Archive | May 19th, 2017

Field of Voices: Planting Seeds of Resilience

Dr. Laila Al-Marayati (l) and Naomi Shihab Nye with a poster of Gazan children. S. Twair photo


Award-winning poet and writer Naomi Shihab Nye told attendees at KinderUSA’s annual fund-raiser on May 13 at the Audubon Center in Los Angeles, “I’m rooting for the children of Gaza and all the children of the world who somehow have to survive in terrible circumstances created for them by adults. We, who have had longer on the planet, should know better. But the people in power do not seem to know better.”

Nye, a Palestinian American who lives in San Antonio, TX, went on to discuss the the Israeli army’s outrageous treatment of citizens in Gaza. She described the blockade as well as the sanctions against human beings who have as much right to live as any Israeli. Somehow Israel always gets a free pass and the government’s abuse goes unchecked, she said—then the U.S. gives it more money!

Nye encouraged her American community to always speak out and support projects like KinderUSA, that “speak to the better instincts of humankind…I urge everyone to contribute to KinderUSA as much as they can. Dr. Laila Al-Marayati is my hero,” she explained.

Saying that she began writing poems at age 6, Nye read a selection from her book Tender Spot, about girls in GazaShe then read one called “The Dishes Will Wait,” from Balcony on the Moon: Coming of Age in Palestine by Ibtisam Barakat.

Nye concluded by saying: “I’m proud to be present for a project supporting rights of children who deserve as much as the beautiful Californian children and all our children do.”

KinderUSA president Dr. Laila Al-Marayati commented, “The need this year is great!…We provide food every year to the Gaza children, especially in Ramadan.”

Bedouin X played traditional Arab music. Next Aarab Marwan Barghouthi, the youngest son of the long-time prisoner Marwan Barghouthi, was called to the podium to make spontaneous remarks.

“When my father was arrested I was little and didn’t know why the Israeli soldiers arrested him,” Barghouthi recalled. “Later, I went to see him in prison after he was tortured. Then I started to see him once every two years. He was growing older, with gray hair, but he has the same big smile. I haven’t touched my father’s hand in 15 years, but I still feel his warmth.”

In a moving show of solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners who are on hunger strike, KinderUSA offered attendees a bit of saltwater to drink in unison.

KinderUSA is the leading American Muslim organization focused on the health and well-being of Palestinian children. For more information on this 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, visit its website, <www.kinderusa.org>.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USAComments Off on Field of Voices: Planting Seeds of Resilience

Pro-Zionist Americans Much More Likely to Support Bombing of Syria, Denying Entry to Refugees

NOVANEWS

Prof. Shibley Telhami’s poll shows Americans who support Israel also support Trump’s travel ban.  Staff Photo D. Sprusansky


Americans who believe that U.S. foreign policy should lean toward Israel are significantly more likely to support President Donald Trump’s decisions to bomb a Syrian military airfield and to deny entry to refugees and travelers from the Middle East, according to a poll conducted in mid-April by University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami.

Discussing the poll’s findings at the Brookings Institution on May 11, Telhami noted that, overall, 52 percent of Americans support Trump’s April 6 decision to strike a Syrian government airfield. As expected, the poll revealed a deep partisan divide, with 81 percent of Republicans supporting this escalation of the U.S. role in Syria, compared to just 31 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Independents.

This partisan divide disappeared, however, when Israel was factored into the equation. Among those who want the U.S. to lean toward Israel (roughly one-third of Americans), 77 percent voiced support for the strike. “That’s true of Republicans, that’s true of Democrats, that’s true of Independents,” Telhami noted. “People who want the U.S. to lean toward Israel tend to be more supportive of the strikes than the rest of the population, regardless of party line.”

Just 38 percent of those who lean toward Palestine or neither side said they support the attack.

Supporters of Israel also were much more likely to be opposed to the U.S. taking in fully vetted refugees from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. Overall, 59 percent of Americans said they support the U.S. accepting these refugees, while just 40 percent of Israel’s supporters expressed this view.

Asked about Trump’s travel ban targeting six Muslim-majority countries, 80 percent of pro-Israel Americans expressed their support, while just 30 percent of those favoring Palestine or neither side said they agree with the ban. Overall, 49 percent of Americans expressed support for the ban.

Telhami’s poll also measured how Americans believe Trump’s April 6 strike will impact the future of the war in Syria.

More than half of the respondents—51 percent—believe the strike will have no impact on efforts to end the violence. A plurality—42 percent—believe the attack will result in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad targeting the Syrian opposition more aggressively. The poll also found that 66 percent of Americans believe Assad used chemical weapons against the town of Khan Shaykhun on April 4, while 23 percent said they were uncertain. The U.S. strike on the Syrian government airfield was launched in response to this alleged chemical attack.

