slaves in the ancient Greek sense, but a caste of economic slaves organized in a socialistic way to take up all sorts of impossibilities in the social structure that then shall not be applied among the English-speaking peoples. The essence of the matter is to make the English-speaking peoples into a population of masters of the world.(10)

    Do we not refer semi-jokingly to leading businessmen today as “masters of the universe”? In Steiner’s day that caste of economic slaves was to be in Russia and Eastern Europe; today, it is further east in China, where so many of our western consumer goods are made by assembly lines of ‘economic slaves’. Supporters of our Anglo-American model of economy often justify this with the phrase “raising people out of poverty”.

    You see the essence of the thing is that if no resistance is raised from the East, and by the East I mean the whole region lying from the Rhine eastward even into Asia, British world domination will develop after the destruction of the Roman-Latin French element in the way intended by those forces….lying behind the instincts.(10)

    Today, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s career and his ideas, as presented in his many books, show him to be one of those elite thinkers whose thoughts (and previously, actions) are very much connected to the forces behind the scenes of western actions. In his Grand Chessboard, for example, he reveals that much of the thinking behind modern American foreign policy is actually based on British imperial policy of 100 years ago, and this is not surprising, as the two elites share the same worldview and in their speeches, statements and writings they constantly remind the world that they do so. So, in his book (p.38) Brzezinski repeated the mantra of Britain’s imperial geostrategist Halford Mackinder, from 1904 in his groundbreaking lecture that year to the Royal Geographical Society – “The Geographical Pivot of History” - which is often regarded, in the English-speaking world at least, as the beginning of ‘geopolitics’: “Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world.” By the ‘Heartland’, Mackinder meant central Asia north and west of India, a region then largely controlled by Russia, and much of which has since been prised from Russia and made into independent states, easier for the West to pick off one by one in Brzezinski’s fragmented Eurasian Balkans. The European Balkans are the area from which power can be projected into this Heartland region. Mackinder’s mantra has guided Anglo-American strategists for 100 years. It explains why US troops are now based at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, US missiles in Deveselu, Romania, and dozens of US bases at numerous points between Kosovo and Manas, Kyrgyzstan, near the Chinese border. The energy and raw materials routes from ‘the Heartland’ to Europe have to be secured by today’s new Romans; they are the material foundation of global power.

    Mackinder was part of a group of new imperialist thinkers that included the likes of Alfred Milner, Arthur Balfour, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Albert Grey, Lionel Curtis and Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), often known as the Round Table Group, or the Rhodes-Milner Group, who advocated the metamorphosis of the 19th century ‘boots on the ground’ mode of imperial control into a new more indirect form of economic empire which would take into account the growing wave of nationalist resistance to direct imperial control. It would enable the continued control of the vast region around the Indian Ocean and its hinterland – the Heartland: the gold and diamonds of South Africa, up through Africa to the Suez Canal, the oil of the Middle East and the vast resources of India, Central Asia and Australasia. Mackinder wrote in 1919, the year in which this group founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House): “If the World Island [Eurasia] be inevitably the principal seat of humanity on this globe, and if Arabia, as the passage land from Europe to the Indies and from the Northern to the Southern Heartland, be central to the World Island, then the hill citadel of Jerusalem has a strategical position with reference to world realities not differing essentially from its ideal position in the perspective of the Middle Ages, or its strategical position between Babylon and Egypt.” (11) Here we see Mackinder aware of the material concerns of the modern Consciousness Soul epoch as of the political-ideal concerns of the previous Greco-Roman epoch (747 BC – 1413 AD) and the rivalry between the two civilisation of the even earlier Egypto-Chaldean epoch (2907 – 747 BC). We recall that it was Mackinder’s imperialist colleague Lord Balfour who as Foreign Secretary in 1917 offered Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people to Lord Rothschild. “…the Suez Canal,” Mackinder noted, “carries the rich traffic between India and Europe to within striking distance of an army based on Palestine…..The Jewish national seat in Palestine will be one of the most important outcomes of the war. That is a subject on which we can now afford to speak the truth….a national home at the physical and historical centre of the world, should make the Jew ‘range’ himself.” What did this mean, that “the Jew should range himself” ? Mackinder meant that Jews should settle in one nation in the land of Palestine and embrace modern nationalism rather than being a dispersed cosmopolitan people. A further clue lies in the words that the Zionist Herbert Samuel addressed to his Cabinet colleague, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey on 9 November 1914 in their first discussion of the possibility of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, should England win the war: “British influence ought to play a considerable part in the formation of such a state, because the geographical situation of Palestine, and especially its proximity to Egypt, would render its goodwill to England a matter of importance to the British Empire.”(12)

    Britain, the Zionists hoped, would now do for the Jews what the Persian King Cyrus the Great had once done – return them to their ancestral home. The Iranian Cyrus was thus honoured by Jews, and the influence of Iranian Zoroastrianism upon Judaism and later on Christianity as a result of the Jews’ Babylonian Exile was considerable.(13) In the 20th century, however, Israelis and Iranians have become bitter enemies. Iran is also a major sore point for the USA in its whole policy for the region, and Syria is one of Iran’s closest allies. In the relation between Syria and Iran, another mysterious element enters the picture: the Testament of Peter the Great.

    The Testament of Peter the Great.
    This was a fraudulent document released by the authorities in Napoleonic France after Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in October 1812. It had actually been written by a Polish General Micha? Sokolnicki (1760-1816) while imprisoned in Russia in 1797. Russia had swallowed a large part of Poland, which had ceased to exist as a state, so many Poles fought for France against Russia. Sokolnicki later gave his document to the French Directory, having titled it “Aperçu sur la Russie” but by 1812 it was published at Napoleon’s behest by the French Foreign Office to justify his invasion of Russia, with a new title: “Progress of the Russian Power, from Its Origin to the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century”. It became known as The Testament of Peter the Great and was passed off as the actual Last Testament of Czar Peter I (1682-1725) – his ideas for Russia’s foreign policy strategy for world domination. Despite later being exposed as not stemming from Peter at all but from Sokolnicki, the document continued to be referenced as a key element in western, especially British and French, Russophobic writings for the next 200 years, and this should be kept in mind – that it was circulated to serve western interests. The strange thing about this document is that although it definitely had nothing to do with Peter – who had visited Holland and Britain and employed a number of western advisers – it nevertheless did contain some of the leading strands of Russian foreign policy that had been followed since his death; one of the main ones was the intention to seize Constantinople for Russia and secure access to the Mediterranean for the Russian navy. In Sokolnicki’s original document there were 13 paragraphs but in the French publication of 1812 a significant extra paragraph had been added as the eighth:

    He [Peter] recommends to all his successors to grasp the truth that trade with India means world trade and that he is the true ruler of the world who has exclusive control of this trade with India. Therefore, no opportunity is to be lost to make war upon Persia and hasten its degeneration in order to press forward to the Persian Gulf and via Syria, re-establish the old trade with the Levant. (14)

    This clearly reflects French awareness of the importance of British control of India; it was in order to take India from the British that Napoleon had invaded Egypt in 1798. It is noteworthy that France had built up considerable commercial interests in Syria by 1914 and would acquire the League of Nations Mandate to govern Syria after World War One (1920-46). But we see here in the paragraph above also awareness of the ancient trade route from India overland via Iran to Syria and the Mediterranean. Iran is the central key here, both to India and to the Mediterranean, and it is Iran that Britain and Russia in their ‘Great Game’ for control of Eurasia, and now America in its desire to realise Mackinder’s Eurasian vision, have always striven to control, both for its geostrategic position, as intimated in the Testament, and later, due to its oil resources. So it is that we find today, entirely in the direction indicated in the Testament, the Russians friendly with Iran and Syria, which are allied with each other and with naval bases in the latter. After Indian independence in 1947 Russia usually had good relations with India too, but since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s Britain and America have sought in various ways to open up India’s huge market and draw India towards themselves, away from its previous non-aligned, independent position and especially away from Russia and China. Russia has thus lost ground in its relations with India.

    A 21st Century scenario
    The final piece in this ‘Syriana puzzle’ is provided by an article in The Economist of London that appeared in December 1992 in the aftermath of the First Gulf War and the collapse of the USSR. Whereas the Testament of Peter the Great was a fake document from the past, this 1992 article was a ‘fake’ view of the future in that it was a so-called imaginary scenario of what would happen in the world by the middle of the 21st century. But once again, as with the Testament, this imaginary scenario bears a remarkable resemblance to what has actually been unfolding, in this case, since 9/11, and therefore, like the Testament, it seems to bear the imprint of insight and knowledge that emerges from unseen, if not to say ‘occult’ (i.e. hidden) directions. The 1992 Economist scenario described a military coup in Saudi Arabia that would break out in the year 2011, the effects of which would spread throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, leading to the eventual emergence of “a new Muslim entity”, a united “Muslim power” (predominantly Sunni), which would ally itself with China to attack Russia and the West over the next decades. These developments that began in 2011 would lead to a major Eurasian continental war between the West (USA & Europe) and the East (Muslim entity & China) by about 2050, the main victim of which would be Russia in the middle. According to this scenario, Russia would lose all its territory east of the Urals and would become a purely European state. (N.b. this would enable it to be drawn in the future into a European Union allied to the USA). Besides the flashpoint of 2011, the scenario specifically mentions the date 2014, when “a bungled Anglo-French expedition to Antioch failed to prevent the invasion of Turkey. The forces of the New Caliphate swept up to the Bosphorus, and in the war of the Sanjak (2016), established their first bridgehead in south-eastern Europe.” The ancient city of Antioch, whose converts were the first to be called “Christians”, is currently a ruin outside Antakya, Turkey, but it was always traditionally regarded as a Syrian city.

    In the event, the Arab Spring of 2011 was sparked in Tunisia and really took off in Egypt, next door to Saudi Arabia, but nevertheless, it was indeed a military coup in effect, and this has only been underlined by the Egyptian events of 2013 and the army’s ousting of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. The significant point, however, is the timing indicated – 2011 and the claim that a major anti-western radical force would emerge from the Muslim world. There are many esoteric references in this Economist article which suggest occult knowledge, and I have analysed it in detail in my book Mapping the Millennium (1998, reissued 2013). One can well ask whether the Arab Spring which got underway in 2011 is not in fact intended to destroy the old Middle Eastern states of the post-World War One era so that a new pan-Muslim radical entity can arise, based on rage and resentment against the West, rather as the Bolsheviks replaced the so-called ‘Democrats’ in the two revolutions in Russia in 1917. This new entity would supply the West with a major new eastern ‘Green’ antagonist to replace the ‘Reds’ of the Cold War – a prospect that the giant western arms manufacturers of the military-industrial complex would only welcome, not to mention those companies that can look forward to the business of reconstruction in countries that have been devastated by wars. The graph below shows only too clearly the relation between war and US corporate profits.(15)



    No wars or periods of military tensions means… less profit. The Economist scenario thus envisages another East-West bipolar divide for the 21st century, as we had in the 20th century. This would enable the US and the UK, whose elites are the self-regarding inheritors of the Roman Empire, the bringers of light, civilisation, law and order (16), to consolidate ‘the West’, bound by economic ties on both sides of the Atlantic (NAFTA/EU), and allied to its partners around the Pacific (TPP) and the Indian Ocean, (notably India) in what would, in effect, be a re-run of Mackinder’s old picture of the alliance of what he called the ‘Sea Wolves’ of the maritime periphery (British Empire & USA) against the Eurasian ‘Land Wolves’ (Russia, China, and the Muslim world). That would be a dire prospect indeed for the 21st century, and one which we can seek to fend off by first understanding the intentions of those who wish to bring it about.

    Mention of Antioch in the Economist article above leads on to the more esoteric aspect of the Syrian crisis, which will be addressed in the second and final part of this article.

    Notes

    (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Syriana
    (2) http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166
    (3) See: http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882 Peters was “one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy.”
    (4) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/The%20Project%20for%20the%20New%20Middle%20East.jpg
    (5) The World Zionist Organisation was founded 1897 in Basel and is now headquartered in Jerusalem. A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982,
    the text can be read here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf
    (6) http://www.foreignaffairs.com/Border_Disputes_and_Gas_Fields_in_The_Eastern_Mediterranean#
    (7) http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/is-this-what-syria-war-really-about/
    (8) http://www.azernews.az/oil_and_gas/48476.html
    (9) William Blum, Rogue State – A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (2002), pp.93-4
    (10) R. Steiner lecture 1.12.1918 in The Challenge of the Times, lect.3 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA186/English/AP1941/ChaTim_index.html
    (11) F.William Engdahl, A Century of War – Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, (1993) p.57
    (12) R. Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem, (1983) p.66
    (13) Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BC, ended the kingdom of Judah and exiled the king and many of the wealthy to Babylon. The Babylonian Empire subsequently fell to the Persians under Cyrus who allowed the Jews to return in 538 BC
    (14) E.Grosse, Das Wirken der okkulten Logen und die Aufgabe der Mitte zwischen Ost und West, (1987) p.72
    (15) http://www.davemanuel.com/images/graphs/us_military_spending_1962-2015.gif
    (16) “…the only alternative to American leadership is global anarchy” – Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control (1993) p.146

  • Anmeld

    Michael Menneske · Selvsøger

    Og til de som virkelig tør udfordre sin horisont:


    Syriana? Part 2
    Posted by Terry Boardman on Jan 2, 2014 in east west issues, most recent | 0 comments
    This article was first published in New View magazine #70 Jan. – Mar. 2014

    The first part of this article (in New View #69 Oct-Dec2013) outlined some of the economic and geopolitical aspects to the current war in Syria. Since it was written and published, there have been major developments in the region. Following a vote rejecting military action against Syria by the UK Parliament on 29 August, US President Barack Obama called off what had seemed in late August to be an imminent western attack on Syria after unproven Anglo-American claims that the Syrian government had committed a genocidal gas attack against its own people on 21 August in Ghouta, Damascus. Then on 23/24 November came an agreement in Geneva between Iran and six major powers (US, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany) for a temporary suspension of western economic sanctions against Iran in return for Iran scaling back elements of its nuclear programme. The deal was hailed as ‘historic’ by Obama’s allies but by his opponents it was seen as “Munich II”, a crass example of the worst kind of appeasement, once again the usual comparison here being made between any opponent of the USA and Adolf Hitler (1). Since Iran has been a major supporter of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, it is also being said that the agreement with Iran may bring a breakthrough in the Syrian crisis. As the forces supported by the US, UK and France in the Syrian war appear to be losing ground not only to the Syrian army but also to the more fanatical Sunni Islamist fighters and other assorted mercenary fighters sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, it seems that some in the West may now be thinking that the best hope for getting rid of Assad may not be by war after all but through a deal with the Iranians. Needless to say, this prospect does not please those in the region who regard Iran as their inveterate enemy, namely, Israel and the conservative Sunni Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. However, before we assume that all are acting in good faith in this agreement, and that a general peace is about to break out in the Middle East, we should perhaps recall that optimism about Munich in the autumn of 1938 was followed a year later by the outbreak of war in Europe, while before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, relations between Britain and Germany had actually been at their best for several years (2). Even in the teutophobic Foreign Office it was felt, notably by Sir Edward Grey’s secretary, Sir William Tyrrell, that from 1913 Britain was “relieved, at least for a long time to come, of [what he called] the German menace” (3). Yet within 5 weeks of Sarajevo, the two countries were at war! Much could yet go wrong therefore with the US-Iran deal.

    The 33 Year Rhythm
    Nevertheless, it will be noteworthy for those interested in esoteric science that this deal comes some 33 years after the US embassy hostage crisis in Iran. Why should that be of interest? On 23 December 1917 in Basel, Switzerland, Rudolf Steiner spoke for the first time of a new periodicity that he said had entered human history with the Christ Event, namely, the 33 year rhythm. As he put it:

    “Prior to the Mystery of Golgotha…the magi studied the heavens when they wished to investigate the secrets of human evolution or any other mysterious event. …But at that moment in which they became aware of the important event that was happening on earth…they said, ‘From this time onward the heavenly constellations will be directly revealed in human affairs on earth.’… The time interval between Christmas and Easter is to be understood as consisting of 33 years. This is the key. What does this mean? That the Christmas Festival celebrated this year [1917] belongs to the Easter festival that follows 33 years later [1950], while the Easter festival we celebrate this year [1917] belongs to the Christmas Festival of 1884….This is the key my dear friends for reading the new astrology….events happening at approximately the present time (we can only say approximately in such matters) refer back in their historical connections in such a way that we are able to perceive their birthdays or beginnings in the events of 33 years ago…..All the actions of earlier generations ….poured into the stream of historical evolution have a life cycle of 33 years. Then comes its Easter time, the time of resurrection. ….all things in historical evolution arise transfigured after 33 years, as from a grave, by virtue of a power connected with the holiest of all redemptions: the Mystery of Golgotha”

    At that time Steiner pointed to the events of 1881, 33 years before 1914. In 1881 there had been two other major assassinations – those of Czar Alexander II of Russia and of President James Garfield of the USA. The Great War began as what can be called the Third Balkan War – with Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia, which it sought to punish because of Serbian involvement in what was quite clearly an act of terrorism – the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Heir Apparent in Sarajevo and his wife. The ‘Third Balkan War’ was preceded by the First Balkan War in 1912-1913 and the Second in 1913. The First Balkan War was sparked by Italy’s attack on Ottoman Turkey in 1911 and its seizure of Libya (then called Tripolitania) from the Ottomans. The series of crises that finally erupted in the great pan-European war that had been feared by many and eagerly awaited by some for decades thus began in North Africa in 1911. 100 years later (3 x 33), we saw the ‘Arab Spring’ break out in 2011, the consequences of which are still unfolding, just as the consequences of Italy’s attack on Ottoman-controlled Libya were still unfolding in 1913. It was pointed out in the first part of this article that The Economist had in 1992 indicated that a global conflict would begin in the Middle East in 2011. In the light of Steiner’s comments about the 33 year cycle, we can see the three year period 1911-1914 as an ‘Easter’ that had its beginning in the ‘Christmas’ three year period of 1878-1881. What happened in that period?

    The Congress of Berlin (1878) occurred 33 years before 1911. Italy’s attack on Ottoman Turkey in 1911 can thus be seen as the outcome of earlier attacks on the declining Ottoman Empire which had begun in 1875 with rebellion in Herzegovina and Bosnia against the Turks; this led on to the Russo-Turkish War and the Congress of Berlin itself, which was intended to be a comprehensive settlement of the Balkan troubles. The Bosnian rebellion of 1875 had its own consequence 33 years later in 1908, when Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, causing a European crisis (1908-09) that was itself only settled with difficulty and was directly related to the outbreak of war in 1914 when Serbia and Russia were determined not to be forced to back down again as they had been in 1908-09 by Austria-Hungary and Germany. To gain support from Austria-Hungary for their own anti-Russian position and to offset Britain’s seizure of Cyprus from Turkey at the Congress of Berlin (4), Britain’s representatives, Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury, supported Austria-Hungary’s desire to take over Bosnia-Herzegovina; it was proposed the territory should be administered by Austria-Hungary for 30 years while remaining nominally under Turkish sovereignty.

    Turkey was forced to give Britain Cyprus (located opposite Syria to the east and opposite Egypt to the south and therefore a convenient base for the navy to keep watch on the Suez Canal), and then in 1882, under the Liberal Prime Minister Gladstone, Britain happened to commence a ‘temporary’ occupation of Egypt which lasted until 1952! Control of Egypt and the Canal was seen predominantly in terms of securing Britain’s hold on India. By 1910 the Admiralty had realised that to maintain Britain’s naval pre-eminence, her fleets would have to be powered not by coal, of which Britain itself had plenty, but by oil, of which Britain had very little indeed. Britain thus had two strong motivations for seeking to dominate Egypt and the Near East - the Suez Canal and Mesopotamian oil – and both were focused primarily on securing India. 33 years after Britain”s occupation of Egypt in 1882, itself the result of joint Anglo-French pressure on Egypt in order to safeguard Anglo-French interests in the Canal, Britain and France engaged in what became the disastrous attempt to invade Turkey at Gallipolli (1915). They both had their plans for breaking up the Turkish Empire and seizing parts of it for themselves.

    1916-Sykes-PicotMap-01That summer of 1915 a French diplomat, Francois Georges-Picot, arrived in London to press France’s claim to the whole of Syria and a sizeable part of southern Turkey. On the 21st December, the Foreign Office arranged for him to meet Sir Mark Sykes, a self-appointed ‘expert’ on the Middle East who only days earlier had impressed the Cabinet with his plan to (literally) draw a line in the sand “from the ‘e’ of Acre to the last ‘k’ in Kirkuk” (as Sykes put it; click on map to enlarge) and demarcate French control of Syria above the line from British control of what would become Transjordan and Iraq below the line. This was intended to enable the British a) to have territory safeguarding the Canal from the east and b) to enable Britain to send oil overland via a pipeline from Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the Mediterranean at Haifa (today in Israel, just south of Acre). On 3 January 1916, Sykes and Picot concluded their secret arrangement, subsequently known as “Sykes-Picot”; Palestine was vaguely intended to be subject to ‘international control’. With the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 the pre-war Franco-Russian Alliance ended, and with it ended also Britain’s desire to be close to France, the pre-war imperative of British Edwardian foreign policy having been to forestall any Franco-Russian threats to Britain’s Empire by entering into Ententes with these two main imperial rivals. Hence, in late 1917 the British government turned against the Sykes-Picot deal, which had been signed when the war situation had looked very different, and instead began to imagine how it could force France out of Syria and the Levant altogether (the view of T.E. Lawrence and others, for example) and control the whole region itself, notably the crucially important Canal and the Mesopotamian oilfields. It is in this changed geo-political context that the Balfour Declaration to the Jews (2 November 1917) needs to be understood. Instead of an internationally governed Palestine, a modernising, Jewish satellite state in a Palestine under British ‘guidance’, it was felt, would not only win for Britain the thanks of wealthy Jews in America, useful in the future, but would also serve as a good ‘sentry’ for British imperial interests in the region (5). Britain could thus supervise the future of Palestine itself, without French involvement in Palestine, or anywhere in the Middle East. 1917 was 33 years after 1884, when a conference in Berlin attempted to bring some kind of regulation to the imperialist Scramble for Africa which had been spurred by Britain’s occupation of Egypt and Belgium’s acquisition of the Congo. So we see that these events affecting the Muslim Ottoman Empire from 1875 to 1917 well reflect the 33 year life cycle of Jesus Christ and end up in the city of Jerusalem, where the Mystery of Golgotha occurred and which the British General Allenby took from the Turks on 11 December 1917, becoming the first ‘Christian ruler’ of the city since 1187. It may yet be that the recent US-Iran deal will, 33 years on from the hostage crisis of 1980, bring to an end to a very difficult period in relations between Iran and the West and even contribute to terminating the war in Syria.

    Antioch, Syria and T.E. Lawrence
    The first part of this article (New View Issue 69, Autumn 2013) closed by referring to a 1992 article in The Economist which imagined a world war scenario in the first half of the 21st century that would get underway in 2011 in the Middle East. One of the first major military operations in the war, it was imagined, would be “a bungled British-French expedition (2014)” to the city of Antioch to try to prevent the invasion of Turkey by the Chinese-Muslim alliance.(6). The fact that the article stipulates that the war would feature an attack fighting at an ancient city associated with the beginnings of Christianity seems not accidental. Today Antioch is in Turkey and known as Antakya, but it was formerly long associated with Syria and called Antiokia. ‘Antioch the Great’, founded in 293 BC by Seleucus I, one of Alexander’s generals, was a metropolis in ancient times with half a million people. The birthplace of St. Luke, it was the capital of the Roman province of Syria and one of the very earliest Christian centres, where Peter, Barnabas and Paul preached. It was the first place where converts were referred to as ‘Christians’ and was known as “the cradle of Christianity”. Many translations were later made there into Syriac of theological, scientific and philosophical works. It is located in the northeast corner of the Mediterranean, at 36 degrees North and 36 degrees East, in a region which has been very significant over the centuries, and the long eastern needle of the nearby large island of Cyprus points to this corner of the Mediterranean.

    The Knights Templar had castles on Cyprus for over a hundred years after the fall of Jerusalem (1187). British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli described Cyprus and Alexandretta (today Iskenderun, Turkey), a coastal city near to inland Antioch, as “the keys to Asia”. What did he mean by that? While working in Cairo in 1915 the young intelligence officer T.E. Lawrence (two years later he would become famous as “Lawrence of Arabia”) wrote that “the only place from which a fleet can operate against Egypt is Alexandretta. It is a splendid natural naval base which we don’t want but which no-one else can have without detriment to us”(7).

    “At the outset of World War I when Britain was contemplating the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, Lord Kitchener considered the conquest of Alexandretta to be essential in providing Britain with a port and railhead from which to access Iraq [i.e. Iraqi oil, the rights to drill for which Britain had only just acquired]. He proposed a new railway from Alexandretta which would greatly reduce the time for reaching India from the UK. The de Bunsen Committee (8 April – 30 June 1915), a British inter-departmental group which was set up to discuss the issue in greater detail, preferred Haifa [today, on the coast of Israel] for this purpose [and Haifa was eventually decided on] (8).

    In 1878 Alexandretta and the coast of Syria belonged to Turkey, and since that region could not be acquired without war, the British government saw Cyprus opposite the Syrian coast as the next most useful base for their navy in the Eastern Mediterranean from which to safeguard their recently acquired (1875) investments in the Suez Canal. It became even more important when William Gladstone’s Liberal government occupied Egypt seven years later in 1882; they claimed the occupation would only be temporary, but Britain ended up staying in Egypt for 70 years, until 1952! The reason was of course the Canal, the lifeline to India and the rest of Britain’s imperial possessions in Asia and the Pacific. Cyprus became still more important to Britain when the French decided that they wanted Syria to become a French colony and sent M. Georges-Picot to London to negotiate its acquisition. This was because France had certain commercial, educational and religious interests in Syria and some pretentious romantic notions about the French heritage in the region dating back to the time of the Templars; Antioch and the Syrian and Lebanese coastline and hinterland had formed part of the Crusading States which existed for 200 years in the 11th and 12th centuries. T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”), who had conducted archaeological digs in Syria before the war, was under no illusions about such French claims; he wanted to “biff the French out of all hope of Syria” and suggested attacking the Turks at Alexandretta rather than at Gallipoli: “So far as Syria is concerned, it is France and not Turkey that is the enemy”, he wrote in 1915. (9) French concern to keep Britain out of Syria scotched Lawrence’s proposal.

    Anglo-American ‘Values’
    Now, readers may be wondering: what does all this have to do with the esoteric aspects of the Syrian crisis, which this article is supposed to be about? Since ‘the fall’ of Communism in 1989-91, the emphasis in what can be called western propaganda has shifted from ‘the Reds’ to ‘the Greens’, green being the traditional colour of Islam. So-called ‘Islamist Terror’ has for 20 years now been presented as the great global threat to the West (“they hate our freedoms” – George W. Bush) and has been used to justify not only a massive extension of surveillance – everything from Internet spying to killer drones - and the curtailment and infringement of western societies’ civil rights, but also a number of wars and military actions of various kinds, as well as the use of torture and unlimited detention. All this has been defended as necessary by the mainstream media and governments of the US, the UK and their allies.

    These same societies all subscribe to a certain form of economic and political practice that originated in the 18th century in Britain and America and which was declared, after the end of Communism, would now become the norm throughout the world(10). These practices are usually called ‘democracy’ and ‘free market liberal capitalism’. But what this model of economic and political practice has been based on since the 18th century is a certain philosophical view of the human being. Despite the repeated elevated use of words such as ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’, this view of the human being can only be described as the ‘freedom’ of the self-seeking personality, and the economic system that has developed to reflect this ‘freedom’ is one that is informed by a view of the human being as self-centred, materialist and acquisitive. These qualities are regarded as ‘realistic’, ‘natural’ and ‘pragmatic’. What I want, what my family wants, what my party wants, what my social class or national tribe wants – these are seen as the priorities. Such self-centred views and attitudes inevitably led the peoples of western Europe into an historical phase of imperialist self-aggrandisement and acquisition.

    Parallel with the emergence of the economic and political practices that reflect these ‘philosophical’ proclivities has been the steady decline of organised religion over the past 150 years and a consequent moral relativism and philosophical materialism – to the point where today our scientists and media pundits can soberly discuss or eagerly enthuse about the prospects for civil rights for animals (as we are held to be genetically animals too) and for the replacement of human beings by machines and supercomputers (as our brains, which supposedly define us, are held to be but machines anyway). ‘Transhumanists’ such as the American inventor, futurologist and Technical Adviser at Google, Ray Kurzweil, are eagerly looking forward to the end of the biological human race by the middle of this century (See his books The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999) and The Singularity Is Near (2005)). Such philosophical, economic and political ideas are only possible when one cannot or does not appreciate that a non-physical spirit can incarnate into and unite itself with a physical entity or body. This concept of a spiritual incarnation is the very basis of Christianity. St Paul said that If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain… (1 Cor 15: 14-17), but the Resurrection of Christ was only possible because what was present in and with that human body of Jesus of Nazareth was a divine spirit, not an ordinary human spirit. In other words, it was possible because of the Incarnation of Christ in Jesus – which, according to Steiner, occurred at the Baptism in the river Jordan and not at the birth of the baby Jesus. If we have no incarnating spirit (which according to Steiner, first unites itself with the human body after conception and then increasingly and ever more deeply in the 21 years or so after birth), and if we are but material entities determined by our brains and our genes, then we are essentially no different from animals or from machines and any talk of a higher ego, or of the evolution of consciousness is vain. Evolutionary biologists, ‘cheered on’ by the media (New Scientist, Scientific American et al.), are even at present trying to prove that moral qualities such as altruism and acts of charity are actually due to prehistoric drives determined by natural selection and are intrinsically nothing to do with individual choice or free will, which, it is argued, cannot in any case exist, as we are essentially beings determined by our environment or by our genes and by electro-chemical activities in our brains. We shall therefore remain with a purely material body that includes four elements – mineral, fluid, gaseous and heat elements and nothing beyond that (until we are replaced by Kurzweill’s supercomputer robots).

    Despite all the talk among particle physics theorists since the mid-1990s about the 11 dimensions of space-time which are also understood in abstract materialist terms, the reduction of the human being to its lower elements, the assertion that there is essentially nothing beyond them, is the dominant (though I do not say the only) philosophy, the prevailing ‘religion’, if you will, of the Anglo-American world today. It is usually called ‘secular humanism’ and informs the science, the education, the economic and political practices as well as much of the culture and entertainment of the English-speaking world, and as this is the dominant culture in the world today, those practices proceed from it into other cultures. What we call conventional religion in the English-speaking world – Christianity, for example - is something that stems from the previous epoch, from before the 15th century, but the doctrine of ‘secular humanism’, the mainstream economic and political practices of Anglophone societies, has emerged only in our post-Reformation, post-Renaissance, post-Enlightenment culture. Christianity may well only come into its own in our epoch as it becomes a really individual experience free of collective and tribal restraints but historically, Christianity did not begin in our epoch or in our western region; it began 2000 years ago in the Middle East, in places like Galilee, Jerusalem and Antioch. What elements in our culture have been increasingly seeking to do over the past 200 years is eradicate Christianity utterly from this world. Not only are the traditional Churches continually under attack in the media but the very concepts of spirituality and spiritual experience themselves are either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant and old-fashioned in a “scientific and secular age”.

    Nestorian Christianity in Syria
    But while the traditional Christianity of the churches may be undergoing a slow crucifixion on the Cross of “secular humanism”, on the intellectual Place of the Skulls, (a modern Golgotha), a new spirituality and a new Christianity are already emerging like visible buds on a tree from which the leaves have all fallen in winter. They are emerging from experiences in individuals’ lives which turn those lives around. Perhaps the first example of those experiences which turn people to Christ, even though He is not physically present, but present in the spiritual world close to the earth, was Saul’s experience in Syria 2000 years ago on the road to Damascus, where he became one of the first to experience Christ in the suprasensible world. This experience turned Saul away from the evil that he himself had been doing in persecuting the Christians of his day. The experience made him blind for three days, and it was in Damascus that he received back his sight through Ananias’ blessing and was baptised. After he escaped from Damascus, where his life was in danger, he came to Jerusalem, and the only one of the disciples who would help him was Barnabas, who was himself from Cyprus. Not long afterwards Saul was sent by the apostles to Tarsus his home city, which is just round the corner, literally, from Antioch, and across the sea from Cyprus. Barnabus was then sent to Antioch and on to Tarsus and found him and brought him to Antioch, where they preached together for a year “and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). It was also in Antioch that Saul (now Paul) and Barnabas began to preach to Gentiles and accept them as Christians (Acts 13:45-50). Paul and Barnabas were very successful in their preaching in Antioch; almost the entire population came to hear them (Acts 13:44). Acts 14:26 has a significant passage about Paul and Barnabas: which points to the significance of Antioch: “And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled”. It was really from Syrian Antioch, which lies at 36°North of the equator and 1°East of Jerusalem, that the Christian message first went out into the wider world! (Acts 13).

    For many centuries of early Christian history Antioch and Alexandria in Egypt vied with each other for the theological direction of the young Christian Church. The philosophical heritage of Aristotle was strong in Antioch while that of Plato flourished in Alexandria. Christian scholars in Antioch by c.400 AD were emphasising the human aspects of the Incarnation of Christ and gradually moved towards a view of Jesus Christ as two persons, the divine Logos and the human Jesus, while those in Alexandria laid emphasis on His divinity and oneness. Eventually, in the early 5th century these differences erupted in the great struggle between Bishop Nestorius of Antioch (386-450) and Bishop Cyril of Alexandria (c.376 – 444). Nestorius, a student of Theodore of Mopsuestia of the School of Antioch, insisted that Mary was not Theotokos (Mother of God) because she had not given birth to a god but to a human baby, while Cyril maintained that Mary was true Theotokos and had literally given birth to a divine being: “If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore the holy Virgin is theotokos—for she bore in the flesh the Word of God become flesh—let him be anathema.” This struggle reflected that between the Monophysite (single nature) leanings of the Egyptians and the more Duophysite (dual nature) inclinations of the Antiochene theology, which tended to emphasise the different elements in the nature of Jesus Christ rather the unity of His nature. This Antiochene view showed the influence of Aristotle’s differentiated understanding of the spirit-soul-body relation, which was known and studied in Antioch in Nestorius’ lifetime:

    Aristotle’s anthropology…is a strongly dualistic teaching of the relation of the spirit to the body: the spirit comes from outside, it might even be pre-existent, it enters into a polar relation to the sensitive and vegetative soul permeating the body and generates a field of tension similar to the colour realm between light and darkness. Finally, it drives away the opposition coming from the body, and causes part of the body to die – paralyzes it, presses it back…. The spirit remains choristos (separated), it remains apathes (non-suffering), and amiges, (not mixed with the body).(11)

    Nestorius was defeated by the schemes of Cyril and his supporters, condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431) and forced into exile (12). At the Council he was supported only by John, Bishop of Antioch and 33 others. Gradually, his view of the Incarnation of Christ, with its Aristotelian influence, moved further East, to Persia, and from there to India and China. It became known as the Nestorian Church or the Church of the East and survives today in the Assyrian Church of the East in Iran, Iraq and Syria.(13).

    Gondishapur
    After the Emperor Zeno closed the Mesopotamian School of Edessa in 489 on account of its Nestorian tendencies, Nestorian scholars, taking aristotelian ideas with them, wandered into the Sassanid Empire in Persia, where they were welcomed at the city and Academy of Gondishapur. Here they and their successors were later joined in 530-533 by seven Athenian philosophers, exiles from the pagan School of Athens, which had been closed by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in 529. The city of Gondishapur (Camp of Shapur) was built by Sassanid Emperor Shapur I (240-272), using Roman army prisoners of war, after he had defeated the Roman Emperor Valerian (253-260), captured him and had retaken Antioch from the Romans. Shapur originally called his new city Veh-Az-Andev-Shapur (‘City of Shapur, better than Antakkye’ [Antioch]) so there is even a connection between Antioch and Gondishapur in the original name of Gondishapur. Shapur I’s wife was the daughter of the Roman Emperor Aurelian, and she brought with her to Persia Greek doctors who taught Hippocratic medicine in the new city, so there were western medical connections with it from its very beginnings. The School or Academy at Gondishapur was founded by Shapur II (309-379) and soon became noted for its medical studies. The Academy was at its peak during the reign of Khosrau I Anushiravan (“The Immortal”, 531-579; cf. the Prophet Mohammed was born in Arabia in 570; the Emperor Justinian ruled in Constantinople for much of Khosrau’s reign). Medicine, anatomy, dentistry, astronomy, mathematics, geometry, philosophy, military leadership, architecture, craftsmanship, agriculture and irrigation were taught there, and the Academy, which was both the premier research centre and teaching hospital in Sassanid Iran, if not the world west of India (14), was located in the province of Khuzestan, S.W. Iran, in the region where Iran and Iraq fought their 8 year-long war 1980-88. Its ruins today lie near the village of Shahabad, 14 km south-east of Dezful, on the road to Shush (see picture). Today, there is a university in the region that seeks to continue the medical tradition; it is known as the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. Iran has never been far from the centre of world events since the Iranian revolution in 1978/79, the US embassy hostage crisis of 1980 and the subsequent hostile relations between Teheran and Washington – relations which only this year, 33 years after the crisis of 1980, seem to be heading in a more positive direction since the coming to power of the new, 7th Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, on 15 June this year.

    In typical dualist Iranian tradition (15), the “Immortal” Khrosrau looked to both East and West, to the Mediterranean and to India and China for inspiration and knowledge. The rich combination of intellectual views which competed and communicated with one another at the Academy of Gondishapur between c.500 and c.640 (16) was further fertilised by the development at Gondishapur of the game of chess and the practice of refining sugar, which, respectively, stimulate a purely intellectual consciousness and give an artificial boost to the ego and the willpower. A kind of intellectual ‘hothouse’ thus developed at Gondishapur at the crossroads of western Asia, and at the centre of that hothouse was medical science, the philosophies of Aristotle and the Neoplatonists (translated from Greek into the Syriac language, a Semitic form of Middle Aramaic) and the Christian religious ideas of Nestorianism. These were rubbing shoulders there, as it were, with the dualist religion of classical Zoroastrianism and the later Iranian development of Zoroastrianism known as Zurvanism (the worship of the monotheistic divinity Zurvan (17), or ‘Infinite Time’ who was seen as the originator or father of the twins Ahura Mazdao (light, truth) and Ahriman (darkness, lies).

    To this unique cosmopolitan intellectual hothouse (18) which had received such a strong influence from Syria and from Greek thought translated into Syriac, (teaching at the Academy was in Greek, Syriac and Pahlevi) came in the 7th century two powerful spiritual forces. One was that of the ‘new’ monotheistic faith of Islam which arose like a storm out of the Arabian desert and in just two decades had swept away the ancient Persian Empire which had become exhausted by its long battles against the Eastern Romans (the Byzantines). The Arab armies also arrived at Gondishapur shortly after 638. According to Rudolf Steiner, Islam’s arrival had the effect over the following decades of putting a lid on the bubbling cauldron of the intellectual ferment that was Gondishapur and thus of blunting the global impact of the other spiritual force at that time, which had worked into human thinking at the Academy over the previous decades. This was the extremely negative influence of the spiritual being Sorath (of whom more later). Steiner associated the first Sorathic attack on humanity around the year 666 with the prodigious but premature intellectual developments at Gondishapur. These developments would have flooded the western world in the 7th and 8th centuries with a technical and scientific knowledge and especially with an understanding of the human being for which the western world was neither then ready nor sufficiently mature. For whereas the world of Asia had conceived of the I as something cosmic and divine, bestowed on the human being from above, as it were, so that it had more of a Gnostic and collective rather than an individual nature, in Europe, and especially northern Europe, the human I was developing as something individual within the human will active in earthly deeds. Steiner termed the 4th Post-Atlantean epoch (747 BC – 1413 AD) the age of the development of the Verstandes-Gemütsseele; the usual translation is ‘Intellectual-Mind Soul’ but ‘Intellect and Mind Soul’ might be more accurate). In other words, human beings in that epoch learned to understand the world rationally (Verstand) for themselves but also to reflect inwardly on their feelings (Gemüt), to live within the feeling and will. One could say that Verstand was more objective and collective, and Gemüt more subjective and personal. It was this latter quality of the Gemüt which needed to develop in the peoples of northern and western Europe before they were exposed to the power of the rational intellect. In Asia, the traditional social hierarchies, patterned on supra-personal cosmic models, had served to maintain social order for millennia. These did not exist in Europe north of the Mediterranean. The wild will forces of the Celtic, Germanic and later, Slavic peoples had first to be moulded by Christian religious feeling in the human soul life (Gemüt) before Europe was really ready, by the early 17th century, to adopt the ways of thinking of natural science mediated to it by the Arabs. What we today would call Islamic fundamentalism actually blunted the impulse of Gondishapur but was unable to stamp it out. It leaked out of the cauldron from under the Muslim lid, so to speak, and under the impress of the thoughts of Muslim teachers in later centuries who were influenced by the intellectual spirit of Gondishapur, men such as Averroes and Avicenna (19), it metamorphosed into the natural science of the European West in the subsequent age of the Consciousness Soul. Sorath had sought to propagate it some 1000 years before its time in order to pervert human development. It is instructive that the place where ‘he’ sought to do so, the Academy of Gondishapur, featured the study of medicine, Aristotelian philosophy, and (Nestorian) Christianity, all of which might normally be regarded as positives. This points us back to the Mystery of Evil – how good and evil are frequently intertwined, and how the forces of evil so often seek to invert those of good and abuse them for their own purposes.

    The Counter-Sun Spirit
    Precisely because our epoch since the 15th century is the epoch of the struggle for freedom, the epoch in which human beings endeavour to realise what they really are, this epoch is what Steiner called the age of the Mystery of Evil, that is, of our struggle to comprehend Good and Evil. Why evil? In this epoch human beings wake up to their true nature in the struggle with evil, both within them and outside them, and it is in this epoch that after the ‘Crucifixion’ and death of the traditional Christian churches which is going on presently, “by a strange paradox, mankind is led to a renewed experience of the Mystery of Golgotha in the fifth epoch [1413-3573] through the forces of evil”(20) that is, in the struggle with evil. By the end of the previous epoch, human beings had learned to think for themselves instead of the Gods thinking through them, a process similar to teenagers learning to think for themselves instead of thinking what their parents tell them in the years before puberty. In seeking to understand the Christ Mystery, human beings used their new-found capacities for intellectual thought to try to understand Christ’s birth and death, hence conflicts arose such as that between the theologians Nestorius and Cyril. Further east, Buddhists used their thinking to try to understand why human beings were born and died and how they could escape from that process. But in our epoch, we have descended so low into materialism that not only do we still not understand what matter actually is and not only are we incapable, through the inadequacy of our religious and natural scientific concepts, of comprehending what birth and death really are, the only way we seem to be able to wake up to the existence of a moral and spiritual dimension is through the shocks, personal, communal or societal, of the encounter with radical evil. This has been ever more the case over the past 100 years since the First World War.

    The spiritual entity for whom the eradication of Christianity is the goal, for whom the eradication of any notion of human spiritual being is the goal, and for whom the creation of a dark void around each individual, the eclipse of each human being’s light and love, so to speak, the spiritual entity that inspires what has traditionally been called ‘black magic’, in which light and love are eclipsed by the need for personal power, is called in western esotericism Sorath and has been known in Europe since at least the 15th century (21). Mediaeval esotericists, basing their ideas on older Jewish Kabbalist teachings which were themselves drawing on more ancient Middle Eastern knowledge, held that every heavenly body had a physical aspect and a spiritual aspect just as human beings do and that the heavenly bodies had their own beneficent and baleful spiritual beings that indwelt them. Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, student of abbot Johannes Trithemius of Sponheim (1462-1516), wrote of Sorath as the baleful ‘spirit’ of the Sun as distinct from the beneficial ‘intelligence’ of the Sun, which he named as Nachiel Sorath can therefore be regarded as as a kind of Double of the Sun, a Counter-Sun being, or ‘Black Sun’. According to Steiner, every 666 years, Sorath, whose name in gematria has the numerical value of 666 (Samech Vau Resh Tau S-V-R-T: 60-6-200-400) resumes his particular assault on humanity, which is to seek to prevent humanity from rising above its animal nature, to prevent it from transmuting its ‘self-centred ego (its ‘eclipsed’ self, one could say) into its higher (Sun) self. This is intimately connected with the emergence (or non-emergence) in the human being of the Consciousness Soul, also called by Steiner the Spiritual Soul (22). It is in the epoch of this Consciousness Soul development, in the 5th Post-Atlantean epoch (1413-3573), that we are challenged in this way, for this is the epoch in which we are to emerge from the collectivities and group affiliations of the past (race, ethnic group, family, religion or even gender). Each one of us faces the choice of falling into a self-centred lower nature or rise into true humanity.

    Steiner points to the two attacks of Sorath that occurred around the years 666 and 1332 and indicated that a third was due around 1998. He said that these attacks never occur through an incarnation of Sorath into a particular human being (as with the Incarnation of the Christ being in Jesus) but only act spiritually through human thinking and willing. He makes clear that these attacks refer not to one year but to a period around that year. How long is this period? Steiner does not say precisely but we can gain a good clue by considering the second of the attacks, which was associated with the destruction of the Knights Templar by King Philip IV (‘the Fair’). A signature of Sorath is spiritual ‘inversion’ – things are turned inside out, upside down, light becomes darkness (Philip was called ‘the Fair’ because he was handsome but in his cold, deceitful and sadistic treatment of the Templars, he was anything but ‘fair’.) Philip’s attack on the Templars began with their sudden arrest on false charges in France on Friday 13th October 1307. 1307 was 25 years before 1332, the second 666 date. If we postulate a similar 25 year period after 1332, we arrive at 1357, so 1307-1332-1357 is a period of some 49/50 years (7 x 7). If we map this 49/50 year period onto the 1st and 3rd Sorath attacks in the 7th and 21stth centuries respectively, we come to 641-666-691 and 1973-1998-2023. With regard to the 3rd attack, when we consider the events that have occurred since 1973, especially in relation to the Middle East (David Rockefeller visited Communist Chinese leaders, foundation of the Trilateral Commission (23), Arab-Israeli War, the oil shocks, Saddam Hussein and Col. Gadaffi, the growth of terrorism, the Iranian Revolution, the US embassy hostage crisis, the murders of Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin, the Afghan Wars, the AIDS epidemic, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the Osama bin Laden phenomenon, the US Neo-Con Zionist Lobby, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, Bush’s War on Terror and the consequent creeping extension of electronic surveillance worldwide, the banking and financial crash of 2008, the US-Iran stand-off, the so-called “Arab Spring” and the events of 2011, and the war in Syria) and when we consider all these dark events in relation to the unipolar “New World Order” declared by US President George H.W. Bush on September 11th 1990, the “New Imperialism” of the Project for an American Century and the various moves towards a centrally organised global economic order signalled by the current ongoing negotiations for Atlantic and Pacific free trade blocs (24), at the centre of both of which would be the USA that, despite the evident failure of its economic model in the crash of 2008, shows no evidence whatsoever of seeking any fundamental change in that model, then we could feel justified in seeing in this catalogue of calamities since the early 1970s – which also includes the rapidly worsening ecological situation and the morphing of Communist China into a pseudo-capitalist State and world Power at what can only be called an unhealthy pace – evidence of the third attack of Sorath in our time which is likely to continue until at least the early 2020s. This third attack is taking place above all in relation to the human will, whereas the first attack in the 7th century was against human thinking.

    The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail
    But there has been a resonance with that first attack on thinking in that a phenomenon has been evident since the 1970s which might seem quite trivial by comparison with the catalogue of calamities mentioned above but which actually points to something very insidious, namely, the overt assault on Christianity through western publications and media phenomena such as the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) and the subsequent welter of books and films related to it, notably Dan Brown’s books, The Da Vinci Code (2003) et al. These books not only further traduce the Knights Templar, the 700th anniversary of whose persecution was marked in 2007 (25), but they claim that Christ was no divine being but either a Jewish King or a priest of Egyptian sex magic Mysteries and that he was married to Mary Magdalene, whose physical body was claimed to be the real Holy Grail, had had children by her whose descendents (sang réal) are ‘out there somewhere’ today waiting to be found. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail even identified such a descendent and suggested he might become the ruler of a United Europe! This line of publications and films since the early 1980s (thus within the Sorathic ‘window’ 1973-2023), emerging from Anglo-American economic interests (publishing and media companies) and pushed onto a global stage through extensive publicity, clearly represents a significant assault on the essence of Christianity – on the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. The claims made in these books have, fortunately, been thoroughly debunked by many people and shown to be false and fabricated (cf. the many critiques on the Internet), but it is worth noting the similarities between the modes of deception in these books and the lies spread by Philip IV against the Templars. It is also worth noting that a key event in the fabricated story of the Priory of Sion in these books, an alleged secret Order that the authors claimed had founded not only the Templars but also the esoteric Rose Cross movement, was the murder of the Merovingian Frankish King Dagobert II (a real personality) in the year 679, the result, according to the authors, of a betrayal of the Merovinigians by the Church. That was just 13 years after 666, so the key event in the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was also within the timeframe of the first Sorathic attack (641-691). Furthermore, the authors claimed that in 1188 at Gisors, France, in an event known as the ‘Cutting of the Elm’, the Priory of Sion cut its ties to its supposed progeny the Templar Order, disowned its ‘child’, and gave itself a new name – ‘the Order of the True Rose Cross’. Western esoteric lore has long associated the elm tree with Mercury, the figure that communicates and connects, but here we see Mercury and the Rose Cross deliberately associated with division, disagreement and separation; this would appear to be an example of inversion involving both an untruth and a half-truth. An untruth because there was no public Rosicrucian ‘movement’ before that in early 17th century Germany (Tübingen), and not even any covert Rosicrucian initiative before the mid-13th century, according to Steiner (26). A half-truth was involved because there was a disagreement between the Kings of England and France at Gisors in 1188 which did indeed apparently involve the cutting down of an elm tree, but this had nothing to do with any Priory of Sion, the Templars or the Rosicrucians. This kind of gratuitous mix of fact and fiction runs throughout The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and others which followed in its wake. (27) The Knights Templar were also at the centre of the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail; indeed, a common interest in the Templars was what brought the three authors - Briton (Henry Lincoln [real name Soskin], New Zealander Michael Baigent, and American Richard Leigh – together in the mid-1970s. So the period of the second Sorathic attack (1307-1357) also plays a big part in the story. Finally, the book itself – based on an artful weaving of a skein of truth, half-truth and untruth and the controversy surrounding the book – exploded like a time bomb in the media in the period of the third Sorathic attack 1973-2023. Despite the authors’ feeble protestations to the contrary, the common thread through the whole construction is its attack on Christianity. It is as full of deception as an earlier, more strident but less successful anti-Christian book, “The Jesus Scroll”, by the Australian, Donovan Joyce (1973). That book claimed to be “the fall-out” from “a time–bomb” that had exploded in November 1964, the alleged discovery of an ancient scroll from the time of the Roman siege of the Jewish stronghold of Masada (73-74 AD), a scroll which, according to Joyce, utterly undermined Christianity. Joyce’s book turned out to be as baseless as the history of the Priory of Sion. But there it was, published in 1973 at the very beginning of the third 666 period.

    Conclusion
    40 years on, as 2013 draws to a close, it will be remembered in Britain, amongst other things, as the year of the horrific killing of British soldier Lee Rigby in Greenwich, London on 22 May by two British citizens of Nigerian descent, both named Michael, who claimed to have killed Lee Rigby as ‘soldiers of Allah’. As I am writing this, the trial of the two men is taking place in London. Just after the killing, one of the men, Michael Adebolajo, was filmed saying: “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one … By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone… leave our lands and you will live in peace.” Adebolajo also pointed to the connection between British politicians’ actions and their consequences for ordinary British citizens. The situation in the Middle East, in Palestine, Egypt, Iran and Syria is overwhelmingly the consequence of western, mainly British imperialist actions before, during and after World War One (the occupation of Egypt, Sykes-Picot, the cynical promises made to both Jews and Arabs, the destruction and division of the Ottoman Empire). Those actions, based on the economic and political outlook of the English-speaking peoples since the 17th century, were taken to secure resources and a geopolitical position that could ensure a certain standard of living for the British people, especially those in the wealthier classes, and a position of prestige and prominence for the British Empire, and necessitated British (and later, American) intervention and interference in the lives of Middle Eastern peoples and control, either directly or indirectly, of their societies. Muslims have resisted this as fiercely as they resisted during the Crusades. Islam was able to burst out of Arabia after the death of Mohammed (632) because of the weakness of the rival empires of Persia and Eastern Rome (Byzantium). Those two empires weakened their own spiritual substance in suppressing the teachings of two great Christian teachers – Nestorius and Mani, the founder of the Manichaean spiritual stream. Mani was put to death in the new city of Gondishapur in 276. Some of the leading followers of Nestorius left Antioch and Syria and moved to Gondishapur. There, in the ‘hothouse academy’, they were enveloped by the spirit of Sorath, whose influence, Steiner tells us, could only be blocked at that time by the spiritual world unleashing against it the ‘new’ religion of Islam, which was animated by a pre-Christian impulse. Against the force of the Counter-Sun, the spiritual world inspired the religion of the crescent Moon.(28) And when was Steiner speaking about Sorath and Gondishapur as he did? During the British invasion of Syria and the final battles in the Middle East in October 1918; the Battle of Megiddo began on 19 September, Damascus was captured on 1st October, Aleppo on the 25th, and the Turks agreed to an armistice on 30 October.

    It was shortly before this, on 18 July 1918, the day after the massacre of the Russian Royal family by the Bolsheviks, that there came from the spiritual world, a king of another kind, someone whose life path showed the answer to what is represented by the violence of Michael Adebolajo, someone who as a younger man, like the young Adebolajo, was angry about injustice and sought to do something about it but who, through his own suffering in 27 long years in prison, where his prison number was 46664, went on to show the world how to deal with the forces of evil, how to overcome his own demons and most effectively demonstrate to the world the power of forgiveness and reconciliation - the black, white magician, Nelson Mandela.

    NOTES

    (1) http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/11/is-the-iran-deal-obamas-nixon-in-china-moment/281798/ and
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/24/Obama-worse-than-Munich
    (2) The Royal Navy was visiting the German Navy at Kiel at the time of the assassination, and the British had come to an arrangement that very month with the Germans regarding British oil rights in Mesopotamia which was very favourable to Britain (British finance provided 75% of the share capital to a joint Anglo-German backed company).
    (3) Valentine Chirol on Tyrrell 1913, quoted in Z. Steiner, Britain & the Origins of the First World War (1977), p.187
    (4) Cyprus, not far from the coast of Syria, is, though supposedly an independent country and member of the EU, still host to British military bases of all three services. Britain has paid some £300 million for this access since Cyprus became independent in the 1960s.
    (5) See James Barr, A Line in the Sand (2011); Jill Hamilton, God, Guns and Israel (2004), and Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem (1983) passim.
    (6) It must be emphasised that this scenario is not fated to happen, but it was what certain elite forces in the West were imagining would happen, and subsequent events would seem to suggest that they have actually been seeking to bring it about. For example, the Arab Spring Muslim uprisings began ‘on cue’ in 2011, exactly 100 years after Italy’s seizure of Libya from Turkey, a move that began the series of Balkan events that culminated in the First World War in 1914.
    (7) Quoted in James Barr, A Line in the Sand (2011), p.15.
    (8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandretta
    (9) Quoted in James Barr, A Line in the Sand (2011), p.39.
    (10) Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book “The End of History and the Last Man” was the most strident annunciation of this doctrine.
    (11) H.H. Schoeffler, The Academy of Gondhishapur – Aristotle on the Way to the Orient (1979) p.43. Schoeffler’s discussion of these questions is far more subtle and complex than can be described in detail in a short article such as this, and the reader is recommended to consult his book, published by Mercury Press. This aristotelian anthropology was further developed by Steiner, who described how our conscious spirit actually destroys the organic body by day necessitating the revivification of the body during sleep when the spirit is absent from the body.

    (12) It is worth noting that Antioch was one of the last Crusader territories to be lost by the Crusaders (1268) when the city was beseieged and taken by the Mamelukes of Egypt, now Muslim, of course, and its people sold as slaves. After this, Antioch steadily declined.
    (13) By the time of the Crusades it had become the most widespread Christian stream, with dioceses from Syria to China; it declined after the 14th century but still exists today in the forms of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church.
    (14) “[T]o a very large extent, the credit for the whole hospital system [of modern times] must be given to Persia.” —Cyril Elgood, A Medical History of Persia, quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gundishapur
    The Cambridge History of Iran described the Academy as “the most important medical centre of the ancient world (defined as Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East) during the 6th and 7th centuries”…. Khosrau “organized the world’s first medical symposium, in Ctesiphon in 550 CE, in which hundreds of physicians and religious figures from different countries participated. …
    http://www.tanaffosjournal.ir/files_site/paperlist/r_249_120919115823.pdf">http://www.tanaffosjournal.ir/files_site/paperlist/r_249_120919115823.pdf
    (15) The 2nd Post-Atlantean epoch was the Age of Gemini (5067-2907 BC), the age of the oldest Iranian culture, when the spring equinox was in Gemini, as today it is in Pisces.
    (16) Some five thousand students were studying at Gondi-Shapur during the reign of [Khosrau] Anushiravan, with five hundred scholars teaching in different scientific fields… http://www.tanaffosjournal.ir/files_site/paperlist/r_249_120919115823.pdf">http://www.tanaffosjournal.ir/files_site/paperlist/r_249_120919115823.pdf
    (17) The word is related to the Sanskrit word sarva, meaning all or everything and whole, complete; Zurvanism had disappeared by the 10th century, its monotheism presumably giving way to that of Islam.
    (18) The only rival in the ancient world at that time was probably the Buddhist academy at Nalanda near Patna, India; it flourished from the 5th to the 12th centuries. Whereas Nalanda was like a large university, with many students, Gondishapur was more of a specialist research centre
    (19) Avicenna (c.980-1037), Iranian philosopher and polymath; Averroes 1126-1198, Spanish Arab rationalist aristotelian philosopher
    (20) Steiner lecture of 25.10.1918 Collected Works GA 185
    (21) See, for example, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia libri tres (Three Books Concerning Occult Philosophy) 1530-1533. Each of these beings had a number associated with its name; that of Sorath is 666 and Nachiel 111.
    (22) One of the ways that European humanity was prepared before the beginning of the modern epoch for the emergence of the Consciousness Soul was by the story of Parzival, in which the hero Parzival advances through various hard trials from an innocent dullness to wakeful ethical insight and becomes the King of the Grail, that is, his own higher being is born from his own soul, something that had not been possible for the previous, fallen Grail King, Amfortas.
    (23) A semi-private organisation in which members of the elites of the three regions N.America, Europe, and E.Asia meet to discuss world issues. Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski as an extension of the even more secretive Euro-American Bilderberg Group (1954)
    (24) Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) (1995) or Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (2013) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (2010)
    (25) In 2007 the Vatican made known that, having discovered documents in its Secret Archive which proved that the Templars had never actually been heretics and that Pope Clement V had not in fact considered them to be such, the Templars were thus exonerated from all such charges – somewhat late in the day, some people might feel.
    (26) See Rudolf Steiner, Esoteric Christianity and the Mission of Christian Rosenkreutz, lectures of 1911 and 1912, Collected Works GA 130.
    (27) With regard to the principle of ‘inversion’, it is worth noting that Dan Brown is on record as saying he likes to hang upside down wearing gravity boots to give him ideas for his books! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4937754.stm
    (28) Steiner lecture 12 October 1918 Collected Works GA 184

  • Anmeld

    Michael Menneske · Selvsøger

    bedre postet?

    Syriana? Part 2
    Posted by Terry Boardman on Jan 2, 2014 in east west issues, most recent | 0 comments
    This article was first published in New View magazine #70 Jan. – Mar. 2014

    The first part of this article (in New View #69 Oct-Dec2013) outlined some of the economic and geopolitical aspects to the current war in Syria. Since it was written and published, there have been major developments in the region. Following a vote rejecting military action against Syria by the UK Parliament on 29 August, US President Barack Obama called off what had seemed in late August to be an imminent western attack on Syria after unproven Anglo-American claims that the Syrian government had committed a genocidal gas attack against its own people on 21 August in Ghouta, Damascus. Then on 23/24 November came an agreement in Geneva between Iran and six major powers (US, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany) for a temporary suspension of western economic sanctions against Iran in return for Iran scaling back elements of its nuclear programme. The deal was hailed as ‘historic’ by Obama’s allies but by his opponents it was seen as “Munich II”, a crass example of the worst kind of appeasement, once again the usual comparison here being made between any opponent of the USA and Adolf Hitler (1). Since Iran has been a major supporter of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, it is also being said that the agreement with Iran may bring a breakthrough in the Syrian crisis. As the forces supported by the US, UK and France in the Syrian war appear to be losing ground not only to the Syrian army but also to the more fanatical Sunni Islamist fighters and other assorted mercenary fighters sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, it seems that some in the West may now be thinking that the best hope for getting rid of Assad may not be by war after all but through a deal with the Iranians. Needless to say, this prospect does not please those in the region who regard Iran as their inveterate enemy, namely, Israel and the conservative Sunni Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. However, before we assume that all are acting in good faith in this agreement, and that a general peace is about to break out in the Middle East, we should perhaps recall that optimism about Munich in the autumn of 1938 was followed a year later by the outbreak of war in Europe, while before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, relations between Britain and Germany had actually been at their best for several years (2). Even in the teutophobic Foreign Office it was felt, notably by Sir Edward Grey’s secretary, Sir William Tyrrell, that from 1913 Britain was “relieved, at least for a long time to come, of [what he called] the German menace” (3). Yet within 5 weeks of Sarajevo, the two countries were at war! Much could yet go wrong therefore with the US-Iran deal.

    The 33 Year Rhythm
    Nevertheless, it will be noteworthy for those interested in esoteric science that this deal comes some 33 years after the US embassy hostage crisis in Iran. Why should that be of interest? On 23 December 1917 in Basel, Switzerland, Rudolf Steiner spoke for the first time of a new periodicity that he said had entered human history with the Christ Event, namely, the 33 year rhythm. As he put it:

    “Prior to the Mystery of Golgotha…the magi studied the heavens when they wished to investigate the secrets of human evolution or any other mysterious event. …But at that moment in which they became aware of the important event that was happening on earth…they said, ‘From this time onward the heavenly constellations will be directly revealed in human affairs on earth.’… The time interval between Christmas and Easter is to be understood as consisting of 33 years. This is the key. What does this mean? That the Christmas Festival celebrated this year [1917] belongs to the Easter festival that follows 33 years later [1950], while the Easter festival we celebrate this year [1917] belongs to the Christmas Festival of 1884….This is the key my dear friends for reading the new astrology….events happening at approximately the present time (we can only say approximately in such matters) refer back in their historical connections in such a way that we are able to perceive their birthdays or beginnings in the events of 33 years ago…..All the actions of earlier generations ….poured into the stream of historical evolution have a life cycle of 33 years. Then comes its Easter time, the time of resurrection. ….all things in historical evolution arise transfigured after 33 years, as from a grave, by virtue of a power connected with the holiest of all redemptions: the Mystery of Golgotha”

    At that time Steiner pointed to the events of 1881, 33 years before 1914. In 1881 there had been two other major assassinations – those of Czar Alexander II of Russia and of President James Garfield of the USA. The Great War began as what can be called the Third Balkan War – with Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia, which it sought to punish because of Serbian involvement in what was quite clearly an act of terrorism – the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Heir Apparent in Sarajevo and his wife. The ‘Third Balkan War’ was preceded by the First Balkan War in 1912-1913 and the Second in 1913. The First Balkan War was sparked by Italy’s attack on Ottoman Turkey in 1911 and its seizure of Libya (then called Tripolitania) from the Ottomans. The series of crises that finally erupted in the great pan-European war that had been feared by many and eagerly awaited by some for decades thus began in North Africa in 1911. 100 years later (3 x 33), we saw the ‘Arab Spring’ break out in 2011, the consequences of which are still unfolding, just as the consequences of Italy’s attack on Ottoman-controlled Libya were still unfolding in 1913. It was pointed out in the first part of this article that The Economist had in 1992 indicated that a global conflict would begin in the Middle East in 2011. In the light of Steiner’s comments about the 33 year cycle, we can see the three year period 1911-1914 as an ‘Easter’ that had its beginning in the ‘Christmas’ three year period of 1878-1881. What happened in that period?

    The Congress of Berlin (1878) occurred 33 years before 1911. Italy’s attack on Ottoman Turkey in 1911 can thus be seen as the outcome of earlier attacks on the declining Ottoman Empire which had begun in 1875 with rebellion in Herzegovina and Bosnia against the Turks; this led on to the Russo-Turkish War and the Congress of Berlin itself, which was intended to be a comprehensive settlement of the Balkan troubles. The Bosnian rebellion of 1875 had its own consequence 33 years later in 1908, when Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, causing a European crisis (1908-09) that was itself only settled with difficulty and was directly related to the outbreak of war in 1914 when Serbia and Russia were determined not to be forced to back down again as they had been in 1908-09 by Austria-Hungary and Germany. To gain support from Austria-Hungary for their own anti-Russian position and to offset Britain’s seizure of Cyprus from Turkey at the Congress of Berlin (4), Britain’s representatives, Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury, supported Austria-Hungary’s desire to take over Bosnia-Herzegovina; it was proposed the territory should be administered by Austria-Hungary for 30 years while remaining nominally under Turkish sovereignty.

    Turkey was forced to give Britain Cyprus (located opposite Syria to the east and opposite Egypt to the south and therefore a convenient base for the navy to keep watch on the Suez Canal), and then in 1882, under the Liberal Prime Minister Gladstone, Britain happened to commence a ‘temporary’ occupation of Egypt which lasted until 1952! Control of Egypt and the Canal was seen predominantly in terms of securing Britain’s hold on India. By 1910 the Admiralty had realised that to maintain Britain’s naval pre-eminence, her fleets would have to be powered not by coal, of which Britain itself had plenty, but by oil, of which Britain had very little indeed. Britain thus had two strong motivations for seeking to dominate Egypt and the Near East - the Suez Canal and Mesopotamian oil – and both were focused primarily on securing India. 33 years after Britain”s occupation of Egypt in 1882, itself the result of joint Anglo-French pressure on Egypt in order to safeguard Anglo-French interests in the Canal, Britain and France engaged in what became the disastrous attempt to invade Turkey at Gallipolli (1915). They both had their plans for breaking up the Turkish Empire and seizing parts of it for themselves.

    1916-Sykes-PicotMap-01That summer of 1915 a French diplomat, Francois Georges-Picot, arrived in London to press France’s claim to the whole of Syria and a sizeable part of southern Turkey. On the 21st December, the Foreign Office arranged for him to meet Sir Mark Sykes, a self-appointed ‘expert’ on the Middle East who only days earlier had impressed the Cabinet with his plan to (literally) draw a line in the sand “from the ‘e’ of Acre to the last ‘k’ in Kirkuk” (as Sykes put it; click on map to enlarge) and demarcate French control of Syria above the line from British control of what would become Transjordan and Iraq below the line. This was intended to enable the British a) to have territory safeguarding the Canal from the east and b) to enable Britain to send oil overland via a pipeline from Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the Mediterranean at Haifa (today in Israel, just south of Acre). On 3 January 1916, Sykes and Picot concluded their secret arrangement, subsequently known as “Sykes-Picot”; Palestine was vaguely intended to be subject to ‘international control’. With the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 the pre-war Franco-Russian Alliance ended, and with it ended also Britain’s desire to be close to France, the pre-war imperative of British Edwardian foreign policy having been to forestall any Franco-Russian threats to Britain’s Empire by entering into Ententes with these two main imperial rivals. Hence, in late 1917 the British government turned against the Sykes-Picot deal, which had been signed when the war situation had looked very different, and instead began to imagine how it could force France out of Syria and the Levant altogether (the view of T.E. Lawrence and others, for example) and control the whole region itself, notably the crucially important Canal and the Mesopotamian oilfields. It is in this changed geo-political context that the Balfour Declaration to the Jews (2 November 1917) needs to be understood. Instead of an internationally governed Palestine, a modernising, Jewish satellite state in a Palestine under British ‘guidance’, it was felt, would not only win for Britain the thanks of wealthy Jews in America, useful in the future, but would also serve as a good ‘sentry’ for British imperial interests in the region (5). Britain could thus supervise the future of Palestine itself, without French involvement in Palestine, or anywhere in the Middle East. 1917 was 33 years after 1884, when a conference in Berlin attempted to bring some kind of regulation to the imperialist Scramble for Africa which had been spurred by Britain’s occupation of Egypt and Belgium’s acquisition of the Congo. So we see that these events affecting the Muslim Ottoman Empire from 1875 to 1917 well reflect the 33 year life cycle of Jesus Christ and end up in the city of Jerusalem, where the Mystery of Golgotha occurred and which the British General Allenby took from the Turks on 11 December 1917, becoming the first ‘Christian ruler’ of the city since 1187. It may yet be that the recent US-Iran deal will, 33 years on from the hostage crisis of 1980, bring to an end to a very difficult period in relations between Iran and the West and even contribute to terminating the war in Syria.

    Antioch, Syria and T.E. Lawrence
    The first part of this article (New View Issue 69, Autumn 2013) closed by referring to a 1992 article in The Economist which imagined a world war scenario in the first half of the 21st century that would get underway in 2011 in the Middle East. One of the first major military operations in the war, it was imagined, would be “a bungled British-French expedition (2014)” to the city of Antioch to try to prevent the invasion of Turkey by the Chinese-Muslim alliance.(6). The fact that the article stipulates that the war would feature an attack fighting at an ancient city associated with the beginnings of Christianity seems not accidental. Today Antioch is in Turkey and known as Antakya, but it was formerly long associated with Syria and called Antiokia. ‘Antioch the Great’, founded in 293 BC by Seleucus I, one of Alexander’s generals, was a metropolis in ancient times with half a million people. The birthplace of St. Luke, it was the capital of the Roman province of Syria and one of the very earliest Christian centres, where Peter, Barnabas and Paul preached. It was the first place where converts were referred to as ‘Christians’ and was known as “the cradle of Christianity”. Many translations were later made there into Syriac of theological, scientific and philosophical works. It is located in the northeast corner of the Mediterranean, at 36 degrees North and 36 degrees East, in a region which has been very significant over the centuries, and the long eastern needle of the nearby large island of Cyprus points to this corner of the Mediterranean.

    The Knights Templar had castles on Cyprus for over a hundred years after the fall of Jerusalem (1187). British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli described Cyprus and Alexandretta (today Iskenderun, Turkey), a coastal city near to inland Antioch, as “the keys to Asia”. What did he mean by that? While working in Cairo in 1915 the young intelligence officer T.E. Lawrence (two years later he would become famous as “Lawrence of Arabia”) wrote that “the only place from which a fleet can operate against Egypt is Alexandretta. It is a splendid natural naval base which we don’t want but which no-one else can have without detriment to us”(7).

    “At the outset of World War I when Britain was contemplating the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, Lord Kitchener considered the conquest of Alexandretta to be essential in providing Britain with a port and railhead from which to access Iraq [i.e. Iraqi oil, the rights to drill for which Britain had only just acquired]. He proposed a new railway from Alexandretta which would greatly reduce the time for reaching India from the UK. The de Bunsen Committee (8 April – 30 June 1915), a British inter-departmental group which was set up to discuss the issue in greater detail, preferred Haifa [today, on the coast of Israel] for this purpose [and Haifa was eventually decided on] (8).

    In 1878 Alexandretta and the coast of Syria belonged to Turkey, and since that region could not be acquired without war, the British government saw Cyprus opposite the Syrian coast as the next most useful base for their navy in the Eastern Mediterranean from which to safeguard their recently acquired (1875) investments in the Suez Canal. It became even more important when William Gladstone’s Liberal government occupied Egypt seven years later in 1882; they claimed the occupation would only be temporary, but Britain ended up staying in Egypt for 70 years, until 1952! The reason was of course the Canal, the lifeline to India and the rest of Britain’s imperial possessions in Asia and the Pacific. Cyprus became still more important to Britain when the French decided that they wanted Syria to become a French colony and sent M. Georges-Picot to London to negotiate its acquisition. This was because France had certain commercial, educational and religious interests in Syria and some pretentious romantic notions about the French heritage in the region dating back to the time of the Templars; Antioch and the Syrian and Lebanese coastline and hinterland had formed part of the Crusading States which existed for 200 years in the 11th and 12th centuries. T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”), who had conducted archaeological digs in Syria before the war, was under no illusions about such French claims; he wanted to “biff the French out of all hope of Syria” and suggested attacking the Turks at Alexandretta rather than at Gallipoli: “So far as Syria is concerned, it is France and not Turkey that is the enemy”, he wrote in 1915. (9) French concern to keep Britain out of Syria scotched Lawrence’s proposal.

    Anglo-American ‘Values’
    Now, readers may be wondering: what does all this have to do with the esoteric aspects of the Syrian crisis, which this article is supposed to be about? Since ‘the fall’ of Communism in 1989-91, the emphasis in what can be called western propaganda has shifted from ‘the Reds’ to ‘the Greens’, green being the traditional colour of Islam. So-called ‘Islamist Terror’ has for 20 years now been presented as the great global threat to the West (“they hate our freedoms” – George W. Bush) and has been used to justify not only a massive extension of surveillance – everything from Internet spying to killer drones - and the curtailment and infringement of western societies’ civil rights, but also a number of wars and military actions of various kinds, as well as the use of torture and unlimited detention. All this has been defended as necessary by the mainstream media and governments of the US, the UK and their allies.

    These same societies all subscribe to a certain form of economic and political practice that originated in the 18th century in Britain and America and which was declared, after the end of Communism, would now become the norm throughout the world(10). These practices are usually called ‘democracy’ and ‘free market liberal capitalism’. But what this model of economic and political practice has been based on since the 18th century is a certain philosophical view of the human being. Despite the repeated elevated use of words such as ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’, this view of the human being can only be described as the ‘freedom’ of the self-seeking personality, and the economic system that has developed to reflect this ‘freedom’ is one that is informed by a view of the human being as self-centred, materialist and acquisitive. These qualities are regarded as ‘realistic’, ‘natural’ and ‘pragmatic’. What I want, what my family wants, what my party wants, what my social class or national tribe wants – these are seen as the priorities. Such self-centred views and attitudes inevitably led the peoples of western Europe into an historical phase of imperialist self-aggrandisement and acquisition.

    Parallel with the emergence of the economic and political practices that reflect these ‘philosophical’ proclivities has been the steady decline of organised religion over the past 150 years and a consequent moral relativism and philosophical materialism – to the point where today our scientists and media pundits can soberly discuss or eagerly enthuse about the prospects for civil rights for animals (as we are held to be genetically animals too) and for the replacement of human beings by machines and supercomputers (as our brains, which supposedly define us, are held to be but machines anyway). ‘Transhumanists’ such as the American inventor, futurologist and Technical Adviser at Google, Ray Kurzweil, are eagerly looking forward to the end of the biological human race by the middle of this century (See his books The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999) and The Singularity Is Near (2005)). Such philosophical, economic and political ideas are only possible when one cannot or does not appreciate that a non-physical spirit can incarnate into and unite itself with a physical entity or body. This concept of a spiritual incarnation is the very basis of Christianity. St Paul said that If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain… (1 Cor 15: 14-17), but the Resurrection of Christ was only possible because what was present in and with that human body of Jesus of Nazareth was a divine spirit, not an ordinary human spirit. In other words, it was possible because of the Incarnation of Christ in Jesus – which, according to Steiner, occurred at the Baptism in the river Jordan and not at the birth of the baby Jesus. If we have no incarnating spirit (which according to Steiner, first unites itself with the human body after conception and then increasingly and ever more deeply in the 21 years or so after birth), and if we are but material entities determined by our brains and our genes, then we are essentially no different from animals or from machines and any talk of a higher ego, or of the evolution of consciousness is vain. Evolutionary biologists, ‘cheered on’ by the media (New Scientist, Scientific American et al.), are even at present trying to prove that moral qualities such as altruism and acts of charity are actually due to prehistoric drives determined by natural selection and are intrinsically nothing to do with individual choice or free will, which, it is argued, cannot in any case exist, as we are essentially beings determined by our environment or by our genes and by electro-chemical activities in our brains. We shall therefore remain with a purely material body that includes four elements – mineral, fluid, gaseous and heat elements and nothing beyond that (until we are replaced by Kurzweill’s supercomputer robots).

    Despite all the talk among particle physics theorists since the mid-1990s about the 11 dimensions of space-time which are also understood in abstract materialist terms, the reduction of the human being to its lower elements, the assertion that there is essentially nothing beyond them, is the dominant (though I do not say the only) philosophy, the prevailing ‘religion’, if you will, of the Anglo-American world today. It is usually called ‘secular humanism’ and informs the science, the education, the economic and political practices as well as much of the culture and entertainment of the English-speaking world, and as this is the dominant culture in the world today, those practices proceed from it into other cultures. What we call conventional religion in the English-speaking world – Christianity, for example - is something that stems from the previous epoch, from before the 15th century, but the doctrine of ‘secular humanism’, the mainstream economic and political practices of Anglophone societies, has emerged only in our post-Reformation, post-Renaissance, post-Enlightenment culture. Christianity may well only come into its own in our epoch as it becomes a really individual experience free of collective and tribal restraints but historically, Christianity did not begin in our epoch or in our western region; it began 2000 years ago in the Middle East, in places like Galilee, Jerusalem and Antioch. What elements in our culture have been increasingly seeking to do over the past 200 years is eradicate Christianity utterly from this world. Not only are the traditional Churches continually under attack in the media but the very concepts of spirituality and spiritual experience themselves are either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant and old-fashioned in a “scientific and secular age”.

    Nestorian Christianity in Syria
    But while the traditional Christianity of the churches may be undergoing a slow crucifixion on the Cross of “secular humanism”, on the intellectual Place of the Skulls, (a modern Golgotha), a new spirituality and a new Christianity are already emerging like visible buds on a tree from which the leaves have all fallen in winter. They are emerging from experiences in individuals’ lives which turn those lives around. Perhaps the first example of those experiences which turn people to Christ, even though He is not physically present, but present in the spiritual world close to the earth, was Saul’s experience in Syria 2000 years ago on the road to Damascus, where he became one of the first to experience Christ in the suprasensible world. This experience turned Saul away from the evil that he himself had been doing in persecuting the Christians of his day. The experience made him blind for three days, and it was in Damascus that he received back his sight through Ananias’ blessing and was baptised. After he escaped from Damascus, where his life was in danger, he came to Jerusalem, and the only one of the disciples who would help him was Barnabas, who was himself from Cyprus. Not long afterwards Saul was sent by the apostles to Tarsus his home city, which is just round the corner, literally, from Antioch, and across the sea from Cyprus. Barnabus was then sent to Antioch and on to Tarsus and found him and brought him to Antioch, where they preached together for a year “and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). It was also in Antioch that Saul (now Paul) and Barnabas began to preach to Gentiles and accept them as Christians (Acts 13:45-50). Paul and Barnabas were very successful in their preaching in Antioch; almost the entire population came to hear them (Acts 13:44). Acts 14:26 has a significant passage about Paul and Barnabas: which points to the significance of Antioch: “And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled”. It was really from Syrian Antioch, which lies at 36°North of the equator and 1°East of Jerusalem, that the Christian message first went out into the wider world! (Acts 13).

    For many centuries of early Christian history Antioch and Alexandria in Egypt vied with each other for the theological direction of the young Christian Church. The philosophical heritage of Aristotle was strong in Antioch while that of Plato flourished in Alexandria. Christian scholars in Antioch by c.400 AD were emphasising the human aspects of the Incarnation of Christ and gradually moved towards a view of Jesus Christ as two persons, the divine Logos and the human Jesus, while those in Alexandria laid emphasis on His divinity and oneness. Eventually, in the early 5th century these differences erupted in the great struggle between Bishop Nestorius of Antioch (386-450) and Bishop Cyril of Alexandria (c.376 – 444). Nestorius, a student of Theodore of Mopsuestia of the School of Antioch, insisted that Mary was not Theotokos (Mother of God) because she had not given birth to a god but to a human baby, while Cyril maintained that Mary was true Theotokos and had literally given birth to a divine being: “If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore the holy Virgin is theotokos—for she bore in the flesh the Word of God become flesh—let him be anathema.” This struggle reflected that between the Monophysite (single nature) leanings of the Egyptians and the more Duophysite (dual nature) inclinations of the Antiochene theology, which tended to emphasise the different elements in the nature of Jesus Christ rather the unity of His nature. This Antiochene view showed the influence of Aristotle’s differentiated understanding of the spirit-soul-body relation, which was known and studied in Antioch in Nestorius’ lifetime:

    Aristotle’s anthropology…is a strongly dualistic teaching of the relation of the spirit to the body: the spirit comes from outside, it might even be pre-existent, it enters into a polar relation to the sensitive and vegetative soul permeating the body and generates a field of tension similar to the colour realm between light and darkness. Finally, it drives away the opposition coming from the body, and causes part of the body to die – paralyzes it, presses it back…. The spirit remains choristos (separated), it remains apathes (non-suffering), and amiges, (not mixed with the body).(11)

    Nestorius was defeated by the schemes of Cyril and his supporters, condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431) and forced into exile (12). At the Council he was supported only by John, Bishop of Antioch and 33 others. Gradually, his view of the Incarnation of Christ, with its Aristotelian influence, moved further East, to Persia, and from there to India and China. It became known as the Nestorian Church or the Church of the East and survives today in the Assyrian Church of the East in Iran, Iraq and Syria.(13).

    Gondishapur
    After the Emperor Zeno closed the Mesopotamian School of Edessa in 489 on account of its Nestorian tendencies, Nestorian scholars, taking aristotelian ideas with them, wandered into the Sassanid Empire in Persia, where they were welcomed at the city and Academy of Gondishapur. Here they and their successors were later joined in 530-533 by seven Athenian philosophers, exiles from the pagan School of Athens, which had been closed by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in 529. The city of Gondishapur (Camp of Shapur) was built by Sassanid Emperor Shapur I (240-272), using Roman army prisoners of war, after he had defeated the Roman Emperor Valerian (253-260), captured him and had retaken Antioch from the Romans. Shapur originally called his new city Veh-Az-Andev-Shapur (‘City of Shapur, better than Antakkye’ [Antioch]) so there is even a connection between Antioch and Gondishapur in the original name of Gondishapur. Shapur I’s wife was the daughter of the Roman Emperor Aurelian, and she brought with her to Persia Greek doctors who taught Hippocratic medicine in the new city, so there were western medical connections with it from its very beginnings. The School or Academy at Gondishapur was founded by Shapur II (309-379) and soon became noted for its medical studies. The Academy was at its peak during the reign of Khosrau I Anushiravan (“The Immortal”, 531-579; cf. the Prophet Mohammed was born in Arabia in 570; the Emperor Justinian ruled in Constantinople for much of Khosrau’s reign). Medicine, anatomy, dentistry, astronomy, mathematics, geometry, philosophy, military leadership, architecture, craftsmanship, agriculture and irrigation were taught there, and the Academy, which was both the premier research centre and teaching hospital in Sassanid Iran, if not the world west of India (14), was located in the province of Khuzestan, S.W. Iran, in the region where Iran and Iraq fought their 8 year-long war 1980-88. Its ruins today lie near the village of Shahabad, 14 km south-east of Dezful, on the road to Shush (see picture). Today, there is a university in the region that seeks to continue the medical tradition; it is known as the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. Iran has never been far from the centre of world events since the Iranian revolution in 1978/79, the US embassy hostage crisis of 1980 and the subsequent hostile relations between Teheran and Washington – relations which only this year, 33 years after the crisis of 1980, seem to be heading in a more positive direction since the coming to power of the new, 7th Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, on 15 June this year.

    In typical dualist Iranian tradition (15), the “Immortal” Khrosrau looked to both East and West, to the Mediterranean and to India and China for inspiration and knowledge. The rich combination of intellectual views which competed and communicated with one another at the Academy of Gondishapur between c.500 and c.640 (16) was further fertilised by the development at Gondishapur of the game of chess and the practice of refining sugar, which, respectively, stimulate a purely intellectual consciousness and give an artificial boost to the ego and the willpower. A kind of intellectual ‘hothouse’ thus developed at Gondishapur at the crossroads of western Asia, and at the centre of that hothouse was medical science, the philosophies of Aristotle and the Neoplatonists (translated from Greek into the Syriac language, a Semitic form of Middle Aramaic) and the Christian religious ideas of Nestorianism. These were rubbing shoulders there, as it were, with the dualist religion of classical Zoroastrianism and the later Iranian development of Zoroastrianism known as Zurvanism (the worship of the monotheistic divinity Zurvan (17), or ‘Infinite Time’ who was seen as the originator or father of the twins Ahura Mazdao (light, truth) and Ahriman (darkness, lies).

    To this unique cosmopolitan intellectual hothouse (18) which had received such a strong influence from Syria and from Greek thought translated into Syriac, (teaching at the Academy was in Greek, Syriac and Pahlevi) came in the 7th century two powerful spiritual forces. One was that of the ‘new’ monotheistic faith of Islam which arose like a storm out of the Arabian desert and in just two decades had swept away the ancient Persian Empire which had become exhausted by its long battles against the Eastern Romans (the Byzantines). The Arab armies also arrived at Gondishapur shortly after 638. According to Rudolf Steiner, Islam’s arrival had the effect over the following decades of putting a lid on the bubbling cauldron of the intellectual ferment that was Gondishapur and thus of blunting the global impact of the other spiritual force at that time, which had worked into human thinking at the Academy over the previous decades. This was the extremely negative influence of the spiritual being Sorath (of whom more later). Steiner associated the first Sorathic attack on humanity around the year 666 with the prodigious but premature intellectual developments at Gondishapur. These developments would have flooded the western world in the 7th and 8th centuries with a technical and scientific knowledge and especially with an understanding of the human being for which the western world was neither then ready nor sufficiently mature. For whereas the world of Asia had conceived of the I as something cosmic and divine, bestowed on the human being from above, as it were, so that it had more of a Gnostic and collective rather than an individual nature, in Europe, and especially northern Europe, the human I was developing as something individual within the human will active in earthly deeds. Steiner termed the 4th Post-Atlantean epoch (747 BC – 1413 AD) the age of the development of the Verstandes-Gemütsseele; the usual translation is ‘Intellectual-Mind Soul’ but ‘Intellect and Mind Soul’ might be more accurate). In other words, human beings in that epoch learned to understand the world rationally (Verstand) for themselves but also to reflect inwardly on their feelings (Gemüt), to live within the feeling and will. One could say that Verstand was more objective and collective, and Gemüt more subjective and personal. It was this latter quality of the Gemüt which needed to develop in the peoples of northern and western Europe before they were exposed to the power of the rational intellect. In Asia, the traditional social hierarchies, patterned on supra-personal cosmic models, had served to maintain social order for millennia. These did not exist in Europe north of the Mediterranean. The wild will forces of the Celtic, Germanic and later, Slavic peoples had first to be moulded by Christian religious feeling in the human soul life (Gemüt) before Europe was really ready, by the early 17th century, to adopt the ways of thinking of natural science mediated to it by the Arabs. What we today would call Islamic fundamentalism actually blunted the impulse of Gondishapur but was unable to stamp it out. It leaked out of the cauldron from under the Muslim lid, so to speak, and under the impress of the thoughts of Muslim teachers in later centuries who were influenced by the intellectual spirit of Gondishapur, men such as Averroes and Avicenna (19), it metamorphosed into the natural science of the European West in the subsequent age of the Consciousness Soul. Sorath had sought to propagate it some 1000 years before its time in order to pervert human development. It is instructive that the place where ‘he’ sought to do so, the Academy of Gondishapur, featured the study of medicine, Aristotelian philosophy, and (Nestorian) Christianity, all of which might normally be regarded as positives. This points us back to the Mystery of Evil – how good and evil are frequently intertwined, and how the forces of evil so often seek to invert those of good and abuse them for their own purposes.

    The Counter-Sun Spirit
    Precisely because our epoch since the 15th century is the epoch of the struggle for freedom, the epoch in which human beings endeavour to realise what they really are, this epoch is what Steiner called the age of the Mystery of Evil, that is, of our struggle to comprehend Good and Evil. Why evil? In this epoch human beings wake up to their true nature in the struggle with evil, both within them and outside them, and it is in this epoch that after the ‘Crucifixion’ and death of the traditional Christian churches which is going on presently, “by a strange paradox, mankind is led to a renewed experience of the Mystery of Golgotha in the fifth epoch [1413-3573] through the forces of evil”(20) that is, in the struggle with evil. By the end of the previous epoch, human beings had learned to think for themselves instead of the Gods thinking through them, a process similar to teenagers learning to think for themselves instead of thinking what their parents tell them in the years before puberty. In seeking to understand the Christ Mystery, human beings used their new-found capacities for intellectual thought to try to understand Christ’s birth and death, hence conflicts arose such as that between the theologians Nestorius and Cyril. Further east, Buddhists used their thinking to try to understand why human beings were born and died and how they could escape from that process. But in our epoch, we have descended so low into materialism that not only do we still not understand what matter actually is and not only are we incapable, through the inadequacy of our religious and natural scientific concepts, of comprehending what birth and death really are, the only way we seem to be able to wake up to the existence of a moral and spiritual dimension is through the shocks, personal, communal or societal, of the encounter with radical evil. This has been ever more the case over the past 100 years since the First World War.

    The spiritual entity for whom the eradication of Christianity is the goal, for whom the eradication of any notion of human spiritual being is the goal, and for whom the creation of a dark void around each individual, the eclipse of each human being’s light and love, so to speak, the spiritual entity that inspires what has traditionally been called ‘black magic’, in which light and love are eclipsed by the need for personal power, is called in western esotericism Sorath and has been known in Europe since at least the 15th century (21). Mediaeval esotericists, basing their ideas on older Jewish Kabbalist teachings which were themselves drawing on more ancient Middle Eastern knowledge, held that every heavenly body had a physical aspect and a spiritual aspect just as human beings do and that the heavenly bodies had their own beneficent and baleful spiritual beings that indwelt them. Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, student of abbot Johannes Trithemius of Sponheim (1462-1516), wrote of Sorath as the baleful ‘spirit’ of the Sun as distinct from the beneficial ‘intelligence’ of the Sun, which he named as Nachiel Sorath can therefore be regarded as as a kind of Double of the Sun, a Counter-Sun being, or ‘Black Sun’. According to Steiner, every 666 years, Sorath, whose name in gematria has the numerical value of 666 (Samech Vau Resh Tau S-V-R-T: 60-6-200-400) resumes his particular assault on humanity, which is to seek to prevent humanity from rising above its animal nature, to prevent it from transmuting its ‘self-centred ego (its ‘eclipsed’ self, one could say) into its higher (Sun) self. This is intimately connected with the emergence (or non-emergence) in the human being of the Consciousness Soul, also called by Steiner the Spiritual Soul (22). It is in the epoch of this Consciousness Soul development, in the 5th Post-Atlantean epoch (1413-3573), that we are challenged in this way, for this is the epoch in which we are to emerge from the collectivities and group affiliations of the past (race, ethnic group, family, religion or even gender). Each one of us faces the choice of falling into a self-centred lower nature or rise into true humanity.

    Steiner points to the two attacks of Sorath that occurred around the years 666 and 1332 and indicated that a third was due around 1998. He said that these attacks never occur through an incarnation of Sorath into a particular human being (as with the Incarnation of the Christ being in Jesus) but only act spiritually through human thinking and willing. He makes clear that these attacks refer not to one year but to a period around that year. How long is this period? Steiner does not say precisely but we can gain a good clue by considering the second of the attacks, which was associated with the destruction of the Knights Templar by King Philip IV (‘the Fair’). A signature of Sorath is spiritual ‘inversion’ – things are turned inside out, upside down, light becomes darkness (Philip was called ‘the Fair’ because he was handsome but in his cold, deceitful and sadistic treatment of the Templars, he was anything but ‘fair’.) Philip’s attack on the Templars began with their sudden arrest on false charges in France on Friday 13th October 1307. 1307 was 25 years before 1332, the second 666 date. If we postulate a similar 25 year period after 1332, we arrive at 1357, so 1307-1332-1357 is a period of some 49/50 years (7 x 7). If we map this 49/50 year period onto the 1st and 3rd Sorath attacks in the 7th and 21stth centuries respectively, we come to 641-666-691 and 1973-1998-2023. With regard to the 3rd attack, when we consider the events that have occurred since 1973, especially in relation to the Middle East (David Rockefeller visited Communist Chinese leaders, foundation of the Trilateral Commission (23), Arab-Israeli War, the oil shocks, Saddam Hussein and Col. Gadaffi, the growth of terrorism, the Iranian Revolution, the US embassy hostage crisis, the murders of Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin, the Afghan Wars, the AIDS epidemic, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the Osama bin Laden phenomenon, the US Neo-Con Zionist Lobby, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, Bush’s War on Terror and the consequent creeping extension of electronic surveillance worldwide, the banking and financial crash of 2008, the US-Iran stand-off, the so-called “Arab Spring” and the events of 2011, and the war in Syria) and when we consider all these dark events in relation to the unipolar “New World Order” declared by US President George H.W. Bush on September 11th 1990, the “New Imperialism” of the Project for an American Century and the various moves towards a centrally organised global economic order signalled by the current ongoing negotiations for Atlantic and Pacific free trade blocs (24), at the centre of both of which would be the USA that, despite the evident failure of its economic model in the crash of 2008, shows no evidence whatsoever of seeking any fundamental change in that model, then we could feel justified in seeing in this catalogue of calamities since the early 1970s – which also includes the rapidly worsening ecological situation and the morphing of Communist China into a pseudo-capitalist State and world Power at what can only be called an unhealthy pace – evidence of the third attack of Sorath in our time which is likely to continue until at least the early 2020s. This third attack is taking place above all in relation to the human will, whereas the first attack in the 7th century was against human thinking.

    The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail
    But there has been a resonance with that first attack on thinking in that a phenomenon has been evident since the 1970s which might seem quite trivial by comparison with the catalogue of calamities mentioned above but which actually points to something very insidious, namely, the overt assault on Christianity through western publications and media phenomena such as the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) and the subsequent welter of books and films related to it, notably Dan Brown’s books, The Da Vinci Code (2003) et al. These books not only further traduce the Knights Templar, the 700th anniversary of whose persecution was marked in 2007 (25), but they claim that Christ was no divine being but either a Jewish King or a priest of Egyptian sex magic Mysteries and that he was married to Mary Magdalene, whose physical body was claimed to be the real Holy Grail, had had children by her whose descendents (sang réal) are ‘out there somewhere’ today waiting to be found. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail even identified such a descendent and suggested he might become the ruler of a United Europe! This line of publications and films since the early 1980s (thus within the Sorathic ‘window’ 1973-2023), emerging from Anglo-American economic interests (publishing and media companies) and pushed onto a global stage through extensive publicity, clearly represents a significant assault on the essence of Christianity – on the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. The claims made in these books have, fortunately, been thoroughly debunked by many people and shown to be false and fabricated (cf. the many critiques on the Internet), but it is worth noting the similarities between the modes of deception in these books and the lies spread by Philip IV against the Templars. It is also worth noting that a key event in the fabricated story of the Priory of Sion in these books, an alleged secret Order that the authors claimed had founded not only the Templars but also the esoteric Rose Cross movement, was the murder of the Merovingian Frankish King Dagobert II (a real personality) in the year 679, the result, according to the authors, of a betrayal of the Merovinigians by the Church. That was just 13 years after 666, so the key event in the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was also within the timeframe of the first Sorathic attack (641-691). Furthermore, the authors claimed that in 1188 at Gisors, France, in an event known as the ‘Cutting of the Elm’, the Priory of Sion cut its ties to its supposed progeny the Templar Order, disowned its ‘child’, and gave itself a new name – ‘the Order of the True Rose Cross’. Western esoteric lore has long associated the elm tree with Mercury, the figure that communicates and connects, but here we see Mercury and the Rose Cross deliberately associated with division, disagreement and separation; this would appear to be an example of inversion involving both an untruth and a half-truth. An untruth because there was no public Rosicrucian ‘movement’ before that in early 17th century Germany (Tübingen), and not even any covert Rosicrucian initiative before the mid-13th century, according to Steiner (26). A half-truth was involved because there was a disagreement between the Kings of England and France at Gisors in 1188 which did indeed apparently involve the cutting down of an elm tree, but this had nothing to do with any Priory of Sion, the Templars or the Rosicrucians. This kind of gratuitous mix of fact and fiction runs throughout The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and others which followed in its wake. (27) The Knights Templar were also at the centre of the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail; indeed, a common interest in the Templars was what brought the three authors - Briton (Henry Lincoln [real name Soskin], New Zealander Michael Baigent, and American Richard Leigh – together in the mid-1970s. So the period of the second Sorathic attack (1307-1357) also plays a big part in the story. Finally, the book itself – based on an artful weaving of a skein of truth, half-truth and untruth and the controversy surrounding the book – exploded like a time bomb in the media in the period of the third Sorathic attack 1973-2023. Despite the authors’ feeble protestations to the contrary, the common thread through the whole construction is its attack on Christianity. It is as full of deception as an earlier, more strident but less successful anti-Christian book, “The Jesus Scroll”, by the Australian, Donovan Joyce (1973). That book claimed to be “the fall-out” from “a time–bomb” that had exploded in November 1964, the alleged discovery of an ancient scroll from the time of the Roman siege of the Jewish stronghold of Masada (73-74 AD), a scroll which, according to Joyce, utterly undermined Christianity. Joyce’s book turned out to be as baseless as the history of the Priory of Sion. But there it was, published in 1973 at the very beginning of the third 666 period.

    Conclusion
    40 years on, as 2013 draws to a close, it will be remembered in Britain, amongst other things, as the year of the horrific killing of British soldier Lee Rigby in Greenwich, London on 22 May by two British citizens of Nigerian descent, both named Michael, who claimed to have killed Lee Rigby as ‘soldiers of Allah’. As I am writing this, the trial of the two men is taking place in London. Just after the killing, one of the men, Michael Adebolajo, was filmed saying: “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one … By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone… leave our lands and you will live in peace.” Adebolajo also pointed to the connection between British politicians’ actions and their consequences for ordinary British citizens. The situation in the Middle East, in Palestine, Egypt, Iran and Syria is overwhelmingly the consequence of western, mainly British imperialist actions before, during and after World War One (the occupation of Egypt, Sykes-Picot, the cynical promises made to both Jews and Arabs, the destruction and division of the Ottoman Empire). Those actions, based on the economic and political outlook of the English-speaking peoples since the 17th century, were taken to secure resources and a geopolitical position that could ensure a certain standard of living for the British people, especially those in the wealthier classes, and a position of prestige and prominence for the British Empire, and necessitated British (and later, American) intervention and interference in the lives of Middle Eastern peoples and control, either directly or indirectly, of their societies. Muslims have resisted this as fiercely as they resisted during the Crusades. Islam was able to burst out of Arabia after the death of Mohammed (632) because of the weakness of the rival empires of Persia and Eastern Rome (Byzantium). Those two empires weakened their own spiritual substance in suppressing the teachings of two great Christian teachers – Nestorius and Mani, the founder of the Manichaean spiritual stream. Mani was put to death in the new city of Gondishapur in 276. Some of the leading followers of Nestorius left Antioch and Syria and moved to Gondishapur. There, in the ‘hothouse academy’, they were enveloped by the spirit of Sorath, whose influence, Steiner tells us, could only be blocked at that time by the spiritual world unleashing against it the ‘new’ religion of Islam, which was animated by a pre-Christian impulse. Against the force of the Counter-Sun, the spiritual world inspired the religion of the crescent Moon.(28) And when was Steiner speaking about Sorath and Gondishapur as he did? During the British invasion of Syria and the final battles in the Middle East in October 1918; the Battle of Megiddo began on 19 September, Damascus was captured on 1st October, Aleppo on the 25th, and the Turks agreed to an armistice on 30 October.

    It was shortly before this, on 18 July 1918, the day after the massacre of the Russian Royal family by the Bolsheviks, that there came from the spiritual world, a king of another kind, someone whose life path showed the answer to what is represented by the violence of Michael Adebolajo, someone who as a younger man, like the young Adebolajo, was angry about injustice and sought to do something about it but who, through his own suffering in 27 long years in prison, where his prison number was 46664, went on to show the world how to deal with the forces of evil, how to overcome his own demons and most effectively demonstrate to the world the power of forgiveness and reconciliation - the black, white magician, Nelson Mandela.

    NOTES

    (1) http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/11/is-the-iran-deal-obamas-nixon-in-china-moment/281798/ and
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/24/Obama-worse-than-Munich
    (2) The Royal Navy was visiting the German Navy at Kiel at the time of the assassination, and the British had come to an arrangement that very month with the Germans regarding British oil rights in Mesopotamia which was very favourable to Britain (British finance provided 75% of the share capital to a joint Anglo-German backed company).
    (3) Valentine Chirol on Tyrrell 1913, quoted in Z. Steiner, Britain & the Origins of the First World War (1977), p.187
    (4) Cyprus, not far from the coast of Syria, is, though supposedly an independent country and member of the EU, still host to British military bases of all three services. Britain has paid some £300 million for this access since Cyprus became independent in the 1960s.
    (5) See James Barr, A Line in the Sand (2011); Jill Hamilton, God, Guns and Israel (2004), and Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem (1983) passim.
    (6) It must be emphasised that this scenario is not fated to happen, but it was what certain elite forces in the West were imagining would happen, and subsequent events would seem to suggest that they have actually been seeking to bring it about. For example, the Arab Spring Muslim uprisings began ‘on cue’ in 2011, exactly 100 years after Italy’s seizure of Libya from Turkey, a move that began the series of Balkan events that culminated in the First World War in 1914.
    (7) Quoted in James Barr, A Line in the Sand (2011), p.15.
    (8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandretta
    (9) Quoted in James Barr, A Line in the Sand (2011), p.39.
    (10) Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book “The End of History and the Last Man” was the most strident annunciation of this doctrine.
    (11) H.H. Schoeffler, The Academy of Gondhishapur – Aristotle on the Way to the Orient (1979) p.43. Schoeffler’s discussion of these questions is far more subtle and complex than can be described in detail in a short article such as this, and the reader is recommended to consult his book, published by Mercury Press. This aristotelian anthropology was further developed by Steiner, who described how our conscious spirit actually destroys the organic body by day necessitating the revivification of the body during sleep when the spirit is absent from the body.

    (12) It is worth noting that Antioch was one of the last Crusader territories to be lost by the Crusaders (1268) when the city was beseieged and taken by the Mamelukes of Egypt, now Muslim, of course, and its people sold as slaves. After this, Antioch steadily declined.
    (13) By the time of the Crusades it had become the most widespread Christian stream, with dioceses from Syria to China; it declined after the 14th century but still exists today in the forms of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church.
    (14) “[T]o a very large extent, the credit for the whole hospital system [of modern times] must be given to Persia.” —Cyril Elgood, A Medical History of Persia, quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gundishapur
    The Cambridge History of Iran described the Academy as “the most important medical centre of the ancient world (defined as Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East) during the 6th and 7th centuries”…. Khosrau “organized the world’s first medical symposium, in Ctesiphon in 550 CE, in which hundreds of physicians and religious figures from different countries participated. …
    http://www.tanaffosjournal.ir/files_site/paperlist/r_249_120919115823.pdf">http://www.tanaffosjournal.ir/files_site/paperlist/r_249_120919115823.pdf
    (15) The 2nd Post-Atlantean epoch was the Age of Gemini (5067-2907 BC), the age of the oldest Iranian culture, when the spring equinox was in Gemini, as today it is in Pisces.
    (16) Some five thousand students were studying at Gondi-Shapur during the reign of [Khosrau] Anushiravan, with five hundred scholars teaching in different scientific fields… http://www.tanaffosjournal.ir/files_site/paperlist/r_249_120919115823.pdf">http://www.tanaffosjournal.ir/files_site/paperlist/r_249_120919115823.pdf
    (17) The word is related to the Sanskrit word sarva, meaning all or everything and whole, complete; Zurvanism had disappeared by the 10th century, its monotheism presumably giving way to that of Islam.
    (18) The only rival in the ancient world at that time was probably the Buddhist academy at Nalanda near Patna, India; it flourished from the 5th to the 12th centuries. Whereas Nalanda was like a large university, with many students, Gondishapur was more of a specialist research centre
    (19) Avicenna (c.980-1037), Iranian philosopher and polymath; Averroes 1126-1198, Spanish Arab rationalist aristotelian philosopher
    (20) Steiner lecture of 25.10.1918 Collected Works GA 185
    (21) See, for example, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia libri tres (Three Books Concerning Occult Philosophy) 1530-1533. Each of these beings had a number associated with its name; that of Sorath is 666 and Nachiel 111.
    (22) One of the ways that European humanity was prepared before the beginning of the modern epoch for the emergence of the Consciousness Soul was by the story of Parzival, in which the hero Parzival advances through various hard trials from an innocent dullness to wakeful ethical insight and becomes the King of the Grail, that is, his own higher being is born from his own soul, something that had not been possible for the previous, fallen Grail King, Amfortas.
    (23) A semi-private organisation in which members of the elites of the three regions N.America, Europe, and E.Asia meet to discuss world issues. Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski as an extension of the even more secretive Euro-American Bilderberg Group (1954)
    (24) Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) (1995) or Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (2013) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (2010)
    (25) In 2007 the Vatican made known that, having discovered documents in its Secret Archive which proved that the Templars had never actually been heretics and that Pope Clement V had not in fact considered them to be such, the Templars were thus exonerated from all such charges – somewhat late in the day, some people might feel.
    (26) See Rudolf Steiner, Esoteric Christianity and the Mission of Christian Rosenkreutz, lectures of 1911 and 1912, Collected Works GA 130.
    (27) With regard to the principle of ‘inversion’, it is worth noting that Dan Brown is on record as saying he likes to hang upside down wearing gravity boots to give him ideas for his books! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4937754.stm
    (28) Steiner lecture 12 October 1918 Collected Works GA 184