Archive | October 18th, 2019

Are We Witnessing the End of the United Kingdom as an Independent Nation State?

By Julian Rose

Global Research,

First published on May 9, 2019

Ever since ‘the wrong result’ occurred at the referendum launched by then Prime Minister David Cameron, a fiasco of unprecedented proportions has been taking place in British politics. It is a depressing and, owing to the pathos, a tragi-comical spectacle.

However, there is nothing comical about the direction things are moving in, but there is something tragic. The UK is being hijacked from within and without, simultaneously. The pretext for this dissolution of everything that holds the country together as an Independent Nation State is the collusion between leading figures in the British Civil Service and leading figures in the European Commission. That collusion is symptomatic of the technocratic march towards an ever more centralised European Super State.

Because of the complexity of the surface Brexit story, which plays-out it’s contortions on the front pages of UK press day after day, I’m going to concentrate only on the key issues that remain largely hidden due to this orchestrated media smoke screen.

Britain’s civil service once held the reputation of being largely true to its traditional role of  transcribing into law the decrees of State. British Civil Servants acted out of a long established tradition to make their priority ‘the representation of the people’. The institution, which essentially acts as the first call in public administration, is historically structured to be independent of government.

However, in recent decades, as the pressure of the ‘corporate will’ has gained an ever stronger influence over government policy, the civil service also fell victim to internal slippage – and a tendency to keep a covert ear open to the corporate cabal. As most of us know, the interests of Big Money and Big Banking are essentially united in wanting to expand their empires into ever more powerful dictatorships – and this makes them central to driving the ambitions of A New World Order in which purely material power gives those at the helm the authority to act as despots. Certain civil service operatives have recently started believing that they also have a right to a stake in a position at the top of this authoritarian pyramid.

After Prime Minister Cameron’s political demise, Theresa May placed herself as the chief architect in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU. She had behind her the 17.2 million UK citizens who had called for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, demanding an exit strategy to be settled and put in place without delay. May was not new to the politics of power, as head of The Home Office she was also in charge of national security and familiar with the workings of MI5 and MI6. Now, as Prime Minister, she inclined to listen to the voices of those dealing with international relations and foreign strategy, rather than the elected members of parliament to whom she is expected to report and consult.

Those ‘remainers’ who see the key power base of the future as an expanding centralisation programme centred around a supranational body of technocrats based in Brussels, put out a heavily financed call – that to quit the EU would be a disaster. Particularly for the economy, they claimed. Who are these figures? No doubt big-time financial henchmen who back the technocratic institutional road to power as the surest way to achieve their hegemonic goals.

Brussels had already produced the perfect template for technocrats to assume absolute authority. The EU has, since its inception, been a project to covertly create a federation run by unelected civil servant-style bureaucrats, cleverly disguised as an economic instrument for uniting Europe around common financial interests. Its early leaders include Walter Hallstein a leading ex Nazi who envisioned the European Union as a direct extension of the Third Reich: A Fourth Reich. The Bilderbergers were then responsible for concocting the poisoned formula that is intended to eventually do-away with nation states altogether, putting in their place a supranational authoritative body with total control over all aspects of civilian and military life.

With ‘Stay’ (remainer) voices shrilly supported by the majority of the mainstream British press – owned by just one or two well known media magnates – the dream of the UK being hard wired to the heart of the Fourth Reich was given enough impetus to present a direct challenge to the will of the British people, who had voted 52% to 48% to quit the European Union. A project conferred upon them by Prime Minister Edward heath back in 1973, with no consultation process being involved.

Theresa May has become a kind of mesmerized zombie within this high stakes battle for the fate of the British Isles. Her heavy reliance on the Cabinet committee and closed ears to parliament, has isolated her from the supposed ‘democratic process’ which is meant to be relied upon to resolve such a situation. Furthermore, she has shown a clear deficit in patriotism in her dealings with Donald Tusk (President of the European Council)  and Jean-Claude Juncker (President of the European Commission), who have made it clear that the UK will not be allowed out of fortress Brussels except on terms that suit the grandiose plans of the federal superstate.Remain or Brexit: the UK’s referendum on the European Union

Since these terms already involve the UK being (by treaty) locked into all regulatory controls emanating from Brussels, both before and after any ‘withdrawal’, it looks like game, set and match to Brussels regardless of what gets ‘agreed’ and signed up to on paper.

Whoever is pulling the strings that see Theresa May constantly pinging to and fro’ between London and Brussels on her supposed ‘negotiations’ with Tusk and Juncker, has got a plan which, if enacted, will play a critical role in bringing about the end of the UK as an independent Nation State’. That plan is called ‘EU Military Unification’.

Military Unification follows the edicts of the New World Order script by establishing a ‘One European Army’ able to exert its military influence at the behest of the technocrats in charge of EU home and foreign policy. Its stated aim is to bolster NATO in counterbalancing the ‘aggressive’ powers of Russia and China – which are always conveniently painted as ‘aggressors’ in spite of the fact that no evidence is available to validate this label.

But the under-text of this ‘military unification programme’ is considerably more sinister than the by now standard vilification of the Eastern super powers. It is coldly designed to strip the UK of its military strength by subsuming its army, navy and air force into a ‘One European Army’ under the command of foreign military personnel. And, at the time of writing, it looks as though the high command of this army will be headed by German Generals; although France is also pushing hard for the number one spot.

The sheer travesty of this EU heist for technocratic control of another Country’s military defence capabilities, is electrifying. It is at once both deeply sinister and alarming and suggests that the Fourth Reich is indeed close to becoming operational in Europe. Yet it cannot become so without the UK military – since the UK has the largest and best trained army in Europe.

Suddenly the whole game freezes into one starkly strategic ambition: to render the UK – and it will be true of other nations too once the precedent is set – a vassal state under the dictatorship of a despotic centralised regime moving ever closer to the totalitarian New World Order model planned by secret societies and carefully disguised elite clubs of hegemonic 21stcentury empire builders.

Already the forerunner of full ‘EU military unification’ is to be seen in action. In France, there have been many claims that foreign military police have been drafted in by Macron in order to take a strong line with Yellow Vest protesters. The reasoning is that, being outsiders, they will be able to be more brutal with French nationals without feeling bad about it. What a sick idea. But in taking such a line one can see how a European military/police unification process can be used to suppress individuals – in any part of Europe – attempting to  kick back against oppressive leadership.

Back in London, Mark Sedwell, head of the British Civil Service, sits in an ornate regal chair in Westminster – and with a wry smile declares himself to be ‘King of the United Kingdom’. The Prime Minister recently authorised Sedwell’s present position as head National Security Advisor, head of the Cabinet Office and head of the Civil Service. If one ever needed proof that civil service boffins are shedding their traditional roles as ‘answering to the will of the people’ and are instead occupying the front line of UK policy makers – this is surely conclusive evidence. Civil Servants, according to Brian Guerrish, lead presenter of UK Column News “are the new oligarchs.”

The United Kingdom is in deep trouble. Brexit is a sham. A deception of the highest order. The Country’s very own Prime Minister is involved in an act of treason, selling the nation she was elected to defend and to direct according to the will of the people. While down the road at Buckingham Palace, the Queen of England, titular head of ‘Her Majesty’s Armed Forces’ and sworn defender of the United Kingdom as an Independent Nation State – sits passively on the side lines – seemingly unmoved by the fact that her kingdom is being auctioned-off and rendered impotent, right in front of her eyes. Rendered impotent and defenceless.

You might imagine that The Queen of England would, by now, have called the Prime Minister to the Palace and told her – in  no uncertain terms – that this is a bridge too far. But no. All is silent. Eerily so.

Back in parliament, MP’s of both the ruling Conservative party and the opposition Labour Party, also remain tight lipped when questioned if they are aware that the nation’s military defence is being disbanded in favour of a realignment with an EU military unification programme.  Are they playing ignorant – or are they actually ignorant?

Using the infamous technique of divide and conquer, citizens of the United Kingdom are being goaded into ‘taking sides’. Neither ‘solution’ (to leave or to stay) reflect much clarity of thought. This is due to the fact that a significant majority cannot comprehend the details of the spurious arguments the national press put forward. Not surprisingly, since there is a great pall of obfuscation being deliberately injected into the whole process in order to produce the sort of chaos which will allow the the hidden government or ‘deep state’ as it is known in the USA – to sneak through its strategic agenda for achieving a further turning of the screw in the direction of a One World dictatorship.

As if to compound the Huxleyan agenda, the very same cabal is pushing 5G WiFi forward as the ‘solution’ for a one world electromagnetic microwave grid to survey and influence the behaviour and health of every single person on the planet. This ubiquitous ‘silent weapon’ is to be the power source for ‘the smart internet of everything’ and precursor of a robotic age in which microwaving and mind controlling of populations is callously and indiscriminately performed in the name of the maintenance of ‘law and order’.

However there is resistance to universal despotism. Growing resistance. Growing in direct response to all attempts being made to snuff it out. The great Brexit deception is being exposed for what it is as more and more people witness the hard edged controlling hand of the EU at work against any non conformist elements making a stand for another way of doing things. Witness the EU at work in support of Macron’s imperialist leadership of France; in the suppression of of an independent Basque State; in the cold economic suffocation of Greece and the blocking of the new government of Italy and its reassertion of the values of Nation Statehood.  Witness also continuing EU support for US led military invasions of foreign countries and the backing of US troop and armament installations in Poland and other Eastern European Countries.

Those who can think are increasingly on the side of a ‘peoples resistance movement’ and initiatives that expose the top down heavy-handed militarisation of once democratic countries. We are witnessing a remarkable global upsurge of humanitarian calls for a completely new paradigm of socio-economic and environmental reform – a revolution in the way that the wealth of the planet is shared and distributed, including an end to brutal imperialistic wars that are destroying everything of value and sanctity on this precious planet.  The top down New World Order design model envisaged by Bush, Cheney, Blair et al. with its post 9/11 hegemonic charge into the Middle East and beyond, is teetering on the brink.  While the emergence of a diametrically opposing ‘new world order’ is fermenting a bottom up resurgence of people power that, once it reaches critical mass, will depose the old criminal order once and for all. It comes down to a race against time.

As regards the UK’s future in or outside the European Union, I’ll leave you with the telling words of professor Gwythian Prins “The people have chosen the outer world. The officials and the May cell have chosen military EU. This is absolutely the wrong choice. It is therefore an inescapable fact that the Orwellian non withdrawal documents pose a real and present threat to UK national security in the most fundamental way possible.”

Brexit is undoubtedly a huge wake up call for a very large number of individuals in the UK, in Europe and beyond. What is playing-out is highly significant in all respects. It comes down to a case of accepting indefinite slavery to an empire building totalitarian technocracy or finding the strength of imagination and purpose to create and uphold a society of responsible, community conscious, independent and freedom loving individuals, able to set a just and sane course for humanity as a whole. Let us make sure that our voices and actions are fully aligned with the latter outcome.

Posted in UKComments Off on Are We Witnessing the End of the United Kingdom as an Independent Nation State?

Canada’s Elections Campaign 2019: The Issues Nobody is Talking About

By Michael WelchYves EnglerKen StoneJoyce Nelson, and Arnold August

Global Research,

The Global Research News Hour radio program is hosting a fund-raiser. These funds are necessary in order to improve and expand on the reporting and analysis we produce on a weekly basis to explore in-depth those issues missed by mainstream and even a lot of alternative media. Please consider a donation to Global Research and earmark it as for ‘Global Research News Hour’ or for the ‘radio show.’ Visit the fund-raising page here.


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Over the course of five weeks of campaigning, politicians from 6 major political parties have put forward their platforms and tried to explain to Canadians why they deserve to be sent to Ottawa as opposed to their partisan rivals.

As is typically the case, foreign policy got short shrift during the election. The Munk debate on foreign policy, named after its founder, the notorious far-right global mining magnate Peter Munk, was cancelled due to Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision not to participate.

Much of the discourse during the campaign saw substantive policy discussions displaced by questions about ‘moral leadership.’ One example: embarrassing 18 year old photographs of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in ‘black/brown face’ during his time as a school teacher evoked questions about his hypocrisy and sensitivity on issues of racial injustice.

Where there was discussion of actual policy, the topics mostly centred around climate change mitigation strategies, job creation, deficits, and what to do about a controversial Bill in the francophone province of Quebec restricting public employees from adorning themselves with symbols of their religious faith while on the job.

Complicating any public discussion on foreign policy, however, was mainstream media long-standing reporting and commentary, ignoring Canada’s exploitive and imperialistic roles abroad. They, the major media, participate in the demonization of the governments of Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, while failing to challenge political leaders on Canadian support for the more anti-democratic behaviour of governments in Haiti and the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Democracy in the broadest sense of the term, is supposed to mean power of, by and for the people. A necessary prerequisite of democratic choices is reliable information on which responsible decisions can be made.“Viva la Revolución”! Will the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Survive the Empire’s War?

With less than 48 hours to go before Canadians go to the polls to elect their next government (as of this writing) the Global Research News Hour endeavours to do a little fact-checking and explore some of the important foreign policy issues not being discussed in the lead-up to election day.

In the first half hour, we are joined by activists Yves Engler and Ken Stone. Over the course of a 20 minute conversation, they discuss Canada’s policy in Syria and the Middle East. They also talk about the unquestioned devotion by all the major political parties to increased military spending. As well, they also elaborate on their involvement, during the campaign, in something called the ‘disruption network’ which confronts politicians in all political parties on their platforms and their records.

In the second half hour, writer, lecturer and author Arnold August, who is currently on a multi-city tour, speaks specifically about Canada’s hostile approach to Venezuela under the Trudeau Liberals, as well as its changing engagements with Cuba.

Finally, writer / researcher Joyce Nelson provides her assessment of the little discussed Canada Infrastructure Bank, and its role in securing the privatization of public infrastructure, particularly water an wastewater services in municipalities and First Nations communities across the country.

Yves Engler is a Montreal based political activist and writer specializing in dissident perspectives on Canadian foreign policy. He has authored close to a dozen books over the last decade. His most recent book is Left, Right — Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada. More of Engler’s articles can be found at the site He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War []. Ken is author of “Defiant Syria”, an e-booklet available at Amazon, iTunes, and Kobo. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 ElectionsCuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. He collaborates with many web sites, television and radio broadcasts based in Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. His trilingual website:

Joyce Nelson is an award-winning freelance writer and researcher. She  writes regularly for The Watershed SentinelCounterpunch, and Global Research among other publications. She has authored 7 books including Beyond Banksters: Resisting the New Feudalism, from 2016 and its 2018 sequel, Bypassing Dystopia: Hope-filled Challenges to Corporate Rule. Her most recent article for Global Research is Privatizing Canada’s Water Infrastructure Should be an Election Issue.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 273)


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Posted in CanadaComments Off on Canada’s Elections Campaign 2019: The Issues Nobody is Talking About

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

The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan”. Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky

By Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research,


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. 

President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank). In recent developments, the Trump administration has expressed its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. 

“Greater Israel” is de facto part of the election campaign.  Netanyahu has pledged to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank if he wins in the forthcoming September 17 elections.

Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political life after an inconclusive vote in April [2019], said that Israel will “apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea immediately” if he secured a fifth term in the September 17 polls. (Al Jazeera, September 11, 2019

Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is supportive of the “Greater Israel” project, which also consists in the derogation of Palestinians’ “right of return” by “naturalizing them as citizens of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere regionally where they reside”.

Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.

Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region.  

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, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of  Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia.  

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

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

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated September 13, 2019

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.”“Greater Israel” and the Balkanization of the Middle East: Oded Yinon’s “Strategy for Israel”


Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

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

Table of Contents

  Publisher’s Note1

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982


by Israel Shahak


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


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


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


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


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

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982

A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. 8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.


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


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


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

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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of 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


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.


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


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


From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises. 20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future. 21


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



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


The Military Background of The Plan

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


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


Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

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


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

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


In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, 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 the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.The original source of this article is Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.Copyright © Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., 2019

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Related Articles:

Israelis Were ‘Saddened’ to Have to Kill Gaza Protesters, to Avert ‘Bloodbath’

The US Calls for Peace and Apologies for Its Past. A Dream…

Russia’s Middle East Strategy: “Balance” vs. “Betrayal”?

Netanyahu Repeated His Vow to Annex West Bank Land if Reelected

Israeli Border Provocation Moves Plan for Regional War Forward

Lying for Israel: Why Nearly Everyone in Washington Does It

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

Kurds Ally with Damascus Against Turkish Aggression

By Stephen Lendman

Global Research,

Kurds in northern Syria comprise around 10% of the nation’s population, its largest ethnic minority.