In a rare area of bipartisan agreement, 63 percent of those surveyed said they believe the U.S. strike makes it more likely that American military involvement in the conflict will grow. This view was shared by 55 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Independents.

Despite clear skepticism that the strike will help end the war and fear it will increase the likelihood of an expanded U.S. military presence, Telhami believes a small majority of Americans still approved of the strike simply because they believe a message needed to be sent to Assad. “Among Democrats and Independents who are supporting this strike, they’re not supporting it because they think it’s going to make Syria better, but more because of the punitive [aspect]—you know, it’s about time we hit them for use of chemical weapons,” he said.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Pro-Zionist Americans Much More Likely to Support Bombing of Syria, Denying Entry to Refugees

The US Embassy will stay in Tel Aviv

NOVANEWS

david-friedman

The US embassy will not be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem before a peace deal between Israel and Palestine is reached. Having talked to the Arab leaders, US President Donald Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have finally understood the importance of such a move.

It would be an offense not only for the Arab world but also for international relations, international law, and the US in particular. Saying something on the campaign trail is one thing; acting as US President means something else.

The Trump administration will weigh the decision in the light whether it will support the peace process or not. Trump should not be led astray by Benjamin Netanyahu who argues that such a move would help the peace process and would shatter Palestinians fantasies. So far, Israel never made concessions after they got their wishes fulfilled.

The different US administration can tell the world a thing or two about it. Trump should know that Netanyahu’s word can’t be trusted. In 2011, French President Nikolas Sarkozy told President Obama: “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar.”

Despite Trump’s pro-Israel bias, the national interest of the US still prevails over the dictate of a tiny country, at least for the time being. Especially one guy is extremely furious: Casino mogul and Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson who donated millions of US dollars to the Trump campaign and now wants his wishes fulfilled.

Right-wing Education Minister Naftali Bennet called on Netanyahu that he should tell President Trump to move the embassy because “united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.” This kind of “independence” is an Israeli wishful thinking because the international community doesn’t recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because the city is still under Israeli occupation. The moving of the embassy would only strengthen the Israeli position and would make the Netanyahu government more rejectionists.

Despite Trump’s pro-Israel bias, the national interest of the US still prevails over the dictate of a tiny country, at least for the time being. Especially one guy is extremely furious: Casino mogul and Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson who donated millions of US dollars to the Trump campaign and now wants his wishes fulfilled.

Adelson, it is said, reacted furiously after Tillerson’s comments on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The casino tycoon was also upset because the Trump administration hasn’t hired some of the one-sided Middle East advisers from the Clinton or George W. Bush administration. If Trump is smart, he should not rely on these people because they all put Israeli interests over US ones.

If the Trump administration moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, the US would isolate itself on the international scene. The self-image of a so-called “honest broker” wouldn’t mean a thing. At least, right now, it means little. On October 23, 1995, the US Congress passed “The Jerusalem Embassy Act” to foster the move to the US embassy. But up till now, every US President had paid lip service to this call but didn’t act. So, why should Trump keep his campaign promise?

The Trump administration should put pressure on Netanyahu to stop the expansion of settlements to restore its credibility in the Middle East. Netanyahu will do everything in the world, to drag the US into a war with Iran. Obama could resist this pressure. Hopefully, Trump will also for the benefit of the US. Israel wants to destroy Iran, to expand its hegemony from the Persian Golf to Marrocco. To control this region, Iran is the last obstacle.

Perhaps the Trump administration has learned something from the mistakes made by George W. Bush. He has led the US into never ending wars against fictitious wars on terror. As a candidate, Trump seemed to have understood it. Will he be as wise as US president?

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The US Embassy will stay in Tel Aviv

Mark Taliano, Voices from Syria

NOVANEWS    

Voices from Syria

Global Research, Canada

Slowly but surely, the truth about the planned attack on Syria by Western powers under the leadership of the US Empire and its allies comes to the fore.

For too long, the mainstream media held the monopoly on reporting about this havoc inflicted by the West together with its terrorist partners such as ISIS, al-Nusra front, and so-called moderate rebels in Syria. Especially the Obama administration pampered the last one. As the public knows by now, there hasn’t been such a thing as “moderate rebels.”

That the public in the West could have been so misinformed, was the fault of CNN, BBC, NYT and other media outlets. They prostituted themselves to the power elite in Washington D. C. Independent reporting was not their task. They were part of the international war party, which wanted to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to establish another Islamic dictatorship according to the Saudi Arabian model. Already in August 2011, President Obama said, “Assad must go.”  Assad is still alive and kicking, and Obama is old news.

The Western propaganda machine didn’t even flinch from creating a false humanitarian organization, named “The White Helmets.” A British intelligence officer established it, and Western powers poured in 100 million US dollars. These folks were, in fact, al-Qaida affiliates disguised as paramedics. They operated in East Aleppo, long held by different terrorist organizations. The biggest fake-producing company, Hollywood, even awarded an “Oscar” to “The White Helmets.” [1] The British journalist Vanessa Beeley[2] was the first who disclosed this charade. “The White Helmets” cared only about wounded terrorists.

Besides these reports, Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” brings another aspect to a wider audience. Taliano, who is a Canadian investigative reporter and works as a research assistant at the “Centre for Research on Globalization” (CRG), shows an entirely different reality about Syria. He gives ordinary Syrians a voice. He reveals that the Western powers undermined the Syrian government and exposed it to attack. Apparently, the West has been fighting against the “criminal Assad regime” while, simultaneously, combating Islamic terrorists.

In his foreword, the director of CRG, Professor Michel Chossudovsky, emphasizes the concern of the author, namely, “what unites humanity with the Syrian people in their struggle against foreign aggression.” [3]Taliano was interested in the “mystery” of the courage and resilience of the Syrian people to endure six years of NATO-sponsored terrorist and “peacemaking” airstrikes that devastated the civil infrastructure. Strikingly, is the author’s documentation of the fight of the Syrian people against “NATO-terrorism.

Taliano’s book dispels several Western myths: The so-called “war on terrorism” is a fraud. The US and its coalition partners have created ISIS as stooges in the first place to bring about a regime change in Syria. The West mocked its aggression as “humanitarianism” to create heaviest crimes. That this aggression violates international law goes without saying. Without the massive propaganda support of the mainstream media, the “news” could not have spread that Assad oppresses and murders his people. If that had been the case, Assad would be gone long ago. The book shows that Assad has the support of the majority of the Syrians.

The author has good advice to the media: “The mainstream media must reinvent itself. They must stop spreading war propaganda, and they must begin to report truths based on evidence.” His book provides a convincing testimony to the bravery and resilience of the Syrian people, who have been fighting against an alliance of Western aggressors and Islamic terrorists for over six years. The fact that one of the oldest cultural nations of the world is bombed back to the Middle Ages by the West and its Arab allies is not only a colossal war crime but also a crime against humanity. The book corrects a large part of Western propaganda claims on Syria. Very readable and revealing.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Mark Taliano, Voices from Syria

Is Crisis in Macedonia Coming to an End?

NOVANEWS
Adelina Marini

At long last there are some good news coming from the Western Balkans, shaken in recent months by a constant rise in tensions, renewed sabre rattling, readiness for new interethnic conflicts and, of course, with Russia’s helpful role. Macedonian President Georgi Ivanov has finally handed opposition leader Zoran Zaev a mandate to form a government five months after the snap parliamentary elections in the country. Five months, marked by a violation of the Macedonian Constitution, a bloody attack on the parliament of the former Yugoslav Republic, a fuelling of interethnic hatred, and a vague attempt to renew EU presence in the country and the region in general.

Under pressure by the international community and Macedonian society, the president handed over the mandate after he received guarantees from Mr Zaev that he would work to preserve the territorial integrity of Macedonia and will respect the Constitution. The reason for demanding guarantees were the Albanian parties, who supported the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), after signing a platform in January in Tirana, demanding full equality, in accordance with the Constitution, which included linguistic equality – that is, bilingualism – holding a debate about the flag, anthem, and the state coat of arms of Macedonia, so that they reflect the multi-ethnic character of the country. The platform also called for the adoption of a resolution in Parliament, which would condemn the genocide over the Albanian people in Macedonia in the period 1912-1956.

Among other demands in the Tirana platform is strengthening of the rule of law and the implementation of reforms related to the European integration of the country. Support is also sought for the Special Prosecutor, who is investigating the recordings leaked by the SDSM, which accuse former rulers, led by Nikola Gruevski, in a number of violations. The document also seeks to resolve the dispute with the name of Macedonia, establishing good relations with neighbours, and accelerated integration into the EU and NATO. The document has sparked sharp reactions across the region, not only in Macedonia, as it is linked to increasingly frequent statements by Albanian political officials about the creation of Greater Albania.

In an interview for the regional television channel N1 (a CNN affiliate), Zoran Zaev stated there was no room for larger countries either in Europe or in the Western Balkans region. According to him, the future of Macedonia is in the EU, where there are no borders and the freedom of movement of citizens is guaranteed. The parties which Zoran Zaev is yet to negotiate with to form a government are the Democratic Union for Integration of Ali Ahmeti, the Alliance for Albanians and Besa. Some of these parties were already part of government, only in a coalition with Nikola Gruevski’s VMRO-DPMNE. Zoran Zaev has promised that within ten days a government will be formed and it will be voted in parliament.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini (Italy, Socialists and Democrats) and EU enlargement negotiations Commissioner Johannes Hahn (Austria, EPP) welcomed the decision of the head of state to give Zoran Zaev a mandate as “an important step in the process of government formation”. The EU expects a swift formation of a government willing to stick to the Pržino Agreement and the reform programme. The Pržino Agreement of 2 June 2015 was negotiated with the EU’s mediation in order to put an end to the crisis, provoked by the facts revealed by leaked recordings of conversations of senior state officials, including then Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski.

With this agreement, all political parties commit to putting the country’s interests above everything else; respect democratic principles; and work to improve relations with neighbouring countries. Almost two years after the signing of the agreement, it appears that the country is ready to emerge from the crisis. The damage and the challenges, however, are great. For the past almost 12 years, ever since Macedonia was granted candidate status, the country has failed significantly in terms of democratic standards, including freedom of speech. According to this year’s Reporters Without Borders index of press freedom, Macedonia is ranked 111th. In 2005, when the European Commission granted it candidate status, Macedonia was 43rd in this ranking.

In this period, according to the The Economist Intelligence Unit‘s democracy index, the former Yugoslav Republic has taken a huge step backward – it has fallen out of the flawed democracies group and into the one of hybrid regimes. This is the last step before a full-fledged authoritarian regime. The decline raises the question of whether Macedonia still qualifies as a candidate for EU membership. The same question stands for Turkey, as euinside recently reported. The task faced by the new government, part of which will be parties that have been involved in governance throughout this

process of democratic decline, will be extremely difficult. No less challenging will be the behaviour of the now oppositional VMRO-DPMNE. In order for Macedonia to progress, it needs a national consensus on the way forward. Building such a consensus is yet to come.

It is also very important for the EU to play its role adequately. During her visit to the Western Balkan countries in March, Federica Mogherini found out first-hand how far the EU is from what is happening in the region. She tried to draw the Union’s attention to the problems, but much more needs to be done. The EU must be as committed as possible to the region and, in the case of Macedonia, to do its part. The promise of accession negotiations must be embodied by a specific commitment, one that includes Greece as well, which has not yet lifted its veto off the opening of negotiations with Macedonia. The former Yugoslav republic has experienced a severe crisis that could have a great cost to it, but also to the entire region and the EU, and now needs the full support of the Union in order to manage to get out of the political crisis for good.

The Berlin process summit, which will take place this year in the Italian city of Trieste, will be a good occasion to support Macedonia’s efforts to return to the path of European integration. But it will be a mistake if the EU decides that with the formation of a new government the challenges facing Macedonia and the region in general have disappeared. The difficult part is yet to come, especially in the complex geopolitical context in which destabilising factors are already much more than the stabilising ones. Not one of the many tasks in the region can be resolved without the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue expanding into a dialogue between Serbia and Albania, again with EU facilitation. As President Trump’s administration continues to be unpredictable, the EU is in fact alone in the challenge of coping with another rise of tensions in the Balkans.

Translated by Stanimir Stoev

Posted in Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, SerbiaComments Off on Is Crisis in Macedonia Coming to an End?

EU Spring Economic Forecast – Optimism in Times of Uncertainty

NOVANEWS
Adelina Marini

“Uncertainty” is the focus of the European Commission’s spring economic forecast presented last week. The topic is presented entirely in scientific terms, apparently aiming to give a meaningful explanation as to why economic forecasts are increasingly diverging from reality. This explanation is particularly important in the context of the still serious differences between the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund in terms of Greece’s potential to fulfil the agreed objectives in the Third Rescue Program (more on this in a separate text), the post-programme period, and especially in terms of the sustainability of its debt. It is also important because policy-makers are trying to guess exactly what the “cost” will be for the euro area or individual members of the effect of sudden political shifts in a member state. The forecast was announced four days after the finale of the presidential election in France brought tremendous relief, as a scenario for a very sharp political and economic U-turn in a systemically important member for the euro area’s survival has been avoided.

Emmanuel Macron’s victory over Eurosceptic far right Marine Le Pen has provoked French Economic and Financial Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici (Socialists and Democrats) to say in the presentation of the forecast: “Growth is also held back by high political uncertainty, although, gradually, these uncertainties tend to wane in Europe”. However, the forecast is uncertain in terms of uncertainty. The document says that political uncertainty “could” continue to decline in the coming months after the elections are complete (in Germany they will be in September and in Italy likely next year). This will lead to a stronger domestic demand. Investments could be lower than expected if problems continue in the banking sector or if uncertainty about UK exit negotiations remains, the Commission predicts.

Conditional optimism

The EC is slightly more optimistic about the economy than it was in February, so it has corrected upward its expectation for euro area growth this year from 1.6% to 1.7%. The forecast for next year remains 1.8%, same as in the winter forecast. The EC also has higher expectations about EU economy as a whole – 1.9% (1.8% in winter) for this and next year. Inflation also gives rise to optimism, though largely due to the rise of oil prices. In the euro area, inflation is expected to increase from 0.2% in 2016 to 1.6% this year. For 2018 the expectation is for a 1.3% inflation, as the effect of higher oil prices is expected to diminish by then.

Countries with the highest growth in the EU this year are Malta (4.6%), Luxembourg (4.3%), Romania (4.3%), Ireland (4.0%), followed by Hungary (3.6%), Poland (3.5%), Slovenia (3.3%), Latvia (3.2%), Slovakia (3.0%). Countries with below 3% growth are: Bulgaria, Croatia and Lithuania with 2.9%, Spain (2.8%), The Czech Republic (2.6%), Sweden (2.6%), Cyprus (2.5%), Estonia (2.3%), Greece (2.1%), The Netherlands (2.1%). Below 2% are: The United Kingdom (1.8%), Portugal (1.8%), Denmark (1.7%), Austria (1.7%), Germany (1.6%), Belgium (1.5%), France (1.4%), Finland (1.3%). The lowest growth this year will be in Italy (0.9%).

Unemployment also produces good news. In the euro area, it is expected to fall to 9.4% this year and to 8.9% next year. This will be the lowest level since the beginning of the 2009 crisis. The highest unemployment rates are in Greece (22.8%), Spain (17.6%), Cyprus (11.7%), Croatia (11.6%), Italy (11.5%). The lowest unemployment rate is expected to be the Czech Republic (3.5%), followed by Germany (4.0%) and Hungary (4.1%). According to the EC, the drop is the result of domestic demand growth, structural reforms, and other government decisions in some countries. In the EU28, in general, the trend is the same – unemployment will fall to 8.0% this year and to 7.7% in 2018. This is the lowest level since the end of 2008.

Fiscal parameters are also expected to fall. The budget deficit-to-GDP ratio in the euro area is projected to fall from 1.5% in 2016 to 1.4% in 2017 and 1.3% in 2018. The public debt-to-GDP ratio in the euro area is also expected to fall to 90.3% this year (from 91.3% in 2016) and to 89.0% next year. Countries with a budget surplus this year are expected to be: Germany (0.5%), Malta (0.5%), The Netherlands (0.5%), Sweden (0.4%), The Czech Republic (0.3%), Luxembourg (0.2%), and Cyprus (0.2%). The highest budget deficit this year will be in Romania (-3.5%), followed by Spain (-3.2%), France (-3.0%), The UK (-3.0%). Inflation will be the highest in Estonia (3.3%), and the lowest in Ireland (0.6%). What do things look like on a by country basis is once again best seen in the headlines of the forecast for the member states:

Belgium: Domestic demand drives sustained growth

Bulgaria: A balanced budget amid robust growth

The Czech Republic: Strong labour market and steady GDP growth

Denmark: Domestic demand set to drive economic growth

Germany: Firming growth supported by consumption

Estonia: Strong growth underpins catching-up

Ireland: Strong growth against external headwinds

Greece: Recovery ahead and better-than-expected fiscal performance

Spain: Strong, balanced economic growth

France: The gradual recovery of exports lifts growth prospects

Croatia: Growth set to remain strong, but risks widen

Italy: External demand and investment support modest recovery

Cyprus: Solid growth accompanied by fiscal loosening ahead

Latvia: Growth rebound driven by domestic demand

Lithuania: Improving growth outlook for both domestic and external demand

Luxembourg: Strong broad-based growth

Hungary: High private consumption and rebounding investment

Malta: Solid growth continues

The Netherlands: Positive economic conditions to continue

Austria: Favourable growth dynamics

Poland: Investment recovery and private consumption set to fuel growth

Portugal: Growth momentum gains pace

Romania: Growth momentum picking up amid fiscal deterioration

Slovenia: Investment and consumption driving growth

Slovakia: Economic growth driven by robust household consumption

Finland: Moderate growth continues

Sweden: Robust growth and sound public finances continue

The United Kingdom: Growth to moderate and inflation set to continue to rise

There are still no conditions for acceleration of economic activity as investments and wages remain hostages to the inherited problems from the crisis. Investments remain weak in the EU and the euro area, and forecasting their dynamics is difficult. When political uncertainty disappears, as well as when Juncker’s investment plan starts to deliver, then a larger investment effect can be expected. However, another scenario is possible – investments to be lower than expected due to continued uncertainty stemming from difficult negotiations with the UK or ongoing bank problems. The fragility of banks continues to be a serious concern. Their low profitability is a serious structural problem, mainly caused by the accumulated non-performing loans. In other cases, the problem are inadequate business models, high operating costs and overbanking. The banking sector continues to be a hindrance to economic recovery, and will continue to be even if investments grow, the forecast says.

Wage growth continues to be held back by stagnation in the labour market. This means that job creation is unlikely to offset the negative effects on households’ purchasing power, stemming from temporarily rising inflation. European Central Bank President Mario Draghi explained the problem after the April Governing Council meeting of the bank with the need for structural reforms “because there’s no doubt that some of this unemployment is structural and not cyclical”.

The risks are more balanced, but they are still pointing downward

The forecast is based on current policies (ie assuming there will be no policy changes) of member states and the Community institutions. The EC predictions confirm the ECB’s assessment from end-April that the risks are already much more balanced than in winter, but still remain tilted to the downside. During the April ECB Governing Council meeting there were serious talks about the definition of risks. Some members had a more optimistic view of the economic situation, while others recognised that there is improvement but were generally not overly optimistic. Finally, agreement was reached on the message that “the risks surrounding the euro area growth outlook, while moving towards a more balanced configuration, are still tilted to the downside and relate predominantly to global factors”.

According to Draghi, there has been a shift in the past months in terms of risks – internal European ones have declined and global and geopolitical ones have increased. In the spring forecast, the EC also believes that risks are more balanced (between internal and external), pointing out that external ones continue to be related to future US intentions in terms of economic and trade policy, the adjustments of the Chinese economy, while domestic ones are mainly related to the health of the banking sector in Europe and the negotiations on Brexit. Political uncertainty is still high at home, but there is a downward trend as a result of the success of traditional political parties. Uncertainty arising from the Brexit negotiations continues to be present and represents a greater negative risk for Great Britain and a lesser one for euro area economies.

How could, however, this uncertainty be calculated in order for the forecast to be more accurate? At this point, the most widely used indicators of uncertainty show contradictory signals, says the forecast, and gives a curious example: “the indicator of ‘policy uncertainty’ derived from newspaper articles recently hit a record high, while financial market volatility has remained low”. Another problem with security measurement is that economic theory on the subject is based mainly on experience from the United States, and as the euro area is too young, there is little data available to make a proper analysis. Several indicators have been used to measure uncertainty in the euro area over the last two decades – uncertainty in the equity and government securities markets, as well as exchange rate volatility; economic policy uncertainty; uncertainty stemming from business and consumer surveys; macroeconomic uncertainty. The euro area crisis of 2009, which was declared a sovereign debt crisis, was provoked by the nervousness of markets, which dictated how far the crisis would grow. Today markets are calm and do not react as before.

It is generally assumed that uncertainty has a negative effect on economic growth, but the causal relationship is still not fully understood, ie it is still not fully clear whether uncertainty is detrimental to economic development or vice versa. Uncertainty affects investments much more than consumption, and this is clearly visible in the Commission’s last few forecasts and also in the ECB’s estimates – everything looks good, but investment is far below expectations. The EC warns that even if political uncertainty is diminished with the outcome of the EU elections, its effect will disappear more slowly, as according to various estimates the consequences of uncertainty need three to seven quarters to peak.

Mario Draghi was cautious about political risks, which is typical of a ECB leader and is particularly important before the end of key elections. He stressed several times at the end of April that the ECB does not set its monetary policy on the basis of likely election outcomes, but indicated that the bank is asking the question of how political uncertainty could affect monetary policy. “And the answer is, to the extent and only to the extent that – we don’t react to political uncertainty by itself, but we certainly internalise the information that comes from the fact that political uncertainty may affect our medium-term outlook for price stability. So to the extent that political uncertainty has this effect, we internalise this information together with lots of other information – in taking our monetary policy decisions“.

This means recognising that the ECB does take political risks into consideration when deciding on monetary policy if those are so serious that they can lead to price volatility, as price stability is a central priority of the central bank. Mario Draghi, however, believes that the negative risks to the economic outlook of the euro area are mainly related to global factors. Pierre Moscovici pointed out that economic forecasts are still uncertain in many ways, and this may have an effect on growth, and especially on investment decisions. Internally, political uncertainty has fallen after the elections in The Netherlands and France, he said.

The presence of pro-European governments is a big factor for confidence, and this is sometimes exactly what is lacking in the euro area, Mr Moscovici summed up. He also reminded of the need to deepen and reform the euro area in order to make it stronger and generate stronger growth and investment. Currently, however, there is no agreement on the main direction of this reform.

Translated by Stanimir Stoev

Posted in EuropeComments Off on EU Spring Economic Forecast – Optimism in Times of Uncertainty

Israeli human rights lawyer in detention without defence or trial, a victim of judicial abuse

NOVANEWS

Posted By: John Phoenix

Arbitrary detention in Israel

Marianne Azizi writes:

An Israeli human rights lawyer who for over seven years wrote to the United Nations requesting help for children and families damaged by Israeli judicial corruption is now himself a victim of illegal arrest and detention.

Zvi Zer’s impending trial in September this year will be a field day for public officials, including judges and social workers, who have been exposed by two bloggers and by Mr Zer.

On 27 February Israeli police carried out a wave of arrests of activists, some of whom were interrogated and subsequently detained, while others were put under house arrest and had limitations imposed on their use of the internet.

Of those who were detained, three were kept in detention – two bloggers and the human rights lawyer, Mr Zer, described in the Israeli mainstream media as “a cyber terror gang”. The initial flurry of media attention showed that, in the eyes of the elite, the prisoners were already guilty.

After 40 days of interrogations, 91 charges were lodged against the activists, who are accused of insulting public officials. Mr Zer faces 41 charges of conspiracy with the bloggers. The decision was made to hold the prisoners in detention until the end of proceedings – January 2018.

This contravenes both Israeli and international law, and is a flagrant violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in part states:

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Mr Zer’s attorney, Avi Amiram, regards the detention of his client as illegal as almost three months have passed with the police and prosecution failing to provide some 20,000 documents that are essential for the commencement of defence proceedings. Matters have reached the point where the lawyer actually has to purchase the evidence!

Getting a fair trial is also a concern. Mr Zer is the founder of the Coalition for Children and Families Israel – CCF Israel), a civil society body campaigning for justice, including by lobbying the UN and other international organisations. He was targeted in 2012 after a UN rapporteur visited Israel, and has been under scrutiny ever since.

Deemed too dangerous to be placed under house arrest, which in Israel requires an assessment by the welfare services to establish his level of “danger”, he is enduring at first hand the humiliation and degradation experienced by many clients he rescued and petitioned for.

His defence lawyer says Mr Zer is the first lawyer in history to be held in arbitrary detention without evidence.

Detention centres in Israel are full to bursting with people held awaiting evidence. The legal system is crumbling and failing to uphold even its own laws.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Israeli human rights lawyer in detention without defence or trial, a victim of judicial abuse

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

NOVANEWS
Posted By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr
The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan”. Introduction by Michel Chossudovskyhttp www.globalresearch.ca

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. (article first published by Global Research on April 29, 2013).

In recent developments, President Donald Trump has confirmed his support of Israel’s illegal settlements and his opposition to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which confirms the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.  

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

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria and Iraq, the war on Yemen, 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. 

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

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

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated April 1, 2017

  1. 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 Note1

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

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

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


 

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, 1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.

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

18

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

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 longrun. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11

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. Breaking Egypt 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, The Jerusalem 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 theAAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)

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 Year1979, 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 EastInternmational, 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 PressService, 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.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Syria Dismisses US Accusations About Crematory at Sednaya Prison

NOVANEWS

Syria Dismisses US Accusations About Crematory at Sednaya Prison, Demands The UN to Take Action Against Coalition’s Slaughters of Syrian Civilians

 

Syrian Foreign and Expatriates Ministry dismissed the latest Trmup administration accusations about a crematory at Sednaya prison, which is allegedly being used to cover-up mass executions, saying the US administration is trying to amuse the public with yet another Hollywood-like story.

The ministry then compared the latest US provocation to their previous barrel bombs and chemical weapons publicity stunts.

The accusations come in time of the Syrian Army’s huge victories against terrorist groups, many of which are backed by Washington.

The Trump administration never managed to provide any credible proof that authorities in Syria are running a crematory at Sednaya prison.

Syrian government also responded to the recent killings of Syrian civilians by the US-led anti-ISIS coalition’s airstrikes in the countrysides of Raqqah and Deir Ez Zour provinces.

Earlier on Tuesday, Syrian Foreign and Expatriates Ministry addressed the Secretary  General of the United Nations and the President of the UN Security Council, on yesterday’s slaughters of nearly 100 Syrian civilians, resulting from coalition air strikes.

Image result for US air raids in syria

In a statement, included within letters, sent to the aforementioned UN bodies, the ministry said that Syria condemns, in strongest terms, latest aggression made by the US-led anti ISIS coalition, which resulted in deaths of nearly 100 Syrian civilians.

The ministry also pointed out that the international coalition made illegal incursions into Syrian airspace and violated territorial integrity of a sovereign country, adding that Syria once again demands the UNSC to pressure the coalition forces to immediately cease all acts of aggression and violations of international law, UN Charter including, and not ignore its demands as it did before.

Yesterday, US-led anti-ISIS international coalition carried out two air raids in the sovereign Syrian territory: one in the village of Aakerchi and another one in the town of Abu Kamal, located in the countryside of the eastern province of Deir Ez Zour.

Both raids resulted in deaths of approx.100 civilians, majority of them being women and children.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Syria Dismisses US Accusations About Crematory at Sednaya Prison

America’s Reign of Terror: A Nation Reaps What It Sows

“The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” ― James Madison

Who designed the malware worm that is now wreaking havoc on tens of thousands of computers internationally by hackers demanding a king’s ransom? The U.S. government.

Who is the biggest black market buyer and stockpiler of cyberweapons (weaponized malware that can be used to hack into computer systems, spy on citizens, and destabilize vast computer networks)? The U.S. government.

What country has one of the deadliest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction? The U.S. government.

Who is the largest weapons manufacturer and exporter in the world, such that they are literally arming the world? The U.S. government.

Which is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in wartime? The United States.

How did Saddam Hussein build Iraq’s massive arsenal of tanks, planes, missiles, and chemical weapons during the 1980s? With help from the U.S. government.

Who gave Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida “access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry”? The U.S. government.

What country has a pattern and practice of entrapment that involves targeting vulnerable individuals, feeding them with the propaganda, know-how and weapons intended to turn them into terrorists, and then arresting them as part of an elaborately orchestrated counterterrorism sting? The U.S. government.

Where did ISIS get many of their deadliest weapons, including assault rifles and tanks to anti-missile defenses? From the U.S. government.

Which country has a history of secretly testing out dangerous weapons and technologies on its own citizens? The U.S. government.

Are you getting the picture yet?

The U.S. government isn’t protecting us from terrorism.

The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror.

Just think about it for a minute: almost every tyranny being perpetrated against the citizenry—purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure—has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by our own government.

Cyberwarfare. Terrorism.

Bio-chemical attacks. The nuclear arms race.

Surveillance. The drug wars.

In almost every instance, the U.S. government has in its typical Machiavellian fashion sown the seeds of terror domestically and internationally in order to expand its own totalitarian powers.

We’re not dealing with a government that exists to serve its people, protect their liberties and ensure their happiness. Rather, these are the diabolical machinations of a make-works program carried out on an epic scale whose only purpose is to keep the powers-that-be permanently (and profitably) employed.

Case in point: For years now, the U.S. government has been creating what one intelligence insider referred to as a cyber-army capable of offensive attacks.

As part of this cyberweapons programs, government agencies such as the NSA have been stockpiling all kinds of nasty malware, viruses and hacking tools that can “steal financial account passwords, turn an iPhone into a listening device, or, in the case of Stuxnet, sabotage a nuclear facility.”

And now we learn that the NSA is responsible for the latest threat posed by the “WannaCry” or “Wanna Decryptor” malware worm which—as a result of hackers accessing the government’s arsenal—has hijacked more than 57,000 computers and crippled health care, communications infrastructure, logistics, and government entities in more than 70 countries already.

All the while the government was repeatedly warned about the dangers of using criminal tactics to wage its own cyberwars.

It was warned about the consequences of blowback should its cyberweapons get into the wrong hands.

The government chose to ignore the warnings.

This has become the shadow government’s modus operandi regardless of which party controls the White House: the government creates a menace—knowing full well the ramifications such a danger might pose to the public—then without ever owning up to the part it played in unleashing that particular menace on an unsuspecting populace, it demands additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threat.

Yet the powers-that-be don’t really want us to feel safe.

They want us cowering and afraid and willing to relinquish every last one of our freedoms in exchange for their phantom promises of security.

As a result, it’s the American people who pay the price for the government’s insatiable greed and quest for power.

We’re the ones to suffer the blowback.

As historian Chalmers Johnson explains,

blowback is another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows.”

Unfortunately, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” are the ones who keep reaping what the government sows.

We’re the ones who suffer every time, directly and indirectly, from the blowback.

We’re made to pay trillions of dollars in blood money to a military industrial complex that kills without conscience. We’ve been saddled with a crumbling infrastructure, impoverished cities and a faltering economy while our tax dollars are squandered on lavish military installations and used to prop up foreign economies. We’ve been stripped of our freedoms. We’re treated like suspects and enemy combatants.

We’re spied on by government agents: our communications read, our movements tracked, our faces mapped, our biometrics entered into a government database. We’re terrorized by militarized police who roam our communities and SWAT teams that break into our homes. We’re subjected to invasive patdowns in airports, roadside strip searches and cavity probes, forced blood draws.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

America will never be safe or secure as long as our government continues to pillage and plunder and bomb and bulldoze and kill and create instability and fund insurgencies and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and police the globe.

So what can we do to stop the blowback, liberate the country from the iron-clad grip of the military industrial complex, and get back to a point where freedom actually means something?

  • For starters, get your priorities in order.
  • Stop playing politics with your principles.
  • Value all human life as worthy of protection.
  • Recognize that in the eyes of the government, we’re all expendable.
  • Demand that the government stop creating, stockpiling and deploying weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical, biological, cyber, etc.
  • Finally, stop supporting the war machine.

Until these missteps are corrected, we should probably do as Chalmers Johnson suggests and stop talking about “democracy” and “human rights.”

Posted in USAComments Off on America’s Reign of Terror: A Nation Reaps What It Sows


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING