Why Assad Believes That Syria Would Not Survive a Transition to a Federal System

Why Assad Believes That Syria Would Not Survive a Transition to a Federal System


Why Assad Believes That Syria Would Not Survive a Transition to a Federal System

The idea that the protracted civil war in Syria might be resolved by restructuring the country into a federation has been on a lot of minds lately. At first glance, it does seem tempting to try to reconcile the warring sectors of the population and all the various factions by granting broad rights of autonomy based on ethnicity and religion.

The draft of the new constitution that was originally pitched to the Syrians by the international community was in fact premised on the idea of granting such status to the “nationalities living in the country.” That manifested itself, for example, in the proposal to establish a bicameral parliament in Syria. Only relatively recently did the Syrian Congress on National Dialogue (soon to convene) begin going by that name. Previous attempts were seen to call it the Congress of Syrian Peoples. But President Assad was firmly against that version from the very beginning. He feels that because of the nature of the local environment in the Middle East, the states there that fly the flag of federalism are inevitably forced to watch their territorial integrity and sovereignty slipping away. It seems to the president of Syria that, by touting federalization, the West is resorting to political and subversive means to achieve the goals it has been unable to attain militarily. For example, without waiting for a final resolution of the matter, the Americans have already urged the Kurds, whose cause they so champion, to unilaterally proclaim the establishment of the Federation of Northern Syria in the territories they occupy. And that’s only the beginning.

History has shown that no federation has been viable in that area and that eventual collapse is inevitable. The Syrians themselves must see a lesson in the story of their own short-lived federation with Egypt, known as the United Arab Republic.

Nor did Libya’s repeated attempts to create a federation with some of its neighbors meet with any success. The efforts to merge Ethiopia and Sudan into a federation – initially backed by the West – ultimately ended once Eritrea and South Sudan won their independence and pulled out. Baghdad’s willingness to grant Iraqi Kurdistan an even higher status than that of merely a constituent region of a federation resulted in Kurdish attempts to secede from Iraq. It took a massive military intervention to put a stop to that. And should Syria take that path, there is even less hope that it might escape such a fate.

The projects to federalize states in that region are tied to the initiatives to completely redraw the borders of those territories. The campaign to alter national boundaries in the “Greater Middle East” really picked up steam with the arrival of the Arab Spring in 2011. The new map of the Middle East that was proposed in the journal Foreign Affairs in 1992 by Bernard Lewis, a professor of Near Eastern Studies and advisor to George W. Bush, has regained its popularity. In 2006, this map was updated by the retired military-intelligence officer Ralph Peters in Armed Forces Journal.

The Lewis-Peters map

The intention of these exercises in “applied cartography” is to strengthen American positions in the region by weakening those national states. To this end, a “Balkanization” of the Middle East was planned along the fault lines of religious, ethnic, and clan divisions. And stirring up the animosities between the Shiites and Sunnis was to play a key role.

Syria at that time was not seriously viewed as a target for those efforts, as it seemed like a rock of stability amidst its restive neighbors. It took almost two years for the “ripple effect” from the Arab Spring to reach Syria. Once the Syrian conflict began, a map surfaced in the media (which let’s call “the Israeli version”) showing the potential breakup of that country once it became a federation.

It featured a powerful Druze sector that was to be carved out on the Syrian-Israeli border. Once Syria’s boundaries were redrawn this way, its Druze population – due to fears of Sunni fundamentalism – would be favorably positioned for an alliance with Tel Aviv, which would offer a permanent solution to the problem of the Golan Heights and give Israel a buffer zone that would greatly shore up its security in the north. In addition, the residents of that entire territory might want to “reunite with their compatriots” inside of Israel.

However, the war didn’t go that way. The Druze proved completely loyal to Damascus and distinguished themselves with their heroic exploits to defend Syria’s territorial integrity. Nevertheless, the flavor of Israel’s military operations near that border shows that it has not entirely abandoned those notions. Tel Aviv might try again under favorable circumstances. And one circumstance that might fit that bill would be the federalization of Syria under international control.

A “Kurdish version” of Syria’s future national and state configuration was also widely circulated.

It is not difficult to see that at that time the Kurds had not yet even started to dream of the many territories they have now seized with the Americans’ help. The biggest challenge for them was unifying all the Kurdish cantons in the north into a single zone. As a result, despite gaining control over a quarter of Syrian territory – as far west as the Euphrates – the Kurds have by no means resolved the question of their nationhood. The Kurdish-occupied Arab settlements haven’t demonstrated any particular loyalty to Rojava. And the more economically-developed Afrin canton remains cut off from the greater part of the Kurdish stronghold. Outside of Rojava there are still about 250,000 Kurds living in the city of Aleppo (primarily in the Sheikh Maqsood district), a group that includes the most prominent cultural figures and businessmen of Kurdish ethnicity in Syria. Thus the Syrian Kurds’ appetites for new territory have not yet been sated.

If you look at the map of Syria’s ethno-sectarian makeup, it becomes clear that any attempts to demarcate certain federal or administrative zones along ethnic lines can only lead to fierce new clashes in this “war of all against all.”

The main problem is that the various ethnic and sectarian factions are all sprinkled throughout Syria. It is extremely difficult to clearly demarcate their boundaries. The claims of some will collide with the ambitions of others, forming permanent flash points where they converge. Who should own the uninhabited and oil-rich Syrian desert, which makes up half the country’s territory, is a completely open question. This is in fact a much uglier and more complicated version of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. However, this is not the only problem.

Any hypothetical plan to impose a federal system on the country elicits the question: what are the criteria for identifying “the nationalities of Syria” and their right to independence? Given the plethora of sects and movements that exist in Syria, this would be an overwhelming task. For example, the West and the countries of the Persian Gulf have long dreamed of driving the Alawites, the Assad family’s tribe, into the “ghetto” of the province of Latakia. But are they not Arabs and Muslims, like their Sunni brothers? Using that approach, the country could be splintered into dozens of micro-states. Among the Sunnis in particular, one might point to the strong collective identity of the Bedouins as a reason to hand all of the desert over to them, and so on. And that might please some, but not Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

He has renounced ethno-sectarian discord and proposed a completely modern version of a civil Syrian nation that would respect the distinctive traits that distinguish the cultures and civilizations of all the groups living in the country. Assad believes that the problems of Syria’s national and state configuration can be resolved with the help of the ideology of pan-Arabism.

Speaking recently at a forum in Damascus attended by representatives from Arab countries, the Syrian president proclaimed that pan-Arabism is a conceptual notion of a civilization that includes “all ethnic groups, religions, and communities” and allows them to develop. And the cultural heritages of all of them have made an invaluable contribution to the historical development of pan-Arabism. According to Assad, an attempt was made during the war to impose a false choice on Syria: to either abandon its own identity and kowtow to foreign powers or to become a society of “communities in conflict.”

Paradoxically, the bulk of the opposition groups that take their cues from Riyadh fully agree with the Syrian president’s approach per se. They are also opposed to a federal system being foisted upon the country and make their arguments from a position of pan-Arabism. But Assad views this principle in a more secular light. It should be noted that under pressure from the opposition, the international mediators led by Staffan de Mistura have already altered their version of the future Syrian constitution, no longer referring to the country as the Syrian Republic, but as the Syrian Arab Republic, which still remains the state’s official name. The tensions between the opposition and Damascus have just about been reduced to one thorny issue – the continued hold of Bashar al-Assad and his entourage on the reins of power in that country. But if the pressure to federalize Syria keeps growing, then – who knows? – perhaps it might even motivate the opposition and the government to find a mutually acceptable solution to this issue as well.


هذا نصرالله

ناصر قنديل

ديسمبر 12, 2017

– كقائد حرب يُعدّ لها العِدّة ظهر الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله، فهي لحظته التاريخية التي انتظرها طويلاً ولن يدعَها تضيع، ولن يسمح لأحد مهما كلّف الأمر أن يسرقها أو يحوّلها عن المسار الذي يجب أن تسلكه وصولاً للحظة الحاسمة. فخلال سنوات ما بعد حرب تموز استعدّت المقاومة والسيد نصرالله على رأسها لهذه المواجهة، ولما جاءت الحرب على سورية حاولت تفاديها، وكلما اتضح أنها جزء من الحرب الكبرى حول فلسطين صارت حرب المقاومة، حتى رسم نصرها، وتعاظمت قوة المقاومة، وهي تتساءل كيف ستربط تظهير فائض قوّتها في جبهتها الرئيسية لقتال «إسرائيل»، واكتفت بضمان لعبة التدافع عبر الجنوب السوري لتربحها في الدبلوماسية بحرمان «إسرائيل» من تحقيق أيّ مكسب يخفّف من وطأة خسائرها في حروب المنطقة، وكلها حروب بالوكالة مع «إسرائيل»، من انفصال كردستان إلى حرب اليمن والصواريخ اليمنية، وصولاً إلى حرب الحدود السورية العراقية، وما بينها حرب الفتنة التي صُمّمت من خلال احتجاز رئيس الحكومة اللبنانية واستقالته، وقد خاضتها المقاومة جميعها وربحتها حتى صارت «إسرائيل» وجهاً لوجه أمام الجدار، وصار خيار الحرب الانتحارية وحده يحفظ لها ماء الوجه، حتى تفتقت العبقرية الأميركية «الإسرائيلية» عن قرار ترامب الأخير تعويضاً معنوياً لـ»إسرائيل» عن الخسائر وربحاً معنوياً ظاهراً، ورسماً لحدود المواجهة المقبلة من وراء أسوار القدس بصفتها عاصمة «إسرائيل» المزعومة.

– في مثل هذه اللحظات لا تنشغل المقاومة بالمفاضلة للإجابة عن سؤال افتراضي، أليس هذا من مصلحة المقاومة أن تمنح شرف خوض حربها للدفاع عن القدس، بدلاً من أن تكون حرب الدفاع عن وجود المقاومة؟ وها هي الفتن تسقط على أسوار القدس قبل أن تبدأ الحرب، ومعها تسقط أوهام التسويات والمفاوضات، وتندلع الانتفاضات، وتتوحّد المقاومات. هنا يصير همّ المقاومة كما بدا في كلام سيدها، الانشغال بما هو كائن، وما يجب أن يكون وما سيكون، وليس بما كان يمكن أن يكون، فلتنشغل «إسرائيل» وأميركا بالسؤال عما إذا كانت حساباتهم الخاطئة تجعلهم دائماً يصلون متأخرين؟

– المهمّ أنّ المقاومة تستعدّ لحربها، وقد ترسملت من الحروب التي خاضتها مزيداً من الجهوزية والانتصارات والسلاح والمقدّرات والتحالفات، والخبرات. وها هي تُنهي هذه الحروب، قبل أن تدخل حربها الكبرى التي انتظرتها طويلاً، وفي الطريق إليها ترسم الخطوات بدقة، وعناوينها، أوّلها تأمين أوسع مروحة من العزلة للعدو، قوامها مَن كانوا أطراف التفاوض والتسوية معه، ويستشعرون بالصفعة التي تلقّوها منه اليوم، وبالتوازي ضمان أوسع مشاركة شعبية في نصرة القدس وفلسطين، وشارعها الذين كانوا مستهدَفين بالتعبئة والدعوات للتظاهر ضدّ المقاومة تحت عناوين مذهبية وطائفية، ويكتشفون هويتهم الحقيقية مع القدس ومَن معها في الميدان وقد سقطت الأقنعة عن الوجوه، وعلى ضفة موازية رصّ صفوف المقاومين وفصائلهم وجيوشهم وأسلحتهم، لإدارة هادئة غير متوتّرة، محسوبة غير متهوّرة، لتدرّج يواكب التصاعد الطبيعي والمنهجي في المواجهة، وهذا يستدعي ترتيب بيت قوى المقاومة وتصالح أطرافها بعد كلّ ما جرى، وطيّ صفحات الانقسام، وقد عقدت للسيد القيادة في محوره ليكون هو المايسترو لهذه الحروب الثلاثة، حرب الدبلوماسية وحرب الشارع وحرب العسكر، وقد حدّد لكلّ حرب سقفها وخريطة طريقها.

– خطاب السيد نصرالله خريطة طريق حربه، بمثل ما هو خريطة طريق القدس… هذا هو نصرالله… هذا حفيد محمد… هذا نشيد علي… هذا بشائر عيسى… هذا نصرالله.


Related Videos

Related Articles

Sayyed Nasrallah: Palestine Top Priority for Axis of Resistance after Victory over Takfiris

December 11, 2017


Sayyed Nasrallah on Behalf of Resistance Axis: Palestine our Core Priority, 3rd Intifada A Must

Zeinab Essa

Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah delivered on Monday a speech in which he called the Palestinian people to launch a new Intifada in face of US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Occupied Al-Quds as a capital of the “Israeli” apartheid entity.

Addressing the mass rally that flocked into Dahyieh’s [Southern Suburbs] streets in solidarity with the Palestinian people and Al-Quds, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the “most honorable and loyal people to the Resistance and its road.”

“Peace Be upon you, O the most honorable and loyal people,” His Eminence said noting that this crowd renewed the pledge of the oppressed: “I won’t abandon you O Imam Hussein.”

He further stated: “In face of this blatant US-Zionist aggression against Al-Quds, the holy sites and the nation, we reiterate our stance and commitment until victory or martyrdom.”

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed and saluted the Palestinian people in Gaza, West Bank, Al-Quds and entire 1948 lands as they rushed to face Trump’s declaration of Al-Quds as the capital of the “Israeli” entity.

“The steadfast and defiant Palestinian people today faces with their chests, stones and knives, this aggression to defend Al-Quds and the sanctities of the whole nation,” he said.

His Eminence went on to say: “We must appreciate the historic stances of all Islamic religious authorities, Sunni and Shiite, as well as various Christian religious authorities, especially in the Arab region.”

“We must appreciate the historic stances of all Muslim and Christian spiritual leaders, from Najaf to Iran to al-Azhar and the various Christian leaders, and we must also appreciate all forms of popular protests,” Sayyed Nasrallah added, pointing out that “the protests today are of high great of importance in the context of the confrontation with the “Israeli” enemy.”

To the protesters all over the globe, His Eminence stressed that they “must realize the value of their presence on the streets and on social media, because they were betting that you have abandoned and grown tired of Palestine.”

Recalling the slogan of ‘Death to America’, Hezbollah Secretary General urged the whole nation to confront the American scheme noting that “the responsibility does not fall solely on the Palestinian people.”

“Arab and Islamic governments must immunize the stances of the European nations that have rejected Trump’s decision,” he emphasized.

According to His Eminence, “Trump believed that after his decision, all the world stand in line to follow suit, but all reactions from across the world, including Europeans, Asian and American countries were the opposite of what he expected.”

However, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that “Trump appeared to be alone in his decision, with “Israel” only at his side.”

Commenting on the recent visit of a Bahraini delegation to the “Israeli” apartheid entity, Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed that “this delegation doesn’t represent the Bahraini people. However, it represented the oppressive regime of Al-Khalifa and had nothing to do with the Bahraini people and their scholars.”

His Eminence further thanked the Yemeni as well as great stance taken by the Lebanese government in response to Trump’s decision.

“To the people of al-Quds and Palestine, beat any delegation that comes to normalize ties with “Israel” with slippers and stone it because they do not represent their people,” he said.

Hailing all Palestinians in diaspora, Sayyed Nasrallah praised their commitment to their right to return to Palestine.

“I salute the people of Gaza, in the West Bank, in 1948 lands for their positions since Trump’s decision. These people have all our respect and gratitude as they have sacrificed so much, and have defended the Occupied land,” he stated.

His Eminence also mentioned: “I salute the Palestinians who are still committed to their right to return and who are raising their children on this dream, which will come true very soon.”

To the Palestinian people, Sayyed Nasrallah said: “You are the basis and key of any position and stance. If you refuse to submit to the dictates of the US and some Arab countries, neither Trump nor the entire world will steal Al-Quds.”

To them, the Resistance Leader said: “Your position is the key to all the historical stage ahead and we bet on you.”

“If you give up, it will be said to anyone who wants to defend Al-Quds, Do you want to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians?” he emphasized, repeating that “Palestinians must be the first in line in face of the US scheme.”

He further elaborated that If the Palestinians “hold on to al-Quds as the everlasting capital of Palestine, neither Trump nor anyone else can do anything other than that.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah urged the Palestinian Authority not to “negotiate with “Israel” before Trump reverses his decision.”

Slamming the US administration, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated that “America is not a sponsor of peace in Palestine and the region.”

“The US is the maker of “Israel” and the sponsor of terrorism, occupation, Judaization, displacement, burning, destruction and sedition,” he clarified, pointing out that “the US is the founder of Daesh and other takfiri groups.

According to His Eminence, “The only nation’s position must be ‘Death to America’.”

Stressing that that the most important response to Trump’s decision was to declare the beginning of a new intifada, he viewed that “Trump’s decision on al-Quds will be the beginning of the end of “Israel”.”

“We will not leave Palestine, Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa Mosque because it represents the title for which Imam Hussein was martyred,” Sayyed Nasrallah vowed.

“On behalf of the entire Resistance axis, that is emerging victorious, strong and firm despite all recent pressures and crises and as well with all wounds and pains, I declare that we will once again make Al-Quds and Palestine on top of our priorities,” he announced.

His Eminence further urged “all resistance factions in the region and all those who believe in resistance” to communicate and gather to “devise a plan to confront the aggression.”

“Let us lay out a unified confrontation strategy so that we all confront under a clear and unified strategy. Let us devise a practical and operational plan in which roles would be distributed and efforts would be integrated in this grand confrontation. We in Hezbollah will fully perform our responsibilities in this regard,” Sayyed Nasrallah assured.

In conclusion, the Resistance Leader predicted: “A day will come when we pray in Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Resurrection in Al-Quds.”

Source: Al-Ahed news


Sayyed Nasrallah: Palestine Top Priority for Axis of Resistance after Victory over Takfiris

Sara Taha Moughnieh

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah assured on Monday that the decision of USayyed Nasrallah- Al-QudsS President Donald Trump was the beginning of the demise of Israel and called on the Palestinians to announce the emergence of an intifada (uprising) backed by the Arab and Islamic nations.

Speaking to crowds that demonstrated in the Southern Suburb of Beirut in denunciation of the US decision to announce Al-Quds the capital of the occupying Israeli entity, Sayyed Nasrallah asked the Palestinian people to hold on to their right and refuse this decision in all possible ways, confirming that Al-Quds is the Palestinians’ everlasting capital.

“The stance of the Palestinian people is the key to all the coming period,” he said, adding: “we renew our vow to stay with Palestine, Al-Quds, and all the Islamic and Christian sanctities, as we are witnessing today a true intifada (uprising) in which Muslims and Christians are all united to defend the sanctities.”

His eminence indicated that the major response today should be boycotting the Israeli enemy, halting talks, and paralyzing all types of normalization with it, and called upon the Palestinians in specific to “kick out any delegation that comes with an intention of normalizing relations with Israel and tell them that there won’t be any negotiation or settlement before Trump pulls back his decision”.

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the Arab League and the Islamic Cooperation Committee must put an end to the peace process, pointing out that “in Lebanon, we are proud of our national unity around Al-Quds and Palestine and against Trump’s decision, and we are proud of the stances of President Michel Aoun, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and members, Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and different political factions, in addition to the special statement of Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil in the AL meeting in Cairo.”

Hezbollah secretary general noted that there will be some violations like that of the Bahraini delegation that visited Al-Quds… however, he assured: “This delegation does not represent the People or the will of Bahrain, it only represents the oppressive authority of Bahrain which carried a letter of “peace and co-existing” from the king to those who or Judaizing Al-Quds, and which also oppressed and shot at the Bahraini people who demonstrated in solidarity with the Palestinians.”

“Two peoples have stood under the threat of fire to express their support to Al-Quds, they are the Palestinian and the Yemeni people who were bombarded by the Saudi-American air weapons… The advantage of this American decision is that it reveals the vicious from the good in our Arab and Islamic worlds,” Sayyed Nasrallah asserted, noting that this decision was not separate as it is part of the continuous US/Israeli plan to “back terrorist groups on top of which was ISIL in order to destroy our societies and put an end to the Palestinian cause so that a day will come when we all forget Palestine.”

His eminence reassured that “the US was not a sponsor of peace in Palestine and the region, but rather the establisher of Israel and the sponsor of terror, occupation, Judaization, and destruction. It is the establisher of ISIL and Takfiri groups and the nation’s common stance must be “Death to America”.”

Sayyed Nasrallah expressed his appreciation to all the states, presidents, and governments who refused Trump’s decision, noting that “Trump thought that if he announced Al-Quds the capital of Israel the entire world would submit to him, but instead he only had Israel on his side which was highly appreciated.”

In this context, his eminence stated: “I speak today in the name of all the resistance axis – people, states, and factions – the resistance axis has overcome the previous phase and today, it stands strong and victorious as it is finishing its battles and defeating the US and Israeli elements, and now Palestine, its people, and Al-Quds will return to be its top priority.”

He further addressed the Palestinians: “You should have faith in the promise of Allah, that He will grant victory for whoever defends the right… by holding our responsibility standing firm, Allah will grant us victory. Have faith in Allah and in the resistance that have triumphed in every battle it engaged in.”

“They wanted this decision to be the beginning of the end of the Palestinian cause, and I call for this decision to be the beginning of the end of Israel,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, chanting as the crowds repeat “To Al-Quds we are going… millions of martyr we shall be”.

“We have been with Palestine since the 1940s and we will stay with Palestine until the Muslims can pray in Al-Aqsa and the Christians can pray in the Resurrection church,” he concluded.

Source: Al-Manar

Related Videos

Related Articles

NAHIDA Decleration: Hey Mr Trump

Sister Nahida

Where is “Brother” Obama -The God Father of Zio-Brotherhood’s SPRING)?

Image result for President obama, accompanied by Chabad Rabbis,

Poetry for Palestine

Nahida Declaration

I Nahida -exiled Palestinian since over fifty years, declare:

Washington to be the Eternal Capital of “israel”

USA to be the Promised Land for the Jewish people

President Bush, accompanied by Chabad Rabbis, is seen in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 15, 2008, after signing the Honor of Education and Sharing Day Proclamation. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

View original post

المواجهة الشاملة… حتماً!

المواجهة الشاملة… حتماً!

Related Videos

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Global Research, December 08, 2017
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013


The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government,  the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. (article first published by Global Research on April 29, 2013).

President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank).  

Moreover, by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and allowing for the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and beyond, the US president has provided a de facto endorsement of the “Greater Israel” project as formulated under the Yinon Plan.

Bear in mind this design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, namely Washington’s intent to fracture and balkanize the Middle East.

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”


When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia bear and intimate relationship to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East.

The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to day, the Geater Israel project is consistent with America’s imperial design. 

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman, “A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and

• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.

Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of  the process of Israeli territorial expansion.

In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hizbollah constitute a significant setback for the Zionist project.  

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated December 8, 2017

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”


Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)

Table of Contents

 Publisher’s Note1

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.


The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.


This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication,  Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.


The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”


The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled  “Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.


It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.


Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982


by Israel Shahak


The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:


1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.


2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.


3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.


The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982


A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.


At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.


This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several “truths” which are presently disappearing–for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man’s requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society, 1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.


The vision of man’s limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2


The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child’s play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world. 3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.


The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West’s military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz’ dictum into “War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,” and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country’s security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4


The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging. 5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).


Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.


All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi’ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.


Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi’ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.


All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi’ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi’ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.


Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi’ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.


Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million

Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.


This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.


In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad’s state of Christians and half a million Shi’ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6


In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee. 7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.


The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. 8 Today, 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.


In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil. 9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.


(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political prioritywhich is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979. 10


Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israelwith the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-

Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the longrun. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11


The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow. 12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. 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. BreakingEgypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.


Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join thedownfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run. 13


The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab worldincluding 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 unqiue 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 neighbor, 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. 14


Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate forIsrael’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and willshorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. 15


The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure. 16


Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.


There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of theJordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan. 17


Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river andbeyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.


Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today. l8


Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation. l9


From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with nocompromises. 20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future. 21


Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.



Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.


The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.


It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.


Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to bepersuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.


Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?


In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, TheJerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak

June 17, 1982 Jerusalem

About the Translator

Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)


 1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

 2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

 3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

 4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

 5. Elie Kedourie, “The End of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.

 6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

 7. E. Kanovsky, “Arab Haves and Have Nots,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79.

 8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

 9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.

 10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10.

According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

 11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

 12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

 13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

 14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha’aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.

 15.  J.P.  Peroncell  Hugoz,  Le  Monde,  Paris  4/28/80;  Dr.  Abbas  Kelidar,  Middle  East  Review,  Summer  1979;

Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha’aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.

 16. Arnold Hottinger, “The Rich Arab States in Trouble,” The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.

 17. As for Jordan’s policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma’ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa’amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha’aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha’aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma’ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO’s position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al’Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, “The Palestinian Problem,” Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, “The Palestinian Myth,” Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO,” Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980.

 18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya’akov Hasdai, “Peace, the Way and the Right to Know,” Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, “Strategic Depth–An Israeli Perspective,” Ma’arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, “Israel’s Defense Problems in the Eighties,” Ma’arakhot October 1979.

 19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime’s Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).

 20. Henry Kissinger, “The Lessons of the Past,” The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, “OPEC’s Challenge to the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, “Oil and the Decline of the West,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report–“Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?” U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Present Danger,” The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez “The illusions of SALT” Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, “The Present Danger,” Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, “Oil and American Power Six Years Later,” Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, “The Abandonment of Israel,” Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, “Misreading the Middle East,” Commentary July 1979.

 21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.


قرار ترامب بين الأعمال بالنيات أم بالنتائج؟ سقوط صفقة القرن أعاد «إسرائيل» وراء الجدار

ناصر قنديل

ديسمبر 9, 2017

– يختلف الكثيرون بالحكم على الأعمال أخلاقياً بين القول إنّ الأعمال بالنيات أو القول إنّ الأعمال بالنتائج، فكثيرون يدعون لمغفرة أخطاء جسيمة بحقهم، إذا ثبت أنّ النية كانت صادقة للخير وكثيرون يقولون العكس إنّ التسبّب بالأذى واحد، ويستحق مسبّبه المعاملة ذاتها، أكان بنيّة حسنة أم سيئة. وفي السياسة تتفاوت الأحكام أيضاً بين ما يُسمّى بحساب الحقل وحساب البيدر، والقصد حساب الزرع وحساب الحصاد، فما ينويه صنّاع السياسة بأفعالهم هو خدمة مصالحهم وفقاً لرؤيتهم وحساباتهم، وكثيراً ما تكون النتيجة عكسية فتتضرّر المصالح المقصودة خدمتها، بسبب قصور الحسابات أو ضيق الخيارات، أو محاولة الجمع بين الضعف والتعجرف، بين العجز والإنكار. وفي مثل هذه الحالات كانت حروب أميركا و«إسرائيل» خلال العقد الماضي، النيات عكس النتائج، فهل يجب استبعاد أن يكون قرار الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب حول القدس واحداً من هذه القرارات المحكومة بالمعايير ذاتها، للحرب على سورية وقبلها حرب تموز 2006، ومثلهما فرضية الانتصار بفرض الأحادية على العالم؟

– الأكيد أنّ الحسابات التي حكمت ترامب في تكرار فعل ما فعله الرؤساء الذين سبقوه، بتوقيع تأجيل تنفيذ قانون الكونغرس قبل ستة شهور، تمّت عكس وعده الانتخابي، فلا يفسّر هذا الوعد توقيع تنفيذ القانون الآن، فالحسابات التي أجريت وأفضت ليفعل ما فعله أسلافه، هي حسابات أسلافه ذاتها، وهي ما تغيّر، والتغيير عند من يُجري الحسابات وليس عند الرئيس، وكلّ أسلاف ترامب تشاركوا معه بالوعد ذاته ولم ينفذوه، وبقي مَن يجري الحسابات يوعز بتوقيع التأجيل ستة شهور بستة، ويستجيبون للإيعاز، وترامب فعل مثلهم قبل ستة شهور، حتى كان الإيعاز المعاكس وفقاً لحسابات جديدة. ولا يمكن التحدّث هنا عن خصوصية ترامبية، كان يفترض ظهورها برفض التمديد للتأجيل في المرة الأولى لو كانت هي السبب، وما خضوعه لما فعله أسلافه إلا الدليل على وجود مرجعية تحسب وتقرّر يلتزم بها الرئيس، في عهد ترامب وفي عهود أسلافه، فما هي الحسابات؟

– التوقيت هو الذي يفسّر التغيير، وهو توقيت يتصل بنتائج الرهان الأميركي على السعودية كمرجعية قادرة على إمساك معادلات المنطقة، تتوجّب مراعاتها، بحفظ ماء الوجه، طالما هي قادرة على تخديم المصالح الأميركية والإسرائيلية، وتثبت الأهلية لمزيد من القدرة، وهو رهان زادت أهميته بعدما ضعفت «إسرائيل» منذ تحرير الجنوب اللبناني عام 2000، وفشل حروبها على لبنان وغزة، وصولاً لعجزها عن خوض الحروب، بالتوازي مع فشل الحروب الأميركية في تطويع سورية وإيران، وصولاً لحروب الربيع العربي، والفشل المشترك الأميركي «الإسرائيلي» التركي السعودي في ربح الحرب على سورية، وما نتج عن ذلك من معادلات جديدة في المنطقة، وحجم التهديد الوجودي الذي تعيشه «إسرائيل» بنتيجة كلّ ذلك.

– خاضت السعودية كلّ مراحل إثبات الأهلية للأميركيين بقدرتها على تغيير المعادلات لتستحقّ بيعها حلاً يحفظ ماء الوجه في القضية الفلسطينية، وارتضت حلفاً معلناً مع «إسرائيل» بوجه المقاومة وإيران، فكان سقف ما تمكن الأميركيون و«الإسرائيليون» من تقديمه هو ما سُمّي بصفقة القرن، وتعلم السعودية أن لا ماء وجه في هذه الصفقة، فحاولت خلق مناخ يسهم بتمريرها حرق أوراق قوتها دفعة واحدة، ليكون دخان الحرائق الكبرى سبباً لانعدام الرؤية والانشغال عن الصفقة المهينة، وما فيها من تنازلات، أوّلها التنازل عن القدس، فخاضت انفصال كردستان وتفجير لبنان باستقالة رئيس حكومته بعد خطفه، وصولاً لتوريط الرئيس اليمني السابق بالانقلاب في صنعاء، وفشلت بها جميعاً. وضغطت على السلطة الفلسطينية لانتزاع قبول الصفقة، ففشلت، لأنّ الثمن الفلسطيني سيكون مكلفاً لكلّ من يبيع، وأمام أعين الفلسطينيين انتصارات محور المقاومة. فصار السؤال الأميركي ماذا يمكن أن نقدّم لـ«إسرائيل» في زمن استعصاء السلم واستعصاء الحرب، ولماذا علينا أن نبقى نقيم الحساب لحفظ ماء الوجه السعودي، وهل بقي لعملية السلام من موجب؟

– الجواب ببساطة، كان أنّ عملية السلام ماتت، لأنّ الطرف العربي الذي يمكن مواصلتها معه لم يعُد يملك قدرة منح الشرعية للاعتراف بوجود «إسرائيل» ولا منحها الأمن ولا التطبيع. وهذه كلها باتت بيد محور المقاومة الرافض منحها، وأنّ قيمة الشريك العربي في هذه العملية بعد فقدان قدرته على كلّ ذلك هو قدرته على تقبّل حدود الشرعية والأمن والتطبيع التي تسمح لـ«إسرائيل» بمواجهة التحديات التي يواجهها بفعل تعاظم قوة محور المقاومة، وليس بالشروط التي تحفظ ماء وجه هذا الشريك العربي، والمشهد الجديد يقول إنّ على «إسرائيل» أن تنتظر حروباً مقبلة، ليست راهنة الآن، لكنها مقبلة، ولذلك عليها ترسيم جدار الحماية العقائدي والسياسي والاجتماعي، لضمان تماسك جناحيها العلماني والديني، وخوض حروبها المقبلة من وراء هذا الجدار، والقدس في قلب هذا الجدار، والقدر الممكن من الشرعية يجب أن تمنحه واشنطن لقيام هذا الجدار.

– تدرك واشنطن أنّ هذه الجائزة لـ «إسرائيل» تحتاج لهضمها وتثبيت خطوط دفاعها خلفها، لتضحيات وأثمان ومواجهات، وسنوات، وهي السنوات ذاتها التي تعتبر أميركا و«إسرائيل» أنّ محور المقاومة سيستعملها لهضم انتصاراته في سورية ولبنان والعراق، وربما في اليمن، وتدرك أنّ هذه الجائزة هي الشيء الوحيد الذي يمكن تقديمه لـ«إسرائيل» بعد الفشل بضبط مضمون التسويات المعروضة حول سورية والعراق، بالشروط المطمئنة لـ «إسرائيل». وفي المقابل تدرك حجم التداعيات الناتجة عن ذلك، لكنها تقيس الأمر بقياس الزمن، فالتداعيات اليوم أقلّ من الغد، والغد أسوأ من اليوم، فإن كان على «إسرائيل» مواجهة أخطار مواجهة، فليكن ذلك بمراحل، وليكن في أفضل الظروف المتاحة، لأنّ البديل هو قبول «إسرائيل» بحلّ سياسي يؤدّي لتفكّكها، بانقسام جناحيها العلماني والديني، كما أشارت تجربة رئيس الحكومة السابق اسحق رابين الذي دفع حياته ثمناً للواقعية السياسية، في زمن كانت التوازنات أفضل بكثير لحساب «إسرائيل» من اليوم، وسبقت صدور قانون الكونغرس بشبه إجماع حول القدس بسنة فقط.

– القرار الأميركي هو تعويذة أخيرة، يزوّد بها الأميركيون «إسرائيل»، والنيات هي تعزيز القدرة على مواجهة القدر القاتم، والنتائج هي تقريب ساعة هذا القدر، كما تقول فلسطين، والسياقات التي يبشر بها التناغم التصاعدي بين محور المقاومة والشارع الفلسطيني ومقاومته، إذ يكفي أنّ الأوهام والفتن قد سقطت مع صدور القرار، وهي السلاح الأميركي الحاسم، وقيمة الأعمال والنيات هي بالنتائج، هكذا تقول السياسة. والسؤال، كيف يشعل القادة الكبار الحروب فينتصرون أو يهزمون، إذا كانت الحروب، وهي أعلى مراتب السياسة في الحسابات، لا تُخاض إلا بحسابات صحيحة، أليست حرب العراق وعدوان تموز 2006 أمامنا مثالاً؟

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: