Soros, "Responsibility to Protect", and Another U.S.-Mideast War

In this very interesting article from WND, we see the dots connected and when they connect things begin to come together.

The "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, as embraced by President Obama received a lot of attention when the U.S. became involved in Libya, and there was a lot of speculation regarding the possibility that this 'doctrine' could be used against Israel.

Now we have a more detailed view, as yet another war seems to be on the horizon:

Brace for another U.S.-Mideast war

Part I: The coming war?

Turkey secretly passed a message to Damascus last week that if it does not implement major democratic reforms, NATO may attack Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, according to Egyptian security officials speaking to WND.

The Egyptian security officials said the message was coordinated with NATO members, specifically with the U.S. and European Union.

The officials said the NATO message demanded Assad halt attacks against the insurgency and begin the process of democratization immediately.

While it is not clear what form any NATO military action would take against Assad's regime, the Egyptian security officials told WND they would expect such action to mimic the international coalition that has been targeting Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi.

Such involvement would have been surprising years ago, but our current (and prolonged) involvement in Libya argues otherwise.

Part II: Soros and "Responsibility to Protect"

Now we turn to the Soros connection. Whether we actually get involved in Syria militarily or not is really not important in terms of where this article is headed.

The Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of a military doctrine called Responsibility to Protect.

In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

I don't even have to make the Israeli connection, as the article does it for me:

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip.

And given the Soros connection, using this doctrine as an excuse to go after Israel would be completely expected.

Now lets look at the underlying connections for this new "doctrine":

The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine.

As WND reported, Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Several of the doctrine's main founders sit on boards with Soros.

WND reported the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

See how this is starting to come together?

We see yet another connection through the Carr Center:

Also the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that original founded Responsibility to Protect.

The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term "responsibility to protect" while defining its guidelines.

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr's founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.

With Power's center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya.

And this represents the bottom line:

As WND reported, Soros' Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect. Also, Thakur and Evans sit on multiple boards with Soros.

So ultimately, one can see how Soros is really behind the scenes, pushing the buttons with regard to "Responsibility to Protect".

Part III: The Influence of Mr Soros

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

I am beginning to believe that this entire doctrine has been created for one purpose and one purpose only: To create a PA State and then enforce the newly formed borders under the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.

"Responsibility" founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chairman with Gregorian on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "responsibility to protect."

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

Now it gets even more intriguing - and note the anti-Israeli ties:

WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.

Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND also reported the crisis group has petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

Part IV: One World Order:

WND reported that doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.

"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behaviour for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."

Several main points emerge from this article:

- Mr Soros has tremendous influence on the current U.S. administration
- Mr Soros has no love for Israel - a point that he has made abundantly clear
- The "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine has already been used to justify going to war in Libya with rationale that defies any logic (so we learn that war can be created with virtually no policy, no logic, and certainly without congressional approval)
- The same groups who created this doctrine, used as an excuse to go to war - is strongly aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups - all who would very much like to see Israel destroyed.

Those dots are relatively easy to connect.

How long will it be before we see the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine used against Israel?