Mass Insanity Grips America

berkeley

On Wednesday night a crowd of protesters turned out for a protest at the University of California in Berkeley against a speech that was to have been given by an editor at the Breitbart website. Things were more or less peaceful until a crowd of about 150 “masked agitators,” as they were described, showed up and began carrying out acts of violence.

According to media reports, the mostly black-clad “anarchists” were clearly intent on overt acts of violence. Rocks, molotov cocktails, and “commercial grade fireworks” were all thrown–and yet, as CNN reports, “no arrests were made throughout the night.”

I tried, by doing a search, to confirm CNN’s information about there being no arrests, but none of the news reports I turned up mentioned anything about anyone being arrested and taken to jail. And indeed, in the photo above, which I grabbed from one of the videos available today, you can see smoke from an exploding firework of some sort, plus a crowd of people on the sidewalk–and a group of police standing inside a building looking out and more or less just watching.

The absence of any police action to quell the disturbance is discussed in the video below, which features an interview conducted by Tucker Carlson of Fox News with Milo Yiannopoulos, the Breitbart editor who was to have given the talk but who ended up being evacuated from the campus.

The violence that took place in Berkeley is symptomatic of the insanity sweeping America, but in my view, the insanity is on both sides of the equation–the social justice warrior protestors as well as Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, and Fox News.

While Wikipedia refers to Breitbart as “a far-right American news, opinion, and commentary website,” the reality is that if you go Breitbart you will be hard-pressed to find anything critical of Israel or its lobby in America–and in fact, in the video below, Yiannopoulos makes no mention of either.

Likewise, with the protestors. We have seen large protests over Trump’s refugee policies, but where was the outrage when neocon policy makers started the wars that destroyed whole countries and created the refugee crisis in the first place? We heard hardly a peep about it from the left.

So what we have here is a case of “everybody babbling about everything except for what matters the most.” Which in effect is mass insanity. And the fact that neither the left nor the right (or the “political center,” for that matter either) offers any solution to the real problems facing America suggests that the insanity epidemic is going to grow worse, not better.

Further aggravating the derangement is that college campuses, formerly bastions of free thought, have now become some of the most repressive environments in American society. Protestors in Berkeley last night carried signs reading, “No safe place for racists” and “This is war.”

The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.

As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.

Yes, they “warned,” but apparently did nothing else. I once lived in San Francisco and would occasionally attend protests across the bay in Berkeley. This was back in the 1990s, and I can tell you that in those days, Berkeley Police were not shy about making arrests. But apparently that’s different now.

In further evidence of the insanity, the U.C.-Berkeley administration issued a statement condemning the violence, yet at the same time essentially blaming it all on Yiannopoulos.

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer’s presence and perspectives,” UC Berkeley said in a statement.

“While Yiannopoulos’ views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus’s Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective,” it stated.

Legally bound to “enable free expression,” yet it was the university which made the decision to cancel the speech and apparently also to call off the police.

President Trump responded to all this by implying the possibility of a cutoff of federal funding to the university.

If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

 In an article published a few days ago, The Saker expressed the view that a “color revolution” is currently underway in America. I think he’s probably right up to a point, and one could surmise certainly that the violent protestors who showed up Wednesday night in Berkeley were of the “protestors-for-hire” variety.

Yet I think there may be more to what’s going on than simply a color revolution against the Trump administration. It was back in 2001 when Ariel Sharon made the oft-quoted comment that “We Jews control America.” Yet the Zionist Jews who hold so much clout in America are of the neocon persuasion, for the most part, and as such they tend to be more “internationalist” in their outlook than the religious fundamentalists who now have power in Israel. Thus we have the neocons in America pushing for war with Russia, while Russia and Israel maintain not only friendly, but cordial relations almost. The rift between the neocons of America and the religious fundamentalists of Israel was perhaps most evident back in March of 2014 when the US pushed for a UN resolution condemning Russia for its annexation of Crimea–a resolution which Israel refused to support.

More recently, of course, we have seen neocons and other Zionists in America screeching about Trump’s immigration policies…while Netanyahu has praised Trump’s decision to build a wall and an Israeli company is reportedly seeking the contract to construct it.

One way to look at it, perhaps, is that the ambitions of the neocons are far greater than simply expanding Israel’s borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. They want the entire planet. The fundamentalists in Israel, on the other hand, are far more concerned with “the land” and with driving the Palestinians from it, and they view pragmatism, rather than open conflict with Russia, as the best approach in achieving their goals.

Now enter the Trump administration, which has sided openly with the fundamentalist Israeli faction–which may explain why we see so much anti-Trump vitriol, even still, from the mainstream media, despite the fact that Trump has been overtly pro-Israel. So while The Saker may be right in that someone (most likely the neocons) is instigating a color revolution against Trump, there is likely far more going on than just that.

At any rate, here is the video with the interview between Yiannopoulos and Carlson.

All Forces Which Entered Syria without Government’s Consent Must Leave, Including USA, Saudi & israel

All Forces Entered Syria without Government’s Consent Must Leave: Boroujerdi

 

All Forces Entered Syria without Government’s Consent Must Leave:Boroujerdi
All Forces Entered Syria without Government’s Consent Must Leave:Boroujerdi
Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security at the Iranian parliament Alaeddin Boroujerdi reiterated his country’s support for Syria and the Axis of Resistance in the face of terrorism, stressing that all terrorists must be expelled from Syria.

Speaking at a press conference in Damascus on Thursday, Boroujerdi, who is on a visit to Syria heading a delegation, said “Our delegation is here to reaffirm once again Iran’s support for Syria and the Axis of Resistance in confronting Syria’s enemies who have waged an unfair war against this country for years now;” SANA reported.

He noted that Syria is on the frontline of confronting the Zionist entity.

“We strongly support the independence and territorial integrity of Syria, and therefore we condemn any entry of foreign forces into the Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian government as it contradicts the international laws,” said Boroujerdi.

He affirmed that all the forces that have entered the Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian government or coordination with it must leave it immediately.

The Iranian official said the US and the Zionist entity have plotted and sent tens of thousands of terrorists from all corners of the world to Syria to deal a blow to the Resistance in service of Israel, noting however that the world, after around six years of this proxy war on Syria, has now come to know that this “demonic project” has failed.

Boroujerdi pointed out that the liberation of Aleppo from terrorism is a symbol of the victory of the Syrian army and the supporting forces.

“This victory represents a key stage of the war, and the countries supporting terrorism must realize this fact and know that they cannot stand in the face of the will of a whole people,” he added.

Boroujerdi went on saying that any sustainable cessation of hostilities in Syria requires the elimination of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist organizations in Syria.

He highlighted that the role played by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and all forces operating within the Axis of Resistance is a primary one in the course of the war on terrorism.

Boroujerdi also affirmed that his country supports a political solution to the crisis in Syria through an intra-Syrian dialogue where solutions can be reached by the Syrians themselves without any imposed conditions or foreign dictates.

Trump May Kill Netanyahu With Kindness

Photo by thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0

Photo by thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0

Nazareth.

While the United States presidential election bitterly divided the American public, most Israelis were sanguine about the race. Both candidates – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – were keen to end eight years of icy mistrust between Barack Obama, the outgoing president, and Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister should – at least on paper – be happier with Trump.

Netanyahu, elected four times, has always faced off with Democratic incumbents. Now he has not only a right-wing Republican in the White House but a Republican-dominated Congress too.

Standing guard over the relationship will be Sheldon Adelson, a US casino magnate who is Netanyahu’s most vocal supporter. It will not be lost on Trump that the billionaire is one of the Republican Party’s main financiers.

Netanyahu was among the first to congratulate Trump by phone. The US president-elect reciprocated by inviting him for talks “at the first opportunity”. And yet Netanyahu is reported to be anxious about a Trump White House. Why?

It is certainly not because of Trump’s stated policies on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

He has backed moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a move that, if implemented, would make the US the first western state to recognise the city as Israel’s capital. It would effectively rubber-stamp Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, the expected capital of a Palestinian state.

Previous Republican candidates have made the same promise, but Trump looks like the first who might carry it through. A nervous Palestinian leadership warned at the weekend they would “make life miserable” for him if he did.

A Trump policy statement issued just before the election could have been written by Netanyahu himself.

It dismissed a two-state solution as “impossible”, blaming the Palestinian leadership for rewarding terrorism and educating children in “hatred of Israel and Jews”. It suggested that Israel would have a free hand to expand the settlements.

There were hints too that US military aid might be increased above the record $38 billion over 10 years recently agreed by Obama. And the statement proposed a crackdown on all boycott activities, even those targeting settlements. “The false notion that Israel is an occupier should be rejected,” it concluded.

So why the nerves in Tel Aviv?

However hawkish Netanyahu appears to outsiders, he is relatively moderate compared to the rest of his Likud party and his government coalition partners.

The prime minister has won favour at home by presenting himself as an embattled leader, but one best placed to look out for Israel’s interests against a hostile White House. Now with the battlefield gone, Netanyahu’s armour risks making him look both clumsy and surplus to requirements.

There is another danger. Trump’s advisers on the Israel-Palestine conflict are closer to settler leader Naftali Bennett, the education minister, than Netanyahu. After Trump’s victory, Bennett crowed: “The era of a Palestinian state is over.”

The Israeli prime minister could find himself outflanked by Bennett if the Trump administration approves settler demands to annex most or all of the West Bank.

Netanyahu’s realisation of his Greater Israel dream may prove pyrrhic.

Israel’s complete takeover of the West Bank could trigger an irreversible crisis with Europe; the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, forcing the military and financial burden of the occupation back on to Israel; and a full-blown intifada from Palestinians, battering Netanyahu’s security credentials.

The creation of a Greater Israel could also damage Israel by reframing the Palestinian struggle as a fight for equal rights in a single state. Comparisons with earlier struggles, against South African apartheid and Jim Crow in the US deep south, would be hard to counter.

But Netanyahu has an additional reason to fear an imminent Trump presidency.

There were few US politicians Netanyahu had a better measure of than Hillary Clinton. He knew her Middle East policy positions inside out and had spent years dealing with her closest advisers.

