The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

by **AlicetheCurious** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:50 pm

Israel Shahak warned of "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East" back in 1982. It was chilling reading for me, because of its conformity to our present reality, 18 years later, here in the Middle East. Some of those events are obvious even to the uninformed, while others can be observed in their embryonic or slightly more advanced stages. Some Egyptian and Arab analysts sounding the alarm about certain events, such as bizarre clashes between Copts and Muslims in Egypt, sparked by mysterious and suspicious provocations, have been accused of harboring a "conspiracy mentality". The same can be said of the bombing of the Shia Golden mosque, which is when talk of a Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq suddenly became the accepted wisdom, despite the inconvenient facts. Egypt's sovereignty over its oil and gas resources have been compromised by contracts that guarantee Israel's access to them at fixed prices for decades to come. These were signed by the Egyptian "government" despite howls of protest from the Egyptian people. This essay was translated by Israel Shahak from the original Hebrew in 1982, and posted with this foreword: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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 foreword and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text. Israel Shahak June 13, 1982<hr></blockquote> Here are some brief excerpts from the essay: "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" by Oded Yinon, which 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. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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. 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. ... (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.  ... 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. 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. ...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. ...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. 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 precedent 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. 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 denominat 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. 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. 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. ...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. ...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. 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. ... 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. 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. <a href="http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm">www.the7thfire.com/new_wo...e_east.htm</a> <hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=alicethecurious>AlicetheCurious</A> at: 10/3/06 3:15 pm

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:52 am

From the BBC: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The BBC has obtained evidence that Israelis have been giving military training to Kurds in northern Iraq. A report on the BBC TV programme Newsnight showed Israeli experts in northern Iraq, drilling Kurdish militias in shooting techniques. ... The BBC report will be like the smoking gun the Arab media has spent years looking for. Ever since the US-led invasion of Iraq began over three years ago, Arab journalists have been speaking of Israelis operating inside the autonomous region of Kurdistan. They said this was evidence that toppling Saddam Hussein was only the first chapter in a wider American-Israeli conspiracy to eliminate threats to their strategic interests and re-draw the map of the Middle East. Syria and Iran, which have common borders with Kurdish areas, are believed to be the primary target. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5364982.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...364982.stm</a><hr></blockquote>

by **Gouda** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:47 am

And there's Condi not far behind: Rice makes visit to Kurdish north <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rice">news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061...mi_ea/rice</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>IRBIL, Iraq - Convinced that oil revenue is the long-term key to economic independence for a unified Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appealed Friday for cooperation from the autonomous and oil rich Kurdish north. Rice was visiting the mountain retreat of the region's powerful president, Massoud Barzani, less than two weeks after the regional government threatened to break away from Iraq in a dispute over oil. Rice's two-day trip to Iraq is meant to show U.S. support for the country's fragile central government, under assault by a spiral of sectarian violence and growing calls for autonomy among Iraq's regions. Fears of Kurdish succession rose in recent weeks, especially when Barzani briefly banned the display of the Iraqi flag in government buildings. The oil dispute reflects the larger fight over federal control in Iraq. <hr></blockquote> Yes, there's Oil, but there's also Water. And it's Turkey vs. Israel in this regard, with the Kurds in between. I wonder how Israel feels about NATO expansion and Turkey's role (they control a lot of water flow to the middle east with their complex of dams in eastern anatolia, Ataturk Dam, Kurdish country.) And now the Turks are patrolling the waters of Lebanon as part of the UN deal. Must have some mixed feelings about that. It's also about the the breakup of Iraq, which the US foreign policy elite wants despite Condi's official, public line. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=6316.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...6316.topic</a> Pipeline blast cuts off Turkey gas flow As Kurd and Arab clashes surge, a third war is looming in Iraq Kurdish rebels declare ceasefire with Turkey Turkey seeks U.S. help with rebels ******************** Flashback: Interview with Israel Shahak. Dr. Shahak is professor of Chemistry at Hebrew University and Chairperson of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He emigrated to Israel after surviving the siege of the Warsaw ghetto and Nazi concentration camps. This interview was conducted by Anne Joyce, editor of American-Arab Affairs, in Washington, D.C., on June 12, 1989.  (...) There is, of course, a wish to dominate water sources which lie beyond Palestine. Recently some important articles on water were written by a military correspondent of Haaretz. If you consider water and the basic issues of economics, then it becomes plain why Israel wants to dominate most of the Middle East (with the exception of Egypt, which is a special case) without necessarily annexing those countries. Annexation is only supported by the extremist fringe, but domination is supported by the whole establishment. I oppose it. It is not good for my society, it is not good for the Arabs, and it is not good for human beings generally. (...) AAA: Much has been made of secretary of state Baker's speech to AIPAC on May 22. How was the speech interpreted in Israel? SHAHAK: I think that the Israelis only understood the speech in the first three or four days. Then they went back to business as usual. What Israel wants from the United States is more than any American administration ever gave it formally. This can be shown by the fact that Israel was against Shultz's plan of last year and against the Reagan plan of 1982. Israel wants from the United States unlimited support. And this is of course tied up with Israel's quest for domination of the Middle East. Let us put American policy in its crudest terms, as it was for a short time under Alexander Haig, who wanted Americans to dominate the Middle East. But Sharon didn't want America to dominate the Middle East; he wanted to do it himself. There is always an implied conflict between Israel and the United States which cannot be bridged by any formal declaration that any American administration can make. It can only be bridged by informal working agreements, as when Alexander Haig formally opposed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, but informally supported it. But those informal agreements can only work if they are not formally opposed. If Secretary Baker had stuck to his speech, and not begun what the Israeli press called "compensating," giving Israel the idea that he did not mean what he said, this would have been an enormous gain for those people inside Israel who oppose Israeli domination, and who therefore oppose the unlimited American support to Israel. The most important thing he said was also the most vague one -- that Israel should renounce its dream of a Greater Israel. This was the thing that was particularly opposed in Israel. Of course, from the aspect of human rights, I am especially interested in the opening of the schools, because Israel has to renounce its dreams. If the time comes -- and I say this with the full responsibility of an Israeli living in Israel -- when the Secretary of State asks Israel to renounce its dreams of a Greater Israel, and he and his officials repeat the message twice a week for 6-8 weeks without any renunciation or compensation, then this would be a sign for a lot of people in Israel, for the Labor party supporters and the intelligent people who once supported Labor, that we have to renounce our dreams of domination. As long as there is only one message that is then followed by compensations, a message that is not repeated -- repetition being very important -- there will be no impact. This meant to us, after three or four days, that Baker's statement was the same as was the case with Reagan in 1982, and with Shultz a year ago. The United States makes declarations for the purpose of being formally recorded but for no other end. Israel can do what it wants, which includes not only crushing the intifada, but also pursuing its current policy toward all Arab states.

by **Sweejak** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:01 pm

<a href="http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/the_other_shoe_.html">noquarter.typepad.com/my_...shoe_.html</a>

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Re: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Re: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Re: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Who is online