Their relationship with Damascus has been uneasy at best, stormy at worst. They seek local autonomy. 

Syrian authorities want the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity preserved and protected, their right under the UN Charter and other international law.

US-dominated NATO and Israel want Syria illegally partitioned along ethnic lines for easier imperial control — part of their scheme to redraw the Middle East map.

As things now stand, war rages in Idlib province, largely controlled by thousands of US-supported al-Nusra terrorists, holding around three million civilians hostage as human shields.

After Turkish forces launched cross-border aggression last week, things greatly escalated — Kurdish YPG fighters outgunned and outmatched against the onslaught.

Their only option was seeking accommodation with Bashar al-Assad against a common Turkish foe, President Erdogan hell bent to annex northern Syrian territory, especially its oil-producing areas.

His aggression has nothing to do with protecting Turkish security. It’s unthreatened by Syrian Kurds except in self-defense if attacked.

Nor is Ankara threatened by ISIS, al-Nusra and likeminded terrorists, elements Erdogan supports.

His rhetorical concern for Syrian refugees is head fake deception. His cross-border incursion is entirely for self-serving interests — unrelated to pretexts he and other Turkish officials cited as reasons for the current offensive.

All wars are based on Big Lies and deception, Turkish aggression following the norm — making restoration of peace and stability to Syria all the harder, especially if government troops from both countries clash.

Here’s where things now stand. Over the weekend, Syrian Kurds agreed with Damascus to have government troops aid them in countering Turkish aggression, a statement saying:

“To prevent and repel this attack, an agreement has been reached with the Syrian government to protect the border and sovereignty of Syria,” adding:Turkey Invades? Erdogan Seeks Annexation of Northern Syria Territories

“The Syrian army will enter (Kurdish-controlled areas) and deploy troops along the entire Syrian-Turkish border in order to help (YPG fighters) repel this attack and liberate areas occupied by the Turkish army and its affiliates.”

According to reports cited by Southfront,

“by the morning  of October 14, Syrian Army units will enter the towns of Manbij and Kobani. Some sources say (government troops) will also enter into al-Tabqah. However, these reports still have to be confirmed.”

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that government forces are “moving north to confront Turkish aggression on Syrian territory,” adding:

“This movement comes to confront the ongoing Turkish aggression on towns and areas in the north of Hasaka and Raqqa provinces, where the Turkish forces committed massacres against locals, occupied some areas, and destroyed infrastructure.”

AMN News reported that Syrian forces are poised to enter Raqqa province for the first time since 2014, adding they’ll “soon enter the city.”

They’re “striking the positions of the foreigner-led Turkestan Islamic Party near the Turkish border” in Latakia province.

Late last week, Syrian attack helicopters struck US/Ankara supported jihadists along Turkey’s border.

Turkish troops are attacking “densely populated” al Qamishli neighborhoods, said AMN News, other civilian areas likely targeted the same way.

When naked aggression is waged, hostile forces ignore the rule of law, prohibiting attacks on civilian areas.

On Monday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) said government troops are preparing “to confront Turkish aggression on Syrian territory,” adding:

“Turkish forces committed massacres against locals, occupied some areas, and destroyed infrastructure.”

“The Turkish regime forces (and ‘mercenary terrorists’) intensified aerial and artillery bombardment on villages and towns in Hasaka and Raqqa provinces in framework of their aggression on Syrian territory…occupying several towns and villages.”

On Sunday, SANA cited local sources, saying Turkish terror-bombing killed “dozens of people, including foreign journalists,” adding:

“A video surfaced showing tens of bodies and injured people, most of them having been mutilated and burned.”

Is Turkey using incendiary and other banned weapons against heavily populated areas?

Ankara’s large-scale aggression makes conflict resolution all the harder.

Restoration of peace and stability to Syria depends on defeating US-Turkish supported terrorists and aggression, along with ending illegal occupation by foreign forces.

These goals remain unattainable as long as Washington, NATO, Israel, and Turkey pursue their imperial aims in the country.

Posted in Middle East, USA, Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Kurds Ally with Damascus Against Turkish Aggression

Kurds Consider Asking for Russian No-Fly Zone as Moscow Demands Foreign Armies Leave Syria

A close reading of the Russian press, however, shows that a Russian no-fly zone against Turkey in northeast Syria is highly unlikely.

byJuan Cole

Kurdish protesters demonstrated in the northern Syrian town of Ras al-Ayn

Kurdish protesters demonstrated in the northern Syrian town of Ras al-Ayn on Oct. 7, 2019 against the U.S. troop withdrawal from positions along the border in northeast Syria ahead of an expected Turkish invasion. (Photo: AP/YouTube/screenshot)

CNN exclusive by Barbara Starr and Ryan Browne reveals that Gen. Mazloum Kobani Abdi told the U.S., “I need to know if you are capable of protecting my people, of stopping these bombs falling on us or not. I need to know, because if you’re not, I need to make a deal with Russia and the regime now and invite their planes to protect this region.”

Gen. Abdi told William Roebuck, the deputy special envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, “You have given up on us. You are leaving us to be slaughtered.”

A close reading of the Russian press, however, shows that a Russian no-fly zone against Turkey in northeast Syria is highly unlikely.

Although U.S. politicians and pundits keep saying that the Turkish invasion benefits Russia, in fact Moscow is clearly very uncomfortable with it. It may end up inadvertently aiding the major Russian ally in Syria, the government of Bashar al-Assad, if it forces the Kurds into Assad’s arms. But Russia hasn’t connived in it, and its benefits to Moscow are uncertain.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called for all foreign militaries to leave Syria, according to Reuters: “Everyone who is illegitimately on the territory of any state, in this case Syria, must leave this territory. This applies to all states,”

Except we know that Putin was only talking about the United States and Turkey, not about his allies, Iran and Lebanon’s Hizbullah.

BBC Monitoring reports that the state-owned Rossiya 1 and NTV complained about the Turkish invasion placing civilians at risk, and were especially scathing about the Sunni Arab auxiliaries fighting alongside Turkish troops as disregarding civilian security. They did not go so far as criticize Turkey directly.

The Russian position is that the Turkish incursion is a legitimate way to safeguard Turkish security, as long as it doesn’t go too far.

Last week, Michael Jansen noted that Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Kremlin, admitted that Russia recognizes “Turkey’s right to ensure its security,” but he cautioned Turkey’s government to “refrain from any actions that may create obstacles on the path of a Syrian [political] settlement.”

Russia has never controlled the Kurdish-dominated northeast, concentrating on helping the al-Assad regime reassert itself in the rest of the country. So Moscow does not have a dog in the fight in some ways.

Both networks interviewed war correspondent Yevgeny Poddubny, who appears to take a pro-Putin line in his analysis. He says that the Syria Kurds are at least partially responsible for their own predicament. BBC Monitoring translated him as saying, “For the past few years leaders of Kurdish formations have been demonstratively ignoring the interests of Damascus.” He criticized Kurdish hyper-nationalism, saying that the Kurds insist they are fighting for their motherland.

He insisted, “the land is not theirs, but Syria’s.” He did not mention that Syria as far back as the mid-1960s had stripped citizenship from many Kurds, leaving them stateless and with little reason to invest their loyalties in Syria.

He also blamed them for subordinating themselves to the interests of Washington.

Bonus Video: AP: “Syria Kurds protest against US withdrawal”

Posted in Middle East, USA, Russia, Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Kurds Consider Asking for Russian No-Fly Zone as Moscow Demands Foreign Armies Leave Syria

Trump Isn’t Really Ending Endless Wars, He’s Making Them Worse

Here’s what progressives should support in Syria.

by: Jon Rainwate

President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks to Air Force personnel during an event Sept. 15, 2017 at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. President Trump attended the event to celebrate the 70th birthday of the U.S. Air Force. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Civil war and foreign interventions in Syria have created a geopolitical Gordian knot, an intractable humanitarian crisis, and a maddeningly complex conflict zone of wars within wars. It should come as no surprise that an erratic leader like President Donald Trump would make the suffering worse.

The complexity of the crisis can create cognitive dissonance. What if I desperately wish to end our endless wars but I also care about the fate of Kurdish and other Syrian civilians? What if I wish U.S. hadn’t invaded these countries in the first place but I now worry that Trump’s recklessness will make matters worse?

There is a coherent strategy that can cut this Gordian knot, but it involves imagining a new U.S. foreign policy based on diplomacy and humanitarian initiatives.

Trump’s Impetuous, Corrupt Foreign Policy Must Be Stopped—While Expeditiously Implementing a Responsible U.S. Withdrawal

The scope of progressives’ moral imagination needs to be large enough to include two goals. We need to push hard to end the unauthorized U.S. intervention in Syria and Iraq that has killed thousands of civilians. But as we push for peace we must oppose a president whose narcissistic foreign policy instincts display careless disregard for allies and civilians.

Trump has said, “We’re getting out of the endless wars… We are out of there…” and “We have no soldiers in Syria.” Here’s a shocker: He’s lying. In fact, the roughly 50 soldiers he moved are moving to another military base. The roughly 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria are still all there. There are also 5,000 troops across the border in Iraq. The U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria, Iraq, and Libya that have killed thousands of civilians continued into 2019. The U.N. says these airstrikes amount to war crimes and have “led to the near complete destruction of towns and villages.” Now Trump is sending 1,800 U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia.

What Can Be Done Right Now to Protect Civilians in Northeast Syria

Currently, U.S. officials are articulating an inscrutable U.S. policy on the Turkish offensive. As challenging as it is to gain agreement at the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. should join with European states in clear, sustained opposition. Members of Congress should use tools at their disposal—starting with a cutoff of military aid and arms sales—to press Turkey to withdraw. 

Meanwhile, measures should be put in place to protect civilians, including:

  • Humanitarian access for the U.N. and its partner NGOs to civilians in northeast Syria so that aid and medical care can be delivered.
  • Congress must also resume U.S. funding for Syria stabilization. Stabilization funds include rebuilding infrastructure for clean water and electricity, schools, and transportation that help restore stability. 
  • The U.S. must do its fair share to address the global refugee crisis and admit more Syrian refugees.

What’s Been Needed, and Is Still Needed: A Diplomatic Surge for Syria and the Kurds

There was a solution to protecting northeast Syria. But the solution wasn’t relying on 50 U.S. troops to stand between 60,000 battle-hardened Kurds and the full might of an angry and fearful Turkish military right across the border. This wasn’t sustainable. Amanda Sloat, an assistant secretary of state under former President Barack Obama, called the tensions between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds “a ticking time bomb.” Most experts knew the only way out was a twofold diplomatic offensive.

The first push needed was for the Syrian Kurds and the Syrian government to come to an agreement that would have stabilized the northeast region though a sustainable governance and security arrangement that could have integrated the northeast into a wider Syria. As Obama’s ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, said to NPR, “The Syrian Kurds are part of Syria, and they will have to come to an agreement with the Syrian government.” With the Syrian Kurds more vulnerable now, said Sloat, “a likely outcome… is that the YPG makes a deal with the Syrian regime.” Such a deal should have been prioritized a long time ago, but the U.S. opposed that deal out of animus toward Assad.

The second diplomatic push needed was between the Kurds and Turkey. Under pressure from the U.S., the Syrian Kurdish YPG could have have found ways to offer Turkey security assurances in exchange for Turkey agreeing to stay out of Syria. Some of the bungled U.S. diplomacy has been very straightforward. The U.S. has repeatedly broken promises to Turkey about its support for the Kurdish YPG and some of these broken promises are headscratchers. The Trump administration armed the YPG for the fight against ISIS in Raqqa and it promised Turkey it would collect the weapons afterward—an idea one U.S. official called “asinine.” You guessed it, that promise didn’t get carried out so well. That’s a telling detail that reveals a U.S. policymaking apparatus focused on weapons and fighting battles, one that fails to attend to the most basic aspect of maintaining relationships that undergird a wider diplomatic strategy. 

U.S. Foreign Policy Needs a “Revolution” or “Big Structural Change” or Civilians Will Continue to Suffer

Ultimately, to end endless wars and to minimize bloodshed and violence, U.S. foreign policy needs a full top-to-bottom rebuild. We need to center human rights and civilians’ welfare in our foreign policy and stop looking at military force as the go-to tool. The platforms of presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are beginning to articulate a break from endless wars. Pro-peace voters must push them to go further and to make a new progressive foreign policy a centerpiece of their campaigns. Peace is possible, even in intractable conflicts, with the right leadership. The freshly minted Nobel Peace Prize winner, Abiy Ahmed, the Ethiopian prime minister who ended a 20-year-long military standoff with Eritrea, has proven that.

wise man once said, “If you plant ice, you’re gonna harvest wind.” For the last two decades, it’s been proven time and time again that U.S. foreign policy lopsidedly focused on war and military force simply leads to more violence. The only strategies that can truly protect the Syrian Kurds and their neighbors in northeast Syria are smart diplomacy and political solutions. The same is true for Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and the rest of the long-suffering war-torn regions of the world.

Posted in USAComments Off on Trump Isn’t Really Ending Endless Wars, He’s Making Them Worse

Doctors Demand Trump Close ‘Inherently Immoral’ Immigrant Detention Centers Ahead of Mass Protest on Capitol Hill

“We are here to say that it is not enough to ask to improve the conditions in the detention centers. We must demand that they be closed altogether.”

byJulia Conley

Bianey Reyes and others protest the separation of children from their parents in front of the El Paso Processing Center, an immigration detention facility, at the Mexican border on June 19, 2018 in El Paso, Texas. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Doctors on Monday called on President Donald Trump to close the hundreds of detention centers across the countrywhere tens of thousands of immigrants are currently being held, many for months on end.

In an op-ed at The Hill, Drs. Katherine McKenzie, Kate Sugarman, and Ranit Mishori decried the deaths of more than 30 immigrants in U.S. custody under the Trump administration—including at least seven children since last year—as well as reports of abuse and neglect in the detention centers:

Asylum seekers should not be forced to stay in detention centers or camps while awaiting adjudication of their claims. News reports and other testimonies have documented substandard and even terrible conditions: no running water, no soap, no beds, inedible food. Medications have been taken away from those who need them; outbreaks have occurred and the government has decided not to provide vaccines. This is unacceptable.

Many advocates have rightfully been fighting to change these conditions.  But we are here to say that it is not enough to ask to improve the conditions in the detention centers. We must demand that they be closed altogether, because they are inherently immoral and should not be there in the first place.

The authors, who have provided medical care to many asylum seekers, warned that detaining people and separating families as a punishment for crossing U.S. borders—especially after they have escaped violence and unsafe conditions in their home countries—can have a profound negative impact on refugees’ mental and physical health.

The medical community has spoken out against Trump’s treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers a number of times, especially after the president introduced his “zero tolerance” policy in 2018. The American Medical Association told Congress over the summer that the detention centers being run by the Trump administration—where immigrants are frequently kept in cold rooms, forced to sleep in overcrowded conditions with some sleeping on the floor or in bathrooms, and are denied access to nutritious food and basic hygiene products—”are simply not appropriate places for children or for pregnant women.”

“We will demand that the administration’s shameful and devastating policies be changed and that detention camps be closed permanently. Nothing short of that is enough.”
—Drs. Katherine McKenzie, Kate Sugarman, and Ranit Mishori

McKenzie, Sugarman, and Mishori are among thousands of medical professionals from across the country who plan to rally on the National Mall on Saturday.

“Next Saturday we, along with other physicians, health professionals, and medical students from around the country, will gather and speak on behalf of all those who care about the welfare of children and the inhumane treatment of those legally seeking refuge in the U.S.,” wrote the doctors. “We will demand that the administration’s shameful and devastating policies be changed and that detention camps be closed permanently. Nothing short of that is enough.”

Trump’s anti-immigration agenda has been denounced by several federal courts in recent weeks, with judges blocking the president’s attempts to declare a national emergency at the southern U.S. border and to deny low-income immigrants green cards or visas if they need government assistance. Last month, a federal court also rejected Trump’s proposed rule allowing indefinite detention for immigrant children.

The proposed regulations struck “a mortal blow to crucial rights and protections that the settlement confers on vulnerable children,” the court ruled.

Posted in USA, Human RightsComments Off on Doctors Demand Trump Close ‘Inherently Immoral’ Immigrant Detention Centers Ahead of Mass Protest on Capitol Hill

‘Too Little, Too Late’: Critics Pan Trump Plan to Sanction Turkey

“Trump’s statement on hitting Turkey with sanctions over the military operation in Syria does not mention the Kurds once.”

byEoin Higgins,

A photo taken from Turkey's Sanliurfa province on October 09, 2019 shows smoke rising at the site of Ras al-Ayn city of Syria as Turkish forces began bombing northern Syria.

A photo taken from Turkey’s Sanliurfa province on October 09, 2019 shows smoke rising at the site of Ras al-Ayn city of Syria as Turkish forces began bombing northern Syria. (Photo by Kerem Kocalar/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

In a late afternoon announcement Monday, President Donald Trump declared he would sanction Turkey, a NATO ally of the U.S., for its attack on the Kurdish people in northeast Syria—an attack that took place after Trump greenlit the assault on October 7 by withdrawing American personnel from the area. 

“Too little, too late,” tweeted Harvard’s Nicholas Burns. “None of this would have been necessary if Trump had kept our troops in place.”

Trump reportedly made the decision after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Erdoğan on October 6. By Monday, domestic political backlash was overwhelming and Trump offered up sanctions. 

Promising to “swiftly destroy Turkey’s economy if Turkish leaders continue down this dangerous and destructive path,” Trump announced imminent sanctions that would address “Turkey’s destabilizing actions in northeast Syria.”

Turkish attacks on the Kurds in Syria have horrified the world since beginning last week. The assault has been by all accounts relentless and has resulted in a number of ISIS prisoners being set free from their prisons. Kurdish forces have been at the frontline of fighting the extremist group. 

While the U.S. has withdrawn military personnel from the area, the answer isn’t to reintroduce soldiers, Khury Petersen-Smith wrote for In These Times.

“If the U.S. wants to help the Kurds today, the answer is not more permanent war — that’s part of what’s made life so miserable for Kurds and so many others across the Middle East to begin with,” wrote Petersen-Smith.

And of course the president is disinterested in the human cost of the attacks, as Business Insider reporter John Haltiwanger pointed out. 

“Trump’s statement on hitting Turkey with sanctions over the military operation in Syria does not mention the Kurds once,” said Haltiwanger.

NBC reporter Richard Engel observed that the conflagration in northeast Syria is part of a broader theme emerging across the region where borders are being redrawn. It’s not just Turkey—as Common Dreams reported on Sunday, Kurdish forces in northeast Syria joined forces with the Syrian government to fight back against Turkey, a major diplomatic move that will have consequences for the entire Middle East.

“Turkey is grabbing a piece of Syria,” said Engel. “The Kurds and Syrian army, now aligned, are fighting to hold on to what they can.”

Posted in USA, Syria, TurkeyComments Off on ‘Too Little, Too Late’: Critics Pan Trump Plan to Sanction Turkey

Sanctioning Away Free Speech: Americans Meet with Iranians at Their Peril

By Philip Giraldi

Global Research,

The issue of the United States waging what seems to be a global war by way of sanctions rarely surfaces in the western media. The argument being made by the White House is that sanctions are capable of putting maximum pressure on a rogue regime without the necessity of having to go to war and actually kill people, but the reality is that while economic warfare may seem to be more benign than bombing and shooting the reality is that thousands of people die anyway, whether through starvation or inability to obtain medicines. It is often noted that 500,000 Iraqi children died in the 1990s due to sanctions imposed by the Bill Clinton White House and current estimates of deaths in Syria, Iran and Venezuela number in the tens of thousands.

And meanwhile the regimes that are under siege through sanctions do not, in fact, capitulate to American demands even when they are feeling considerable pain. Cuba has been sanctioned by Washington since 1960 and nothing has been accomplished, apart from providing an excuse for the regime to tighten its control over the people. Indeed, one might argue that free trade and travel would have likely succeeded in democratizing Cuba much more quickly than threats coupled with a policy of economic and political isolation.

Apart from their ineffectiveness, the dark side of sanctions is what they do to third parties who get caught up in the conflict. America’s recently imposed total ban on Iranian petroleum exports comes with secondary sanctions that can be initiated on any country that buys the oil, alienating Washington’s few remaining friends and creating universal concern regarding the United States’ long-term intentions. Indeed, the United States was a country that prior to the “Global war on terror” was generally liked and respected, but today it is widely regarded as the most dangerous threat to peace in the world. This shift in perception is due to the actual wars that the US has started as well as the sanctions regime which has as its objective regime change of governments that it disapproves of.

Another aspect to sanctions that is somewhat invisible is the impact that government action has had on what are regarded as the constitutional rights of American citizens. Max Blumenthal has written an interesting article on a recent application of sanctions that has affected a group of citizens who were seeking to attend a conference in Beirut Lebanon.

Blumenthal describes how the attempt to criminalize any participation in a conference sponsored by the Iranian NGO New Horizon as a “significant escalation in the Trump administration’s strategy of ‘maximum pressure’ to bring about regime change in Iran.” A number of Americans who had intended to speak or otherwise participate in the conference were approached in advance by FBI agents, evidently acting under orders from Sigal Mandelker, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. The Agents warned that any participants in the conference might be subject to arrest upon return to the US because New Horizon is under sanctions. One of those who was approached by the Bureau explained thatGoodbye Dollar, It Was Nice Knowing You!

“They’re interpreting the regulations to say that even if you associate with someone who has been sanctioned, you are subject to fines and imprisonment. I haven’t seen anything in the regulations that allows that, but they’ve set the bar so low that anyone can be designated.”

The New Horizon Conference is an annual event organized by Iranian TV host and filmmaker Nader Talebzadeh and his wife, Zeina Mehanna. New Horizon was placed under financial sanctions earlier this year by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). [Full disclosure: the author attended and spoke at the conference in Mashhad last year]

US government interest in New Horizon conferences appeared to begin in 2014, after the Jewish Anti-Defamation league (ADL) called that year’s meeting an “anti-Semitic gathering” that “included US and international anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and anti-war activists.”

Potential participants in the Beirut conference made strenuous efforts to find out just what the consequences might be if they were to attend the event, but the Treasury Department refused to be drawn into a debate over restrictions that were arguably unconstitutional. Lawyers who were consulted warned that any notice from the FBI that someone might be arrested should be interpreted as meaning that someone will be arrested. Other sources in the government suggested privately that the Trump Administration would be delighted if it could make an example of some Americans who were soft on Iran.

Now that the conference has been concluded without any significant American presence, there has been some clarification of how the sanctions might be applied. Responding to a query by a potential participant, an OFAC employee explained that “transaction” and “dealing in transactions,” as those terms are used by OFAC, are broadly construed to include not only monetary dealings or exchanges, but also “providing any sort of service” and “non-monetary service,” including giving a presentation at a conference. Any person engaging in that activity could be subject to legal consequences because the Treasury Department and OFAC have broad latitude to take action against persons who violate its rules or guidelines, and that a range of factors are taken into consideration when deciding to take action against any specific person or for any specific violation.

When asked whether dealing with non-sanctioned Iranian organizations might also be construed negatively, the OFAC employee observed that there could or might be consequences. That’s because Iran (along with North Korea and a few other countries) is a “comprehensively sanctioned” country, meaning that anything having to do with “supporting it” is sanctionable.

Exactly how speaking at any Iranian sponsored event is damaging to American interests remains unclear, in spite of the “clarification” provided by OFAC, but the real damage is to those US citizens who choose to travel to countries that are at odds with Washington to offer a different perspective on what Americans actually think. And there is also considerable value in those travelers returning to the United States to share with fellow citizens perceptions of how foreigners regard US foreign policy, insofar as anything describable as a policy actually exists. In truth, the sanctions regime with its steady diet of punishment has now entered a new phase, as Blumenthal observed, where White House aggression overseas is now blowing back, eroding the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights in an act of self-destruction that is both unnecessary and incomprehensible.

Posted in Middle East, USA, IranComments Off on Sanctioning Away Free Speech: Americans Meet with Iranians at Their Peril

Full details: How did the deceased Shadi from Bethlehem die?

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr


Bethlehem – The 24-year-old Shadi Mohammed Said Asaad, from Doha, died in Bethlehem, south of the West Bank, after suffering sudden setbacks last week. He was taken to hospitals and died shortly after.

The family of the young Asaad, accused the hospital of procrastination and default, which led to the doubling of his condition and even suffering from cerebral hemorrhage caused brain death due to the length of the bleeding period.

The family said in a statement that Shadi complained of deterioration in his health, and had never been suffering from a chronic disease, and went with his brother to Beit Jala Governmental Hospital and asked the doctor on duty examination, but answered that it is just “air blight” and gave him an injection and prescribed treatment. Then give him permission to leave.

On the way out, Shady went to a nearby pharmacy and bought the prescription medication, but a week later he began to feel stronger and more painful.

At 1 p.m. last Sunday, Shadi’s family quickly rushed to Beit Jala Hospital again through the emergency department. The doctor conducted tests without a CT scan, saying it was expensive and the family did not have health insurance, despite the family’s pledge to pay Their own account.

According to the family’s statement, the stall was delayed at the time of the picture, after which it was found that he suffered from severe bleeding on the brain and blood clots, which according to his family, means that the bleeding started at the time when Shady complained of pain.

The family said that at their request, the doctor started contacting hospitals in the West Bank to receive the case.

She explained that he was transferred by family efforts to Ramallah Governmental Hospital after he was in a coma due to the delay in Beit Jala Hospital.

The father complained about the mistreatment of the employee in Ramallah Hospital, after she was asked to prepare Shady’s papers. He put my son’s health in danger and delayed the necessary procedures to transfer and transfer my son Shadi to Jerusalem. “

According to the family, the delay lasted 14 hours between Beit Jala Governmental Hospital and Ramallah Governmental Hospital. Upon his arrival at Al-Makassed Hospital (the Charitable Society) in Jerusalem, the first examination revealed that he suffered from a brain death due to prolonged bleeding. His situation is very difficult and he just needs to pray, then he passed away there.

According to the family, the doctor at Makassed Hospital denied that he had received any contact from Beit Jala Hospital or Ramallah, to coordinate the case of Shadi, wondering: “Why doctor, hospital and department of remittances there is discrimination, and the minister’s son has an immediate transfer. My brain death is among the hospitals ?! “.

No photo description available.

Beit Jala Hospital clarifies

For its part, the management of “Beit Jala” government hospital, that the deceased patient Shadi Mohammed Said Asaad (24 years), came to the emergency department of Beit Jala Governmental Hospital, on Sunday, September 22, at 01:37 am, where he was complaining of a headache Sharp where he was examined and examined by an emergency doctor.

She continued: Urgent Brain CT-scan showed an urgent stratified brain image that showed severe cerebral hemorrhage, and accordingly the patient was referred to a neurosurgery department in another hospital because there was no neurosurgery at Beit Jala Hospital.

She added: “The emergency medical staff contacted Alia Hospital and Ramallah Governmental Hospital but they did not have the possibility to receive the condition. Therefore, they contacted the private hospitals which are the Arab Society Hospital, Al-Ahli Hospital, Al-Mezan Hospital and Al-Najah Hospital, but unfortunately they did not receive the patient for not Having places. “

She explained that by re-contacting Palestine Medical Complex again, they agreed to receive him, where he left the emergency ambulance of the hospital at about 4:30 am to Ramallah, adding that “the case was treated with professionalism and high speed, God’s mercy and inspired his patience.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human RightsComments Off on Full details: How did the deceased Shadi from Bethlehem die?

Shoah’s pages


October 2019
« Sep   Nov »