Trump, by contrast, is not only an unknown quantity on foreign policy but notoriously mercurial. His oft-stated isolationist impulses and his apparent desire to mend fences with Russia’s Vladimir Putin could have unpredictable implications for the Middle East and Israel.

He might tear up last year’s nuclear accord with Iran, as Netanyahu hopes, but he might just as equally disengage from the region, giving more leeway to Iran and Russia. The effect on the international inspections regime in Iran or the proxy wars raging in Israel’s backyard, in Syria and elsewhere, would be hard to predict.

In short, Trump could kill Netanyahu with kindness, turn Israel into a pariah state in western capitals and leave it exposed strategically.

In addition, becoming the poster child of a controversial and possibly short-lived Trump presidency could rapidly transform Israel into a deeply divisive issue in US politics.

The adage – be careful what you wish for – may yet come to haunt Netanyahu.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

More articles by:

FROM DEIR EZZOR TO ALEPPO TO DAMASCUS, PLURALISTIC SYRIA’S COMMUNITIES FIGHT ZIO-IMPERIALISM TOGETHER

syrian-arab-army-flag

by Jonathan Azaziah

One of the greatest lies of the entire conspiracy against the Syrian Arab Republic, if not the single most ubiquitous and oft-repeated lie of all, is that the Syrian Arab Army is a predominantly Alawi force and that it really operates more like a “sectarian militia” or a “gang of shabiha” than a national military. And whilst anyone who considers himself or herself pro-Syria has debunked this falsehood with such repetition that it has become a central talking point for putting sleeping lemmings through the class of “Understanding The Conspiracy Against Syria 101”, we nevertheless continue to say it over and over again that the SAA is not sectarian, nor is it minoritarian. The SAA is in fact mostly Sunni, as Syria itself is mostly Sunni, as well as multi-communal, with all types of Syrians from all walks of life comprising the lower and upper ranks of the righteous institution, as Syria is the most pluralistic country in our region. This truth shines particularly bright in the wake of the massacre that the American regime committed against Syrian soldiers in Deir Ezzor. There were Sunnis, Shi’a, Alawis, Druze and Christians among those martyred and wounded, and their origins can be traced back to every corner of Syria, from the smallest villages to the grandiose lights of the provincial capitals.

If the Syrian Arab Army was nothing more than Bashar al-Assad’s private sectarian mercenary force, why would these soldiers be sent to “far-flung” Deir Ezzor? Why wouldn’t they be sent to say, predominantly Druze Sweida? Or the besieged Shi’a towns of Al-Foua’a and Kefraya in Idleb to finally wage a battle for liberation? Or merely left in the capital to further enforce the security of “the regime”? Why? The answer, while rhetorical to an almost infuriatingly obvious degree to the likes of us, still needs to be spit at the braindead like a rapidfire rhyme. The Syrian Arab Army, in all its multi-communal glory, fights for all of Syria and for every Syrian. Its “sect” is Syrian. Its “religion” is Syria itself. And its doctrinal dogma is “resistance on Syria’s behalf”. These soldiers fight for a united Bilad al-Sham and they die for that very same principle. So much Zionist propaganda has been tossed into the information stream but even after such a horrific tragedy, the fitnah hasn’t and will not take place in the Syrian Arab Republic.

In that same spirit, as we observe the fast-paced fighting throughout Aleppo, where fierce clashes are ongoing between various US-backed “moderate” terrorist gangs and the Syrian Arab Army working side-by-side with Palestinian paramilitary organization Liwa Al-Quds, we see another oft-repeated lie, that the majority of Syrian-Palestinians either remained “neutral” or backed the “revolution”, eviscerated. The presence of Liwa Al-Quds in the recent victories at Handarat Refugee Camp and Al-Kindi Hospital as well as the rapid, lightning-like advancement in other key Aleppo City districts, sends that false narrative spiraling into oblivion indeed.

The important battlefield contributions of Qouwat al-Jalil, the PFLP-GC, Fatah al-Intifada, the Palestine Liberation Army (Palestinian wing of the SAA) and the Palestinian members of the NDF add further credence to this truism.

Most Syrian-Palestinians in fact, like most Syrians generally speaking, are supporters of President Assad, and whether it is through the sacrifices they’ve made in the armed struggle against Zio-soawned Takfirism or the giant pro-Assad demonstrations seen as recently as a couple of months ago in the city-camps of Jaramana, Handarat, Latakia, Nayrab–where some of the finest olives and pistachios in the world are grown–and Khan Dannoun, the evidence is on bold, beautiful and bright display for those who are examining the Syrian theater from a perspective untainted by the Zionist media.

Everything is brought full-circle when we look at the other ethnicities, faiths and sects who make up Syria’s pluralistic fabric. The aforementioned Druze of Sweida, as well as the Druze of the occupied Golan Heights–who famously burned an ‘Israeli’ occupation military ambulance carrying Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists last summer–have remained firmly on the side of the Syrian Arab Army and have given many martyrs via their participation in the Mouqawamist activities of the NDF. The Syrian-Circassians, who are predominantly Sunni and have been in Syria for nearly 200 years, stand with President Assad. The Syrian Turkmen, in spite of small groups of traitors selling their souls to the FSA and essentially becoming auxiliaries of the Turkish regime, also stand overwhelmingly with Damascus. The Kurds who do not participate in the chauvinistic, balkanizing, pro-‘Israel’ activities of the PYD/YPG also support the Syrian government and proved so earlier this year when they, alongside their fellow Hasakah neighbors, rejected collaborator Salih Muslim’s Zionist “federalization” scheme.

The Syrian-Armenians, who suffered terrible losses this past Friday when Takfiri terrorists shelled western Aleppo and murdered 13 innocents, including several children, and wounded 41 more, are an integral part of the SAA-NDF military nexus and also represent a significant support base for the Syrian government. The Lebanese-Syrians, who were driven from their homeland when the usurping Zionist entity launched the 2006 July War, have unbroken solidarity with Dr. Assad and are playing a key role in the SSNP, which has offered sacrifices in Latakia, Qalamoun and Aleppo, among other vital regions. The Assyrians, whose presence in the land of Bilad al-Sham dates back not mere centuries but several millennia and who can genuinely be referred to as the “original Syrians”, are among the fiercest fighters of the NDF and their backing of Damascus has been critical in staving off the “regime change” plot. And then there are the Syrian-Iraqis, who formed the Abou Fadhl al-Abbas (A.S.) Brigade–which was later joined by Iraqis from Kufa, Karbala, Samarra, Kazimiyeh and elsewhere–to protect the Sayyeda Zaynab (A.S.) shrine in a show of unequivocal support to the Syrian state that opened its arms and doors to us when the Anglo-Zionist invasion drove us from our ancient birthplace.

This is Syria. Sunni, Shi’a, Alawi, Druze, Christian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Arab, Assyrian, Circassian, Armenian, Turkmen and Kurd, standing in unison against perhaps the largest, most intricate conspiracy that Empire Zionica has ever waged against a Global South state. And the asinine Colonialist French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault dares accuse Dr. Assad of trying to “break up Syria”? ‘Israeli’ and Zionist-funded Western think tanks–too many to count really–dare say that “the Assad regime” is trying to “carve out Alawite enclaves”?! How dare they! It is the Turkish regime which has Neo-Ottoman designs on northern Syria, i.e. partition; it is the cancerous ‘Israeli’ entity which has “Greater Israel” designs on all of Syria and southern Syria especially, i.e. partition; and it is the American ZOG, following the Zionist blueprints of “Clean Break” and Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy For ‘Israel’ In The 1980s”, which is seeking to disconnect Raqqa and Deir Ezzor from the Syrian body, i.e. partition.

In contrast, it is Syrian President Dr. Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian Arab Army which he commands, his allies from Hizbullah, Iran, Iraq and Russia, and the Syrian people of every faith and every creed who have resisted and prevented partition from manifesting. And when this struggle is over, and Syria is rebuilt from the ground up, it is not the Takfiri barbarity and the ‘Israeli’-NATO-GCC-spawned destruction, but this multi-ethnic, multi-communal beauty, this gorgeous, sublime, almost-poetic pluralism, which will be remembered. For in spite of the staunchest of efforts put into play by Earth’s Most Evil, Syria held together! Syria held together! All praises due to Almighty God, Syria held together… And won.

In Solidarity with the People of Syria: The Mercenary Terrorists are Losing.The Historic Significance of Defeating the West’s Dirty War…

Global Research, September 16, 2016
Flag-map_of_Syria.svg

Many people have wished me well and wished and wished me a safe journey.  Some people have donated money.  I am grateful for the best wishes, and the donations.

In many respects, we’re all in this together.  The plight of Syria and Syrians is entwined with us as well. If the West and its proxies successfully destroy Syria as they did to so many other countries, including Iraq, and Libya, and Afghanistan, then the next country on the list will be Iran and so on.

But the mercenary terrorists are losing.  I suspect that now the diplomats are looking for a way to help the US save face and to usher the West diplomatically out the door.  I hope this is the case.  The carnage in the Middle East, especially after the 911 false flag, is testament to the fact that a unipolar world is too dangerous for humanity.

Author and Anti-war activist Mark Taliano

Listening to diplomats can be confusing though. The Dirty War of aggression against Syria was planned well in advance.  The lies and diplomatic scripts were wrapped around the invasion plans once the plans were complete. Intelligence agencies decided well in advance to use so-called “Islamic Militants” to fight the war.  Saudi Arabia, a close ally of the West, is an incubator for these mercenaries, and Israel needs them as well to create their dream of a Greater Israel.

The story of the White/al Qaeda Helmets is particularly brazen. The White Helmets are a creation of Purpose Inc., and they, like all the fake NGOs, are embedded with the terrorists, and serve to advance the terrorist cause of regime change. Yet it is this same group that is vying for a Nobel Peace Prize.  If they win their award, it will be further testament to the contamination of the Western mind-set, to the success of fake NGOs, and to the effectiveness of Public Relations “perception managers”.

All of the different names for terrorist groups are part of the psychological operation. Syrians trying to live their lives refer to them all as “Daesch”.  Syrian writer Afraa Dagher, for instance, calls ISIS fiction.  She’s right.  It is well-documented that there are not and that there never were “moderate” terrorists.

Al Qaeda is the designated scape-goat to mislead the Western public, and to serve as a pretext to invade the world in a “war on terrorism”, which is itself a war for terrorism (since terrorists are the Western assets).

In Syria, the designated enemies are al Qaeda, ISIS etc. when in reality they are the “strategic assets”.  This is well-documented using admissions and documents from Western sources.

It is also well-documented that the West has a long history of creating, using, and supporting un-Islamic “Islamic Militants”.   Al Qaeda were proxies for the West in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Libya, in Iraq and now in Syria. The West calls them al Nursra Front in Syria.  The West uses these proxies as ground troops with a view to maintaining “plausible deniability” and distancing themselves from their assets’ crimes. The West has always claimed that it fights for freedom and democracy, and now for “humanitarian” reasons — but they are all Big Lies, and they always were.  The West is trying to destroy Syria because Syria is deemed to be an impediment to the West’s global hegemony and its projects for parasitical corporate globalization.  Public assets, including free education, free public healthcare, and values such as equality, and democracy, are enemies to corporate globalists.

This puts me in a somewhat awkward position in Syria.  Canada’s unspoken allies are the terrorists – all of them – so informed Syrians who haven’t read my articles may resent the Canadian flags on my luggage.  Terrorists, on the other hand, might welcome the sight of my flags, since the Canadian government supports the terrorists, but I have no intention to befriend terrorists operating in Syria, and every intention to befriend those who oppose the terrorists — the Canadian government doesn’t represent my views on this matter.

The knot of Syria exceeds the knot of Vietnam عقدة سورية تتفوّق على عقدة فييتنام

Updated; English translation added

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Since the end of the sixties of the last century, Vietnam has occupied a crucial role in the dual formation of the collective mind of the peoples of the world in the East and the West. It was constituted what was known later as Vietnam’s knot at the level of the Western public opinion in general and the American in particular. It is the description which the experts launched for the refusal of the peoples to grant the authorization of military interventions outside the borders to their rulers, under the slogan of ensuring the strategic interests and achieving the requirements of the national security. While the peoples of the East who were living under the burden of occupation, aggression, and the Western client systems were affected by the example and the model presented by Vietnam about the abilities of the peoples to impose the will and defeating the mightiest colonial powers when they stick to their cases despite the enormous differences in capabilities. It is not secret that the peoples who arouse for their freedom after the victory of Vietnam have faced better conditions to achieve their goals due to suppressing the ability of intervention which was caused by Vietnam’s knot.

According to the historic concept of the developments of the communities and the countries, the imperial project which America represented the peak of the capacity which it possessed has been defeated, but what has been defeated is the traditional imperial project, which means the military colonialism project which was made by the advanced industrial state to open the markets and to have control on the raw materials and the energy sources. And because the capital momentum was at its peak with the new technical discoveries, most notably the ability to develop the information and the communications sector, the capital markets and their structures, the world has transferred to the great  imperial phase through which America has succeeded despite the defeat in Vietnam in overthrowing the Soviet Union, sticking to the value of freedom against the value of justice which the Soviet experience has failed in making its practical example identical to its theoretical proposal. Through the power of the system of freedom, such as the freedom of belief, religion, the individual property, the freedom of media, the freedom of parties, the freedom of demonstration, the freedom of exchanging the goods, the freedom of market, and the freedom of movement of money, a global wave has been launched and has produced organizations and institutions, that led the world for decades from the World Trade Organization, Stock Market, and Wall Street to the organizations of human rights and the organizations of the civil community towards the systems of communications and internet, Facebook, the social media, the satellites, and the audible and visual channels,  thus the national state has fallen and the globalization has emerged, in addition to what has permitted to the philosophers of the new imperial era through marketing the theories of the world’s end, the clash of the civilizations which their end depends on the ability to survive. The intention surely is the consuming culture which Thomas Friedman has summarized in his book “Lexus and the Olive tree” by the invasion of Lexus, which means the aspiration to luxury for all the olives fields, which means the private identities.

The project of the great imperialism has been completed with the seizure of the legacy of the patient Soviet man in Europe; the European Union has been constituted as an example of the first freedom committee. The war of globalization started its way from Afghanistan to Iraq to the war of July in Lebanon. Where the modern heavy wagon which was equipped with the techniques of laser has crashed with small stones that disabled its movement. The first consequences of the globalization with all its systems such as the fall of the major issues, creeds, homelands, and the penetration of the privatization to the structures of the armies is that the nations, the countries, and the armies wanted a war without blood, so they lost the ability to fight and their wars including the shameful immoral and inhuman confusions which their success was ensured by a commodity from the medial consumption market have been transmitted on air directly to the people’s homes, where the families which acquainted with the culture of claim of the moral superiority, where the families of the soldiers,  and the systems of the human rights which were formed for invading  the countries of others. The West which wanted to wage its war by plucking out the olive tress of others has discovered that it has become without its own olive tree or at least it did not find who can feed its olive tree by its blood because everyone wanted Lexus.

The war of Syria has occurred to culminate all the wars which preceded it, and thus it became the war of wars on which the fate of the project of the great imperialism determined, which based on the virtual economy, it was born from the virtual transcontinental geography and from virtual history of the pirates, the gold dealers, the killers of the indigenous people, and the new settlers. The project of the great imperialism wants to form a virtual state to rule the world, but against which many countries and real nations of real history, real economy, and real geography stood. The countries of the fixed assets have met the countries of the stock exchanges and the virtual stocks. So Washington did not find for its new project but a virtual recipe that borrows from the mid history an olive tree and another one from the far history to face the real olive trees of countries and nations that have national identities and which wage the movement of their independence, refusing the globalization of the huge three dimensions scanners, they insisted on the civilization of interaction and exchange, do not accept the freedom that only works in one way, they have the goods and the money while  they were prohibited on the humans. This time the imperial weapons was their contrary, two dried olive trees one of them is the Ottoman and the other is the ignorance which is represented by Al-Qaeda organization in its original version Al Nusra, and its modified version which is represented by ISIS.

In Syria the real modern civilization wins over the virtual civilization which the mercenaries of the Ottoman and the ignorance are fighting for its account, they are those ideologues who stick to the illusions of their olive trees, they are mercenaries as projects leaders whose their motivation is the illusions of sultanate and the caliphate, they are ideologues in the bodies of their followers who stick to the illusions of what they think that it is the absolute truth, and thus the hybrid imperial project falls as a result of the contradiction of its ideology which based on freedom and the fall of identity, because it does not find who can serve its project but only zealots to the extent of savagery in the identities which they foreshadow of , and through the ideological hostility toward the freedom. Syria has presented through its humanitarian project which based on accepting the other who is different religiously, comparing with Europe which could not offer something alike, and through its humanitarian alliances which based despite the difference of its premises on the tripartite the diversity, the national identity, and the civilization what can make the livelihood of the people better through well-being, law, and institutions.

The size of the challenge which was imposed by the war of Syria on the humanity in testing the ideas is much more than the challenge of blood, destruction and devastation which caused by the brutal experience which America brought to people who have long experience in the human civilization, but what is foreshadowing of goodness is that the ideas and the ideologies are as waves die and live by the power of the ability to form emerging power that has a viable project, that can withstand till it has the opportunity of exposing to the real test, so either it overwhelms by the power of success or it will fade under the influence of the failure. It is not a secret that the ottoman and the ignorance are the worst versions of the political investment for the fall of the positive ideologies. Their failure in solving the major issues, as well as the return of the people in the East and West to the religion will not make them survive after the resounding experience of their fall in Syria. The Ottoman and the ignorance will fade accompanied with the culture of extremism and atoning, and thus the religious and the secular thought will has the opportunities for the search for the humanitarian commons from the gate of Syria, Russia, and Iran, and the philosophical knot of Syria will be bigger than its military and political one according to America, and more inspiring to the people who seek for identity and protecting the olive tree.

As the major Israel and the great Israel have fallen by the fall of the occupation and the deterrence force and after the resistance has the honor of achieving this historic transformation which the war on Syria was needed to overthrow its effects, the project of the great imperialism which based on wars has been culminated by the fall of the great imperialism which based on wars by proxy, accompanied with the fall of the hypocrite project of globalization which based on the abolition of the national identities. Therefore Syria has become the castle in the two victories and on the two fronts, so just few years the libraries of the American books will be filled with philosophical, political, and cultural attempts that try to answer the question how did that happen, and who is that genius and who is that man who could from his office that locates off Mount Qassioun write this new page in the history of humanity?

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ناصر قنديل

– منذ نهاية الستينيات في القرن الماضي احتلت فييتنام دوراً حاسماً في صياغة مزدوجة للوجدان الجمعي لشعوب العالم على ضفتي الغرب والشرق، حيث تشكل ما عرف لاحقاً بعقدة فييتنام على مستوى الرأي العام الغربي عموماً والأميركي خصوصاً. وهو التوصيف الذي أطلقه الخبراء على رفض الشعوب منح التفويض لحكامها بتدخلات عسكرية خارج الحدود، تحت شعار ضمان المصالح الاستراتيجية وتحقيق مقتضيات الأمن القومي، بينما لدى شعوب الشرق التي كانت تعيش تحت وطأة الاحتلال والعدوان والأنظمة العميلة للغرب، فقد قدمت فييتنام النموذج والمثال، على قدرة الشعوب عندما تأخذ قضيتها بين أيديها، على فرض هذه الإرادة وإلحاق الهزيمة بأعتى القوى الاستعمارية، رغم الفوارق الهائلة في المقدرات، وليس خافياً أن الشعوب التي نهضت لحريتها بعد نصر فييتنام واجهت ظروفاً أفضل لتحقيق أهدافها بفعل لجم قدرة التدخل الذي تسببت به عقدة فييتنام.

– بالمفهوم التاريخي لتطور المجتمعات والدول، هزم المشروع الإمبريالي الذي كانت تجسّد أميركا ذروة القدرة التي يمتلكها، لكن الذي هزم هو المشروع الإمبريالي التقليدي، أي مشروع الاستعمار العسكري الذي تقوم به الدولة الصناعية المتقدمة لفتح الأسواق ووضع اليد على المواد الخام ومصادر الطاقة، ولأن قوة الدفع الرأسمالية كانت في أوج صعودها مع الاكتشافات التقنية الجديدة، وأهمها القدرة على تطوير قطاع المعلومات والاتصالات، وأسواق المال وهيكلياتها، انتقل العالم إلى مرحلة الإمبريالية العظمى، الذي نجحت معه أميركا رغم الهزيمة في فييتنام، من إسقاط الاتحاد السوفياتي، متمسكة بقيمة الحرية، بوجه قيمة العدالة التي فشلت التجربة السوفياتية في جعل نموذجها العملي مطابقاً لعرضها النظري، وبقوة منظومة الحرية، حرية المعتقد والدين وحرية الملكية الفردية، وحرية الإعلام، وحرية الأحزاب، وحرية التظاهر، وحرية التبادل للبضائع وحرية السوق، وحرية تنقل الأموال، انطلقت موجة عالمية أنتجت منظمات ومؤسسات، قادت العالم لعقود، من منظمة التجارة العالمية وبورصة وول ستريت، إلى منظمات حقوق الإنسان ومنظمات المجتمع المدني، وصولاً لمنظومات الاتصالات والإنترنت، والفايسبوك وشبكات التواصل الاجتماعي، والأقمار الصناعية والفضائيات المرئية والمسموعة، لتسقط الدولة الوطنية، وتظهر العولمة، ما أتاح لفلاسفة العهد الإمبريالي الجديد، التسويق لنظريات نهاية العالم، وصدام الحضارات، المحسومة نهايته للأقدر على البقاء، والقصد طبعاً الثقافة الاستهلاكية، التي اختصرها توماس فريدمان في كتابه سيارة اللكزس وشجرة الزيتون، باجتياح اللكزس، أي التطلّع نحو الرفاه، لكل حقول الزيتون، أي الهويات الخصوصية.

– اكتملت عضلات مشروع الإمبريالية العظمى، مع الاستيلاء على تركة الرجل السوفياتي المريض في أوروبا، وتشكل الاتحاد الأوروبي كنموذج لجنة الحرية الأولى، وبدأت حرب العولمة طريقها من افغانستان إلى العراق إلى حرب تموز في لبنان، واصطدمت العربة الثقيلة العصرية والمزودة بكل تقنيات اللايزر، بحجارة صغيرة، عطلت مسيرتها، فكانت أولى ثمار العولمة بكل منظوماتها ومنها سقوط القضايا الكبرى والعقائد والأوطان وتغلغل الخصخصة إلى هياكل الجيوش، أن الشعوب والدول والجيوش صارت تريد حرباً بلا دماء، ففقدت القدرة على القتال، وصارت حروبها بما فيها الارتكابات المشينة واللاأخلاقية واللاإنسانية، التي تضمن نجاحها سلعة من سوق الاستهلاك الإعلامي تنقلها الشاشات على الهواء مباشرة إلى بيوت الناس، حيث العائلات المشبعة بثقافة الادعاء بالتفوق الأخلاقي، حيث أسر الجنود، وحيث منظومات حقوق الإنسان التي تشكلت لغزو بلاد الغير. واكتشف الغرب الذي أراد خوض حربه لاقتلاع أشجار زيتون الآخرين، أنه بات بلا شجرة زيتون تخصّه، أو على الأقل لا يجد مَن يفدي شجرة زيتونه بدمه، فالكل يريد سيارة اللكزس.

– جاءت حرب سورية لتتوّج كل الحروب التي سبقتها، وتكون حرب الحروب التي يتوقف عليها تحديد مصير مشروع الإمبريالية العظمى، الذي يقوم على الاقتصاد الافتراضي، وولد من جغرافيا افتراضية عابرة للقارات، ومن تاريخ افتراضي للقراصنة وتجار الذهب وقتلة السكان الأصليين، المستوطنون الجدد، ويريد أن يشكل دولة افتراضية لحكم العالم. وقفت قبالته دول وشعوب حقيقية، بتاريخ حقيقي واقتصاد حقيقي، وجغرافيا حقيقية، وتلاقت دول الأصول الثابتة مع دول البورصات والأسهم الافتراضية، فلم تجد واشنطن لمشروعها الجديد إلا وصفة افتراضية تستعير شجرة زيتون من الماضي المتوسط وأخرى من الماضي السحيق، لتواجه أشجار الزيتون الحقيقية لدول وشعوب لديها هوياتها الوطنية، تخوض حركة استقلالها، وترفض عولمة الناسخات الضخمة الثلاثية الأبعاد، وتصرّ على حضارة التفاعل والتبادل، ولا تقبل حرية لا تعمل إلا باتجاه واحد، وتحظى بها البضائع والأموال وتحظر على البشر، فكان السلاح الإمبريالي هذه المرة نقيضها، شجرتا زيتون مخشبتان، واحدة اسمها العثمانية والثانية اسمها الجاهلية التي لبس ثوبها تنظيم القاعدة بنسختيه الأصلية التي تمثلها النصرة ونسخته المعدلة التي يمثلها داعش.

– تنتصر في سورية المدنية الحديثة الواقعية، على المدنية الافتراضية التي يقاتل لحسابها مرتزقة العثمانية والجاهلية العقائديون المتمسكون بأوهام أشجار زيتونهم. فهم مرتزقة كقادة مشاريع حافزهم أوهام السلطنة والخلافة، وعقائديون، بأجساد مريديهم المتعلقين بأوهام ما يظنونه الحقيقة المطلقة، ليسقط المشروع الإمبريالي المهجن، بتناقض عقيدته القائمة على الحرية وسقوط الهوية، بأنه لم يجد مَن يخدم مشروعه إلا متزمتون حتى التوحش في الهويات التي يبشرون بها، وبالعداء العقائدي للحرية، وقدّمت سورية بمشروعها الإنساني القائم على قبول الآخر المختلف دينياً بما لم تستطع أوروبا بعد تقديم مثله، وبتحالفاتها الإنسانية القائمة رغم اختلاف منطلقاتها على ثلاثية التعدد والهوية الوطنية والتمدن، بما هو الأخذ بما ترفد به عقول البشر شوط حياتهم للأفضل من رفاه، وقانون، ومؤسسات.

– حجم التحدي الذي فرضته حرب سورية على البشرية، في اختبار الأفكار أكبر بكثير من تحدي الدم والدمار والخراب الذي خلفته التجربة المتوحشة التي جلبتها أميركا لشعب كان له باع طويل في كتابة الحضارة الإنسانية، لكن ما يجب الالتفات إليه ويبشّر بالخير، هو أن الأفكار والعقائد هي موجات تموت وتحيا بقوة القدرة على تشكيل قوة صاعدة، تحمل مشروعاً قابلاً للحياة، وتستطيع الصمود حتى تتاح لها فرصة التعرّض للاختبار الواقعي، فإما أن تطغى بقوة النجاح أو تتهاوى وتتلاشى تحت تأثير الفشل، وليس خافياً أن موجتي الجاهلية والعثمانية، كأسوأ نسختين للاستثمار السياسي لسقوط العقائد الوضعية، وفشلها في حل القضايا الكبرى، وعودة الشعوب شرقاً وغرباً للتدين، لن تكون لهما قابلية عيش بعد التجرية المدوية لسقوطهما في سورية، فالجاهلية والعثمانية ستتلاشيان ومعهما ثقافة التطرف والتكفير، وسيكون للفكر الديني والعلماني فرص البحث عن مشتركات إنسانية من بوابة سورية وروسيا وإيران، وستكون عقدة سورية الفلسفية أكبر من عقدتها العسكرية والسياسية بالنسبة لأميركا، وأشد إلهاما للشعوب على ضفاف البحث عن الهوية وحماية شجرة الزيتون.

– بمثل ما سقطت إسرائيل الكبرى وإسرائيل العظمى، بسقوط قوة الاحتلال وقوة الردع، وكتب للمقاومة شرف إنجاز هذا التحول التاريخي، الذي أريد للحرب على سورية إسقاط مفاعيله، توّج سقوط مشروع الإمبريالية الكبرى القائمة على الحروب، بسقوط الإمبريالية العظمى القائمة على حروب الوكالة، ومعهما سقط مشروع العولمة المخادع، القائم على إلغاء الهويات الوطنية، وكتب لسورية أن تكون القلعة في الانتصارين وعلى الجبهتين. وسنوات قليلة ستمتلئ خزائن الكتب الأميركية بمحاولات فلسفية وسياسية وثقافية تحاول الإجابة عن سؤال، كيف حدث هذا، وأي عبقري هو هذا الرجل الذي استطاع من مكتبه القابع قبالة جبل قاسيون أن يكتب هذه الصفحة الجديدة في تاريخ الإنسانية؟

Related Articles

 

The “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East ~ [Updated Reissue]

Syrian Free Press

ERETZ-ISRAEL-MAP-2

The “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East…and the New World Order


The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan”

By Israel Shahak
Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky


real-zionist-flag-700x200

Global Research Editor’s Note

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.

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 war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.

Greater_israel“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.

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.

oded-yinon-plan-for-greater-israel-small

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. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and NATO is directly supportive of the crusade directed against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), which ultimately seeks to destroy both Syria and Iraq as nation states. 

(Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015)


plan-sioniste-529X
~

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.”

from

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 Note 1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.”

5

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.

6

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.

7

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


Israel-Shahak-quote2

Foreward

by Israel Shahak

1

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:

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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


israhell-snake-20141208

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.

1

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.

2

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, 1i.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.

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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).

7

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.

8

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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

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.

13

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.

14

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

15

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.

16

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.

17

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.9The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.

18

(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which 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

19

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 Israel with 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 long run. 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

20

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.

21

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 the downfall 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

22

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 world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously 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

23

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’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 will shorten 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

24

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

25

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.

26

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 the Jordan. 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

27

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 and beyond 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.

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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.

Conclusion

1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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?

6

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)

ERETZ-ISRAEL-MAP

Notes

  • 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.

neturei_karta_www.syrianfreepress.net_3

 


SOURCES:
GlobalResearch, 23/4/2016
Previous publication on GlobalResearch, 29/4/2013
Previous publication on SyrianFreePress/WarPress, 11/12/2013
~
Submitted by SyrianPatriots 
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/zionist-plan-updated/
~
%d bloggers like this: