THE HANDSTAND

 FEB.MARCH2011


 

BOOKS PUBLISHED

'How Paul Kagame Deliberately Sacrificed the Tutsis'

By Jean-Marie Ndagijimana

Mick Collins translator.

 

One of the my goals has been to see certain important writings on Africa, which have till now only appeared in French, faithfully and readably rendered into English.  Writers like Faustin Ntilikina, Eduourd Karemera, Gaspard Musabiyimana, the late RPF Lt. Joshua Abdul Ruzibiza, and most recently, Charles Onana (subject of our last post) and Pierre Péan (our next), have been shut out of Anglo-Saxon literary culture because of the political parti pris the English-speaking world has with the Big Lie.

In 2009 I was introduced by my dear friend, former French Foreign Legionnaire, Col. Jacques Hogard (whose own book about 60 days of Operation Turquoise, Les larmes de l'honneur, needs to be added to our 'must-translate' list) to JMV Ndagijimana, the former Rwandan Ambassador to Paris (Oct. 1990 to Apr. 1994), then Foreign Minister (named by Faustin Twagirimungu from the MDR party) in the 'Broad-based National Unity government' in July 1994. 

Ambassador Ndagijimana had written a book entitled 'Paul Kagame a sacrificié les Tutsi,' and, knowing my involvement in this history, offered me the great honor of translating it.  Our translation is now out on Édition La Pagaie.  The book goes a long way to explode the RPF myth of the single genocide of strictly 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu, slaughtered in the space of 100 days between 6 April and 13 July 1994; and cites, with great sadness some of the names of the Ambassador's colleagues, friends and family, both Hutu and Tutsi, whose lives were wantonly taken in the overthrow of the multi-party Rwandan government, after the assassination by the RPF of President Juvénal Habyarimana and based strictly on the conditions of the Arusha Peace Accords.

One of the book's strongest themes is the role played by Yoweri Museveni and his Ugandan military and intelligences services in setting up the foreign aggression of 1 October 1990, carried out by ranking officers of the Ugandan NRA (whose refugee status was, thereby, nullified)--and backed by the US, UK, and Israel, as a precursor to the seizures of South Sudan and Darfur, and the eventual elimination of the al-Bashir regime in Khartoum, in the interests of these same imperialist 'Great Powers.'

The book, now called 'How Paul Kagame Deliberately Sacrificed the Tutsis', is a fascinating read (if I do say so myself!), and is a breath of hope that more such beacons of historical Truth about Africa will find their way into the language of Shakespeare, and Dickens.
Mick Collins [ cirqueminime@gmail.com ]

 

CODE: 0101


Price: £15.00

In stock Edition La Pagaie

http://max-marts.com/en/how-paul-kagame-deliberately-sacrificed-the-tutsi-by-jean-marie-ndagijimana.html


Publisher's Description:

'' The inexperienced have praised Kagame as a savior; but time has shown that he is the source of our misery. He has already set up protection for those families who paid him large sums of money, while our families, the little people, were thrown to the Interahamwe.'' - Jean Pierre Mugabe, A Tutsi and former intelligence officer with the Kagame RPF. ''Paul Kagame's attitude during the Tutsi genocide supports this idea. He was a warlord was systematically rejected every initiative from the United Nations and certain Western countries that would have halted the massacres of the Tutsis. He even went so far as to threaten to attach those foreigh troops who interfered in trying to end the genocide. I recall especially the threats leveled directly against France at the time of Operation Turquoise. Kagame never intended to protect the Tutsi families inside Rwanda, but only to use them in his drive to seize power by force of arms.' Jean-Marie Ndagijimana. Jean-Marie Ndagijimana was the Rwandan Ambassador to Paris from October 1990 to April 1994, before being removed from his post for speaking out against the mass killings of Tutsis and Hutus. On 19 July 1994, he became Minister of Foreign Affairs (from MDR Party) in what was called the ' Broad-Based National Unity Government' led by Faustin Twagiramungu. In September 1994, Kofi Annan, the UN Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping, presented the Minister with a report confirming the massacres of several tens of thousands of Hutu civilians, between July and September 1994, by Paul Kagame's forces. Refusing to countenance this policy of ethnic cleansing, he left the government and went into exile to testify before world public and denounce this silent genocide that was every bit as heinous and damnable as the genocide of the Tutsis. Throughout his testimony, Ambassador Ndagijimana continues to fight for Trust, Justice and Reconciliation. ISBN: 978-2-916380-08-7 Jean-Marie Ndagijimana was the Rwandan Ambassador to Paris from 1990


CirqueMinime/Paris

 URL:  http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog

 

 

                                                                                                                        Investigative Journalist Charles Onana

 

Before & After Rwanda: 'Al-Bashir & Darfur: The Counter-Investigation' [Chapter 8]--by Charles Onana (trans from the French by CM/P)

http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2011/1/18/4727665.html

Late last year some one called to tell me she had just seen a TV Special on the Sudan which featured George Clooney as the concerned American artist who, without presuming to know much about what's really been going in the region beyond, say, the last couple years (background was what his US State Dept. minder, John Pendergast*, was there for), has totally committed himself to ‘ease the misery of the Sudanese people.’ My caller said that Clooney was so good looking, and so good at looking deeply concerned for this dusty 'Humanity', that the Special quickly became about what a great guy Clooney is, and she asked if I could give her a little socio-historical context for Sudan and environs that might explain just why Clooney’s the Man. 

Now, I like George Clooney—love all his work with the Cohen Bros. and especially with Soderberg, on the Ocean's series and ‘Outta Sight’ (from the book by Elmore Leonard, another guy I would love to sit down with and have coffee and talk movies and Rwanda**). I even love all Clooney’s Jr Rat Pack, like Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Don Cheadle (though the late Bernie Mac was the real shizzle in that series). But I don't think I'd want to give much time to considering their opinions on the Geopolitical History of US/UK/Israeli War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in Africa and the Middle East. 

But once upon a time, long ago, in a place far, far away, I was a petty player in the Hollywood Dream Industry. So I know that when someone offers you a script with a fat, righteous role in it for you, the first thing you do is NOT run it over to the Brookings Institution to have it fact checked—or call Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky to get their take on your character's narrative arc. If your manager’s reader says you'll love it, and your agent’s reader says you'll love it, and all your poker buddies say (it sounds like) you'll rock in it: then you probably will. Even a smart guy like Don Cheadle couldn't pass up making a self-less hero out of one of Rwanda's greatest Quisling con men, Paul Rusesabagina, in 'Hotel Rwanda.' 

Hell, Cheadle got one of the three Oscar nominations for Terry George's teabag rendition of “Welcome to Kigali" ***, and Clooney was just voted a special Humanitarian Emmy by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association—and this at a moment when the recipients of Clooney’s Humanity, Southern Sudan, the site of a 50+year civil war, armed and financed, for the most part, by Israel and its allies as a way too deepen its security zone (as well as its water table) and keep its all-important arms industry fat and happy, is conducting its own voting on secession from Northern Sudan or Khartoum. 

And Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, is not making it easy for Hollywood humanitarians to demonize him. He told his old friend, US President Jimmy Carter, that he wished the South well, however their elections turned out, and that the North would assume the full burden of the national debt it shares with the South. Tough to keep prosecuting a country as a supporter of terrorism when it delivered ‘Carlos the Jackal’ to France, and offered to hand Ossama over to Bill Clinton (but Bill begged off). 

Thing is, both Carter and al Bashir are known to be Palestinian symps, so . . . well, . . . you know. Even putative leftists in the West cannot break themselves of their gutless ni-ni ways. You know how they do: Yugoslavia: ni-NATO, ni-Serbia; Rwanda: ni-Tutsi, ni-Hutu; Iraq: ni-Saddam, ni-Bush. They just have to preface every defense of Sudan with a personal acknowledgement of their full awareness of the horrible Human Rights record of the Islamist-Arab regime in Khartoum. 

With all this fetid propagandistic bilge getting awarded great golden trophies, is it any wonder most people don't really know what's happening, to whom or where, outside their local Cineplexes? But that's where we come in. 

As with most of the hard information on Africa and the Arab world, its chroniclers have chosen to work in French (go figure). Recently two excellent books have come out: 

Charles Onana's 'Al-Bashir & Darfour: La Contre-Enquête,' on Éditions Duboiris (Paris, 2010); 
and 
Pierre Péan's 'Carnages: Les Guerres Secrète des Grandes Puissances en Afrique,' on Fayard (Paris, 2010) 

Here below, we excerpt Chapter 8 from Onana's work on Sudan and the ICC Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo. The translation is ours, and it has been authorized by the writer. It is our dream to be able to bring English editions of many such books, but it seems difficult unto impossible to publishers with the courage to tell the true history of events in Africa and the Middle East since, say, WWII, in any mainstream Anglo-Saxon press. 

And these works are essential to any understanding of who we are, of our reasons for existing the way we do in this age of Waste: wasted value, wasted time, wasted energy, wasted imagination, and senselessly wasted lives. 

But I'll let Charles Onana tell you. And in the link which just precedes Chapter 8, Onana answers some important questions about misconceptions on the Conflict in Sudan--mc] 

___________________________ 
Notes: 

* During the Clinton administration, Prendergast served as Director of African Affairs at the National Security Council and Special Advisor to Susan Rice (the current administration's UN ambassador) at the Department of State, in which capacities he was involved in a number of peace processes [sic] in Africa. He has also worked for two members of the United States Congress, UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group [Geo Soros' outfit], and the U.S. Institute of Peace [even sic-er]. But this is from Wikipedia. 

**See Leonard’s ‘Pagan Babies’, about a fallen priest’s return to post-genocide Rwanda to . . . or better yet: don’t bother. 

*** An allusion to Michael Winterbottom's 'Welcome to Sarajevo,' a horribly twisted and unethical apology for British ITN's potted images of 'Serbian Death' camps (remember Fikret Alic on the wrong side of the barbed wire?) that justified Britain's criminal aggression into Bosnia, and their wanton razing of a former ally, Yugoslavia). This kind of stuff is all over this blog. 

__________________________________________ 

Interview with Charles Onana on

certains questions about Sudan:
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au7TdSKsOsE
 

__________________________________________ 


from: Charles Onana’s Al-Bashir & Sudan: A Counter-Investigation 


Chapter 8 

Bush and Kouchner: 
The Obsession with Genocide in Darfur 


In the last six years, Darfur has become the focal point for all the attention of the International Press and of certain organizations, the self-proclaimed defenders of the Rights of Man. In the US and in Europe, just as in Africa, a wide-ranging campaign has developed through which public opinion is being sensitized to the situation in Darfur without necessarily learning anything about what is actually going on there. 

Certain Anglo-Saxon researchers and writers have tried exceedingly to explain the nature, the causes and what is at stake in the conflict going on in Darfur. But their work has routinely been jam-packed and covered all over with the propaganda of the “genocide.” [1] So, very few people have been able to grasp the real, predominant interests in this region, or the motives for the war that is taking place there. 

Before decrying the situation that prevails in this zone, one must first remember some essential facts. Darfur, located in the West of Sudan, is made up of three states: Western Darfur (Gharb Darfur), Northern Darfur (Chamal Darfur), and Southern Darfur (Janoub Darfur). It covers an area of 196,404 sq km and has a population of around 6 million people, who belong to different groups and come from diverse origins. 

The story of the people of Darfur is a story of meeting and mixing. Diverse cultures and different kingdoms arose and prospered in Darfur. This territory was of great importance to the kingdoms of Central and Western Africa because of its abundance of camels, sheep and horses that could be purchased at very low cost. If the name “Darfur” means the “House of Fur,” time wound up changing the ethnological and sociological map of this territory. 

As early as the 12th century, the Sultanate of Dajos, with origins in North Africa, established its rule in this region after a war of conquest. The Dajos—or At-Tadjwin—settled in the eastern part of Darfur. Toward the 15th century, another sultanate led by the At-Tandjour replaced the Dajos and settled in the northern part of Darfur. Their influence exceeded that of the Dajos. It is under the Sultanate of At-Tandjour that the first great mixing of populations took place. Because at this time, the people known as Arabs began to mingle with the Furs or Fors. Then, other influential groups appeared in the middle of the 17th century. 

In this region, the power of the royalty began progressively to form itself around Islam. The migratory influx of Arabs then was large and they came from the North, the East and the West. Considered together, the immigrant populations of Darfur came from the Arabian peninsula and North Africa. Though these people mingled with the natives of Darfur, they never made them disappear. Moreover, the growing influence of Islam in Darfur did not inhibit the pursuit of ancient cultural practices. So, the animists lived next to the Muslims without this causing any trouble or conflict. This made the historian Lidwien Kapteijns declare that until the 1880s “Islam remained in that region a ‘communitarian Islam,’ a ‘syncretic’ Islam, that is to say, the people were considered Muslim in as much as they were subjects of a Muslim government, but they continued to observe a goodly number of religious practices that were non-Islamic.” [2] 

In dealing precisely with the peoples of Darfur, it must be said that as far as the phenomenon of migration is concerned, the native people played a major role in the political, economic and social evolution of the region. This is especially the case with the Furs, who in the beginning made up the essential demographic of this territory. This population also suffered from the slave trade. It is interesting to learn, in a letter written 12 July 1799, that Napoleon was already manning his forces with slaves from Darfur. 

Here is exactly what he wrote to the Sultan of Darfur: 

In the name of God, merciful and compassionate, there is no other God than God and 
Mohammed is his prophet. To the Sultan of Darfur, Abd-El-Rahmons, servant of the two 
holy cities, and caliph of the glorious prophet of God, Master of the worlds, I write you 
this to recommend Aga-ca-chef, who is with you and his doctor Soliman, who come to 
Darfur to deliver to you my letter. I desire you send to me two thousand male slaves, 
older than 16 years. Believe, I pray you, in my desire to do something for you that you 
will find to be agreeable. Signed: Bonaparte. 

As is shown by what is happening there today, Darfur has always been a land of conquest. This was the case in 1875 with the Turkish invasion, then with other different English, French and German expeditions. 

In the beginning, the Furs were the only inhabitants of the mountainous region of Djabel Mara. Then, eventually, they were joined, on the outskirts of the desert, by the Zaghawas, a nomadic people from among the Bedouins who populated Darfur and a part of the territory of Chad. This was also the case with the Masalits, who inhabited the Waddaï, a territory that extends from Darfur to the Chadian border: “They were first and foremost an agricultural people, whose basic crops were millet (dukhn), harvested from the sandy soil of the North, and the sorghum (dura) from clayey soil of the South.”[3] Finally, we find here the Nwabiya, of Arabic origins and who lived essentially from their grazing lands. Other groups and sub-groups, more or less numerous, also contributed to the population and evolution of Darfur. 

So, the crisis in Darfur is not fundamentally the result of an impossible cohabitation among groups of the population. It resulted, before everything else, from a combination of internal and external factors exploited by the Sudanese and by foreigners for political ends. We will see elsewhere that the principal armed groups that wage war today in Darfur certainly depend on these groups of the population, but that they are also very largely supported by foreign forces. 

Contrary to what certain people believe, the use of the term ‘genocide’ to describe the conflict in Darfur did not appear in 2003 or 2004, at the height of the war and the displacements of the populations. It was already being used in the US in 1998, that is, even before the advent of the crisis in Darfur. 

A retired American military officer named Milliard Burr used it in an official speech on Sudan. Burr was a consultant to the US Committee for Refugees (USCR) and served in Sudan as director of logistics for USAID from September 1989 to March 1990.[4] In an internal report described as a “working paper,” dated December 1998 and entitled “Evaluation of the genocide in South Sudan and in the Nuba mountains, 1993 to 1998,” he paints a grim picture of the war in this country: 

Since 1993, a certain number of eye-witnesses have stressed that the military activity and 
the social and political policies of the Khartoum government against the Nuba people in 
the South of Kordofan appear to be a genocide. So, this document is an attempt to 
obtain as much information as possible about the effects of the government’s activity in 
the mountainous Nuba region since the revolutionaries took power in Khartoum on 30 
June 1989. As we will see, this date marks the intensification of the genocide that extends 
from South Sudan to the Nuba mountains. 

This working paper will have to include a study of the Beja and their allies in the East of 
Sudan and the Fur and the Massalit in the West of Sudan. As with the Nuba, the Arabs 
who dominate the Khartoum government have politically and economically isolated the 
‘suspect’ ethnic minorities from the peripheries of the country and authorized military 
attacks against them. 

Burr especially casts suspicion on the Khartoum government and states that his report will have to include the people of Western Sudan, the Fur and the Massalit. As one can see, his arguments contain many of the premises on which the 2004 discourse of the Bush administration is based, like the confrontation between Arabs and Blacks in Darfur. 

It is also a prelude to what will later become “the genocide in Darfur.” This famous working paper was first put together within the US Committee for Refugees in October 1993. But the second version would attract much more attention, especially from certain members of the US House of Representatives who wound up organizing Congressional hearing in 1998. 

What should be understood is that during this entire period Milliard Burr was not working alone. He was supported throughout by one of the key players in the Darfur story: Roger Winter. Winter had been the director of the US Committee for Refugees since 1981. He went on to be an assistant administrator at USAID and then an advisor to the Bush administration on Sudan. 

A pro-rebel activist, he was one of the principal supporters of the extremist Tutsis who organized the 6 April 1994 attack on the sitting Chief of State of Rwanda. According to Remigius Kintu, president of the Ugandan Democratic Federal Union, and thoroughly conversant with the facts of the Great Lakes region of Africa, “Roger Winter directed logistics for the Tutsi rebels of the RPA from the mid-90s through to their victory in 1994.” [5] Kintu goes on to relate something Winter told an African exile: “Now that I’ve stabilized Rwanda, I’m going to get seriously busy with Sudan.” 

Very close to Israel and some of the power grids that encouraged the destabilization of Central Africa, Roger Winter was also a dedicated supporter of the SPLA (Sudanese People’s Liberation Army), the Sudanese rebel movement led by John Garang. Once he had wrapped up his mission with the Tutsi rebels led by Paul Kagame, who brought down the government in place in Kigali, he effectively turned his attentions to Sudan. His objective: Contribute to the destabilization of the Islamic regime in Khartoum led by president Al-Bashir. 

He began by telling the LA Times that the tragedy in Sudan is like Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo all rolled up into one. He then, through the offices of the US Committee for Refugees, let it be known that the conflict in Southern Sudan was the bloodiest since WWII. He set at 1.9 million the number of people killed in the last 15 years of the Sudanese civil war. He stated that 10,000 civilians had been killed due to the “intentional policy of the Sudanese government”[6] , which was to say that a “genocide” had been committed in Southern Sudan by the government in Khartoum. Even the Southern Sudanese rebel leader John Garang had never dared to use such terms. 

 

[finish Chapter 8 at:

http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2011/1/18/4727665.html ]




CirqueMinime/Paris

 URL:  http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog

 

 Chapter 6 - Pierre Péan's "Carnage, The Secret Wars of the Great Powers in Africa" [trans from the French by CM/P]

 

http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2011/2/8/4740863.html

[When we posted the excerpt from Charles Onana’s latest book, 'Al-Bashir & Darfur: The Counter-Investigation', http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2011/1/18/4727665.html 
the West was in full-fête over the vote in South Sudan to secede or not to secede from Khartoum. George Clooney, current holder of the Africa desk at the Polo Lounge of the Beverly Hills Hotel, had just gotten started fondling the Emmy he was awarded for his outstanding performance as a Hollywood humanitarian. And CNN, while covering the election is the South, had just interviewed Jimmy Carter, who told the world’s first 24/7 disinformation service how his ‘old friend’, Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, indicted by ICC in The Hague as a war criminal unto ‘genocidaire’, had not only wished the South well, however they might vote on the division of the country, but even pledged that Khartoum would assume responsibility for the full national debt of the entire Sudan—a mega buzz-kill for the STFG Pierre Péanin Darfur and pass-the-decaf-Nespresso-on-the-left-hand-side crowd. 

Now, we’re not claiming our posting—which demystified a lot of the humbug terminology of the Arab-Muslim government in Khartoum v Black African Animist outback trope—that Charles Onana’s book actually caused it, but before the vote had even been completed, CNN pulled up its cables, turned off its cameras and moved on to the next uprising in the struggle for African democracy: first Algeria and Tunisia, then Egypt. And what struck us as really curious—just like in that other Clooney vehicle, Stephen Gaghan’s ‘Syriana’—was the near total absence in any analyses of these geopolitical upheavals of any mention of the State of Israel. 

Our current posting is a chapter extracted from Pierre Péan’s latest and more than usually controversial History, ‘Carnage: The Secret Wars of the Great Powers in Africa’, a monumental indictment of the West’s venal connivance in the militaristic extermination of an entire continent by turning it into a wasteland of spent ordnance and raped ecosystems—the remnants of an enormous toxic drug-testing camp and dumping grounds for the other sur-produced and humanly useless commodities forced on the poor masses of this rich land by a ghoulish multi-national Waste Capitalism. 

But before we turn you over to Péan, France’s foremost investigative journalist—and deeply disliked by all the right people to prove it—your attention must be directed to one of the drawbacks of speaking Truth to Power: both Onana and Péan have been unable to find English language publishers. It is our purpose here—our hope, at any rate—that these samples of their righteous investigations into the lies that have falsified our consciousness and pushed Justice and Peace further and further over the History’s horizon, where, now, their invisibility is the cause of our self-consuming despair. 

WARNING: This material should only be read VERY CAREFULLY. –mc] 

**************************** 


Pierre Péan, "Carnage: The Secret Wars of the

Great Powers in Africa," 

Fayard (Paris) 2010. [translated from the French

by CM/P] 

 



Chapter 6, 

--For reasons of security, Israel becomes an important Neo-Colonial player on the African stage.-- 


From its inception, Israel has been keenly interested in Africa. The narrowness of its own territory within hostile surroundings has driven its leaders, since the early 1950s, to seek some compensation for this existential weakness by creating a military alliance with France, already an African power, while at the same time searching out political alliances within Africa, with an eye toward artificially creating a “strategic depth”, the absence of which had proven elsewhere to be such a cruel weakness, and to render aid in its struggles against the Arab enemy. So, in the years immediately following its birth, Israel went all in, on the one hand, to become a nuclear power, and, on the other, to make of the African continent that extra living space [Lebensraum] essential to its survival—two objectives that had been intimately linked for a very long time. It must be remembered that Egypt under Nasser, both an Arab and an African power, became at once Israel’s Enemy No. 1 and the symbol of the struggle against colonialism and imperialism. 

So close and yet so far. Following on the Egyptian threats against the Straits of Tiran (Israel’s access to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, via the Gulf of Aqaba), Africa became the objective of all Israel’s strategic attention. Right after the shock of the conference at Bandung[1], from which the Jewish State was excluded due to pressure from Egypt, Israel looked for a way to break out of its isolation, as much in the Near East as in Asia, by playing the Africa card. 

The card was played simultaneously by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense. Dan Avni, at the African desk of the Foreign Ministry, thought that the battle for Africa was, for Israel, “a matter of life and death.”[2] David Ben Gurion, who on 21 February 1955 took over the Ministry of Defense and imposed a brutal course correction on Israeli/Egyptian relations by launching, just one week later, a reprisal raid on Gaza which took the lives of 40 Egyptian soldiers[3], his strategists aiming also to come down hard on Africa as a way to counter ever-stronger Arab threats. 

Crowned with the support of the Non-Aligned Nations, Nasser began to move closer and closer to Moscow after the Americans refused to finance the Aswan dam. This rapprochement was finalized, first, with a commercial agreement, and then, five months later, with the purchase of Soviet arms. . . 

Israeli strategists decided to abandon certain lines of policy discussion toward the establishment of a security zone around their country: to thwart the Arab policy on Africa, to retard Arab political unity in the struggle for decolonization of the Maghreb and the Near East, to secure, first, the Red Sea, its access to Africa, and to ally itself with new and future African states. The African continent was thus to play an integral part in the developed geopolitical strategy for survival known as “peripheral peace” or “strategy for the periphery.” The main idea of this strategy was to secure alliances with non-Arab nations on its flanks or on the periphery of the Near and Middle East. So Israel was seeking to tighten its already close relationships with Iran and Turkey, but also, in Africa, with Ethiopia and Uganda. It would complete this plan by forging links with non-Arab and non-Muslim minorities: the Druze, the Maronites, the Kurds, with the Falangists in Lebanon, the royalists in Yemen, the rebels in South Sudan, with the aim of exacerbating inter-Arab conflicts and eventually destroying a country (Sudan). 

After the attacks of 1 November 1954 , Israel was also particularly concerned with the Algerian rebellion linked closely to Nasser. . . The Shadow Men were to be especially affected by this essential strategic plan, which is still in effect today. We must here take note of two great figures who were instrumental in putting this plan into action: David Kimche, known as “The Plotter”, and better known in Africa by his alias, David Sharon, and Uri Lubrani, personal secretary to David Ben Gurion, who “worked” especially on Uganda, Iran, Ethiopia (particularly to bring about the emigration of the Jewish Falashas[4]) and Sierra Leone. 

The tension between Israel and Egypt came to a head with Nasser’s announcement of the closing of the straits to the Red Sea. On 2 November 1955, Ben Gurion, by now once more become Prime Minister, said in his inaugural address before the Knesset: 

Egypt is now trying to block Israel’s access through the straits to the Red Sea, against 
inter-national principles. This unilateral war must stop, because it cannot remain for 
long unilateral[5] . . . 

Ben Gurion then decided to bet the ranch on France and sped up his discussions in Paris with the Ministries of Defense and the Interior, both of which scrupulously avoided any reporting on these talks to the Quai d’Orsay[6]. On the Israeli side, the key man was Shimon Peres, formerly of the Haganah and close to the “Old Lion” (Ben Gurion), who quickly familiarized himself with the mysteries of French politics and its military establishment, to the point of successfully convincing those who held the reins of command that what was good for Israel was also good for France. 

 

[Finish Chapter 6 of 'Carnage: The Secret Wars of the Great Powers in Africa' here:

http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2011/2/8/4740863.html