“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.”
–1982, World Zionist Organization.
When approaching (and hopefully better understanding) the situations in Egypt, Tunisia and other parts of the Middle East, it is important to consider the above statement, as it summarizes the thinking and–more importantly, the intentions of Zionist strategists in the 1980’s vis-à-vis the future of Israel and its enemy, the “Arab World”.
Israel understands it can never destroy its enemies by conventional means because of the sheer number of the Arabs compared with that of the Jews and the size of the Arab territories that would have to be directly occupied by Israel,–an impossible task to accomplish given the relatively small army Israel possesses. Therefore the only way to conquer the “Arab enemy” is to do it from within and, better still, to use his strength against him. Israel has identified certain fault lines within each of the Arab (and non-Arab) states that by virtue of their Islamic character, represent the greatest threat to her eventually becoming the regional superpower she envisions herself. Long ago she planned to use these fault lines, represented by religious, cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences between the various peoples, and what must be remembered when forming an understanding of the present situation is that it is akin to planting a tree in that it takes time before the fruits are harvested.
Israel wants to accomplish two things in the next 30 year–(1) that “Eretz Y’Israel–the “land of Israel” as it is referred to by Jews–eventually encompass the area west of the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, and (2) it wants to be a super power with imperial aims. The Zionists made this clear back in 1980 when they wrote in the very prescient essay “Israel’s Strategy for the 1980s” that –
In the 1980s the mountains of the West Bank (referred to by Israel as “Judea and Samaria”) were empty of Jewish settlements. Therefore plans were put in motion starting in the late 1970’s to accelerate the building of settlements in the mountains of the West Bank. Today Israel has over 600,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank, up from a mere 1100 settlers in 1972. The settlement issue has always been a sticking point in all negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. During the George H. W. Bush administration, particularly from 1990-92, tensions over settlements so severely strained ties between Israel and its American ally that direct communication between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel ground to a halt. A war of words between George H.W. Bush and then-Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir was the norm on the evening news worldwide to the point that Bush declared the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank an “obstacle to peace” and threatened withholding $10,000,000,000.00 in loan guarantees promised to the Jewish state. When asked about this by a reporter, Shamir’s reaction was prophetic– “I will have his job” meaning that G. H.W. Bush–at the time running for re-election against Bill Clinton–would not stand a chance. In doing so, Shamir made it clear to the world who really is in charge of America’s political system, and he was proven correct when Bush lost to Clinton, even though he was just coming out of a victorious war against Iraq with 87% approval of the American people.
Shamir himself warned the Arab delegates to the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference that talks will not succeed if they focused primarily on territory. Shamir came to the conference with the intention of keeping the West Bank and Gaza forever under Israel’s control. He admitted to a Ma’ariv reporter that he planned to drag negotiations on for 10 years and “in the mean time we would have settled one-half million souls in Judea and Samaria.” Remember that this was in 1992 as reported by the LA Times when the Israeli settlers in the West Bank were around 10,000. It is clear that no matter who is in control of the Israeli government from the Right or the Left they are all committed to carrying out the same plan of populating the “Mountains of Judea and Samaria” as their Zionist plan has suggested.
Fast forward now to November 15, 2010 with a U.S. President Obama makes Israel on offer she cannot refuse–the U.S. taxpayer subsidized “sale” to Israel of 20 F-35’s stealth bombers, a deal providing Israel with unmatched capability of striking anywhere in the region. However, contingent upon this was the stipulation that Israel must freeze West Bank settlement expansion for 90 days, and what was an offer too good to turn down became exactly that, as Israel refused the offer. The lesson learned from this is that building the settlements is more important to Israel and their national interests than getting the F-35’s to strengthen their offensive capacity. Keep in mind that this stipulation on the part of the U.S. was not for a permanent freeze, but only for a mere 90 days.
It is clear that Israel will not allow a Palestinian State West of the River Jordan and–given the fact that the rest of the civilized, enlightened world is day by day increasingly recognizing a Palestinian State West of the Jordan, therefore Israel must have a plan of action–now, and not tomorrow, but yesterday. Furthermore, given that America obviously can no longer drag negotiations out with Israel and play the role of designated bodyguard for the Jewish state, therefore the Zionist strategy in the 1980’s must go into action before the Palestinians get a chance to go through with their plans of having the world recognize their state West of the Jordan.
Let’s look at the footprints of that strategy in 2011. “The best that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq is the dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part”(Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Again, remember that this was written was in 1982 in one of Israel’s biggest newspapers and was a mere repitition of the menu outlined in various Zionist strategy papers, including “Israel’s Strategy for the 1980s”. The picture in Iraq today is not some accident, coincidence or happenstance, for–just as a house is built according to the blueprints drawn up well-ahead of the first nail being driven by a construction worker, what we see in Iraq today it is exactly what was planned not just years ago, but decades. Can anyone dispute that picture?
Now, let us look at Egypt. Although not discussed in mainstream (i.e. Zionist controlled) news, Egypt was the strongest ally to the Palestinian Authority and the main mediator between it and Israel any time help was needed. Egypt was the only Arab regime that can talk to Hamas on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. In terms of putting pressure on the only substantive Palestinian negotiating body–the Palestinian National Authority–Israel would love to see a regime in Egypt not as friendly to Israel as Mubarak was and at the same time more sympathetic to Hamas, thus placing the PNA between the jaws of the pincer to force them back to the negotiating circus for another 10 years. Better yet, to force the PNA out of power in order to start the next phase in annexing the West Bank. Then comes the all-too-predictable–regime or policy change in Jordan, which would inevitably halt the push for Palestinian statehood and thus stall talks and drag out the status quo for another 10 years, during which time Israeli settlers in the West bank increase their numbers to over a million and a half, making it impossible for a Palestinian state to be viable because of the constantly-heard rational concerning “facts on the ground”. Thus, a different solution altogether is then required in which the most plausible and acceptable solution to the problem would be population transfer from West Bank of the river Jordan to the East Bank, where the future “Palestinian State” would then be setup.
Those who doubt such a scenario is part of Israel’s blueprint for the region should take another look at what the aforementioned “Strategy for the 1980’s” has to say about it–
In short, Israel planned this in the 1980’s but never had the opportunity to implement it. Conditions were never ripe (as they are now) for the execution of this plan. So far they are succeeding accordingly, but will the revolution in Egypt delay their plans or accelerate them? It is all dependent upon the way the regime in Egypt treats Hamas and the PNA. If Al Jazeera, which has scored many points with the young people of Egypt and the Arab street, continues to be used in advancing the agenda of the other side and continues its incitement f the Arab street (and especially with the continuation of its attacks on the PNA) then the Israel’s Strategy for the 1980’s will indeed accelerate. The incitement of the Arab Street has caused the majority of Arab intellectuals and so-called “thinkers” to join in on the hysteria because no one wants to be seen as if they were against the “winds of change”. Israel can create a lukewarm atmosphere with Egypt which may serve both governments’ interests of the “changing” times which would allow Israel more time to continue its settlement building because no one on the Arab side would dare push for negotiations with Israel. Therefore Israel can cry to the world that it doesn’t have a “peace partner” on the Arab side. In the mean time “facts on the ground” will continue to be on Israel’s side until there comes a time when the Arab street will be ready to accept Israel’s plan for the Middle East after it has been broken-in like a wild horse.
Must the Zionist plan for the Middle East succeed? Of course not, but it requires an Arab plan to fight it, which–unfortunately there is none at this time. It also requires a Palestinian plan to combat the Israeli plan, but Palestinian politicians and their Arab counterparts continue down the road mapped out for them by Israel and its tool, the USA.
We must learn one thing in this game, and without it there can be no possibility of victory: We cannot win by playing THEIR game by THEIR rules. Rather, we must adopt our own rules of engagement, forcing them to change theirs.