Monday, December 31, 2007

Israel seeks to crush another "Durban" conference against racism

Photo: "Anti-Zionist Jews and pro-Palestinian supporters participate in a protest march in Durban to coincide with the opening of the 2001 UN Racism Conference"

Updated December 31, 2007

Israeli diplomats are quietly working to convince the United States and the European Union to boycott - and defund - a possible follow-up to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism conference in Durban, South Africa.

The efforts call on the US, which funds over one-fifth of the UN budget, to pull 21 percent of its share of the $6.8 million budget for the Durban Review Conference (or some $1.4m.) out of its annual payment to the UN.

The conference is being planned by a UN bureau chaired by Libya that counts Iran and Pakistan among its members.

Israeli officials hope to convince the Europeans and "like-minded" countries, such as Australia and Canada, to do the same and thereby cause a funding shortfall for the conference, which looks set to repeat the displays of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that dominated much of the original conference.

The Israeli move comes after the December 22 passage of the $4.2 billion UN budget for 2008-2009, which includes the funding for "Durban II," as diplomats are styling the follow-up conference. The general budget passed 142 to one, with only the US voting against.

The 2001 conference, which ended just three days before the September 11 attacks in the US, saw the US and Israel withdraw their delegations halfway through the gathering due in part to language equating Zionism with racism. The language was advanced by Syria and Iran, but was rejected in the final Durban Declaration and Program of Action after African and Western states intervened in the deliberations to moderate the original language.

However, an international NGO forum meeting alongside the conference of governments issued a declaration of its own, which approved language equating Zionism with racism and apartheid. It was, according to some experts, the launch of the ongoing campaign that seeks to draw a comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa.

Though it still has no venue or date, Durban II is slated to take place sometime in 2009...


Saturday, December 29, 2007

"Pro-Palestinian doctor acquitted"

"Pro-Palestinian doctor acquitted"

December 20, 2007

On Dec. 3, an Ann Arbor jury acquitted Dr. Catherine Wilkerson of two counts of obstructing police and emergency medical technicians. On Nov. 30, 2006, Ann Arbor and University of Michigan police brutally removed pro-Palestinian demonstrators from a public meeting at the university featuring former Reagan and Bush security advisor Ray Tanter. Wilkerson responded when a protester in the hands of police called out he could not breathe. He was face down and handcuffed with police pressing on him.

Wilkerson identified herself as a medical doctor and attempted to attend to the injured man, who was by then unconscious. Police twisted Wilkerson’s arm, causing injury. She objected to the improper use of ammonia inhalants by the EMTs. Since then, ammonia inhalants have been removed from ambulances.

Wilkerson was charged in February 2007 after she filed an assault complaint against the Ann Arbor police. Packed courtrooms reflected community support for Wilkerson. Her acquittal sets back attempts by university administrations in Michigan to use police brutality to restrict protest against promoters of racism and war.


Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Acclaimed Harvard professor tells Black America to surrender all rights, in the name of "peace and stability".

This Harvard professor, Paul Buck, speaks the way "peace" activists speak today, when they advise Palestinians to surrender their rights, in the name of "peace and stability"--


"Buck Speaks on Problem of the Negro; Declares It 'Insoluble' at Present Time:

"Segregation Best Working Plan For Now; Has Stabilized The South"

Tuesday, January 17, 1939

On the Web at:

"I believe that the Negro problem is insoluble at the present," said Paul H. Buck, assistant professor of History, and Pulitzer Prize winner, at his lecture on the American Negro in the Freshman Union last night. "What we have now," he said, "is a working agreement, and to most people in the South and the North it is the only alternative to race riots and persecution."

The trouble with the post-war settlement, according to Buck, was that it gave the Negro too great a measure of political freedom, rather than economic opportunity. "Emancipation was a gift that the Negro could not appreciate," Buck said, "and he had neither the morale of freedom nor the feeling that it should be cherished. "A white man's country' is the basis of Southern society, whose viewpoint was untouched by the War, and who reestablished their discipline by disfranchising the Negro politically, reducing him to peonage, and segregating him socially."

White superiority, or rather the widespread belief in it, is the permanent base on which the question of the Negro's status rests. "Once people realize the insolubility of the equality problem, then they will learn to live with it."

Little Opportunity

Buck contrasted the attitude of Booker T. Washington, great Negro leader of the nineteenth century with that of William Edward Du Bois '90. "Washington urged the Negroes to acquiesce to their place on the social and economic scale and to become good mechanics and farmers.

"Dubois has attacked Washington's premise on the grounds that colleges dedicated to those ends, like Tuskegee, did not produce leaders." But while education does furnish a few middle class professional men, it can not drop the barriers of prejudice. Buck said that he was acquainted with college graduates working as porters, victims of the process of segregation. "We have peace and stability that the South did not have before 1900, and gives the Negro a chance for progress. However slow this may be, when compared to 50 years ago, it is discernible."

--End of article--


Note on Professor Buck:

* Buck had won Pulitzer Prize in History in 1938 for his study of the postbellum South.

* Buck did not hurt his career by urging Black America to surrender all political rights, in 1939.

* Buck was appointed Provost of Harvard, serving from 1945 to 1953.
* Buck was dean of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences from 1942 to 1953.
* Buck was director of the Harvard University Library from 1955 to 1964.

In other words, never trust anyone who campaigns for silence on racism, for the brutally enforced silence of the oppressed, so that the oppressor may enjoy "peace and stability".

--Not even if that oppressor is the very heart of Harvard University, like Professor Paul Buck.


Monday, December 24, 2007

British musician's boycott of Israel:

" It seems to me the world should have already learned from what happened in South Africa..."


"First violin / Prelude to dialogue"

December 24, 2007

Full article on the Web at:

Brief excerpts:

"I was shocked to see these walls, it's a new apartheid, barbaric behavior: How can you impose such a collective punishment and separate people? After all, we are all living on the same planet. It seems to me the world should have already learned from what happened in South Africa. And a country that hasn't learned should be boycotted, so that's why I don't perform in your country."

This was the response offered this summer in an interview with Haaretz by internationally renowned British violinist Nigel Kennedy when asked why Israeli impresarios had yet to bring him here despite repeated attempts. Kennedy's comment hit on a facet infrequently discussed when debating the Israel boycott: The cultural boycott and, in particular, the musical boycott.

The automatic responses of boycott opponents weren't long in coming. As usual, they had a hint of insult and victimization. Prominent among them was the accusation of anti-Semitism, a charge immediately leveled against any boycotter...

...Also apparent is mockery of the British hypocrisy (who pick on Israel, while in China and Sudan, for example, far greater crimes are perpetrated), as if the injustices happening there, and also those that Britain itself is still perpetrating, justify or cancel out the tragedy that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians...


Zionism = Racism, Worldwide:

Ban Israeli Police Training Worldwide

"Hamtramck fails to pass anti-profiling ordinace"

By Khalil AlHajal
ARAB AMERICAN NEWS (Dearborn, Michigan)

Saturday, 12.15.2007

The Hamtramck City Council did not pass an ordinance brought to vote Tuesday that would prohibit police from profiling people based on their appearance, immigration status or other factors, because they said what they had in front of them was the wrong version of the measure they intended to vote on....

"Today is a sad day," said council member Abdul Algazali, who voted in favor of the ordinance along with two other members despite the discrepancy between it and the original version. He said that whatever was taken out could be added later in an amendment. Two council members and Mayor Karen Majewski voted against the ordinance citing the unexpected changes, leaving the vote tied at three.

"It's going to be hard," said Algazali, to pass any version of the ordinance next year. "That's it, we lost," he said.

He said he expected Councilman Scott Klein—who said at the meeting that the city already has a policy against discrimination—and others who often vote in common with him, to find other reasons to vote against an anti-profiling ordinance in the future.

But in an email sent by Klein to civil rights advocates and several ACCESS employees the day after the meeting, he indicated that he would vote for the original version.

"I am committed to passing this ordinance for a number of different reason(s). First and foremost because I am a gay man who knows exactly what it is like to suffer discrimination. I look forward to the day when my brothers and sisters fully enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship, and do not suffer discrimination," the email read.

The council is scheduled to meet again on January 8.

Several residents and representatives from various civil rights groups spoke in favor of the ordinance at the meeting in the packed council chambers.

Algazali said it was made clear by all but one person who spoke that the community favors the measure.

"We heard it in this chamber and we hear it in the streets," Algazali said. "We have to have tolerance in the city of Hamtramck."

He said that in addition to preventing discrimination, the ordinance would actually help law enforcement.

"It will make the residents of the city feel at ease to call the police and communicate with police without fearing that the police will ask them about their immigration status."

Former councilman John Justewicz spoke at the hearing against the ordinance, saying it would make things harder for police.

"You have to have some avenue of identifying the people you want to get," he said. "Without that ability, you might as well open the door and say 'do whatever you want.' "

Justewicz said he once worked security for the airport, where he was trained by Israeli experts to consider appearances and behaviors when screening for possible threats....


Friday, December 21, 2007

U.S.-imposed flag for Occupied Iraq:

It resembles Israeli flag, and "breaks the bonds between Iraq and its neighbours"

"Colouring the outcome:

"A nation's flag is usually a projection of a political identity, and Iraq's new design is a bold departure, says Simon Jeffery"

Tuesday April 27, 2004

Guardian Unlimited

On the Web at:,2763,1204666,00.html

The new Iraqi flag
The new Iraqi flag. Photograph: Muhammed Muheisen/AP

Since the ousting of Saddam Hussein, Iraq has had a little trouble with flags. Not at the same level as its lack of security or a basic infrastructure, but trouble nevertheless. One of the many iconic images from April 9, the day the statue fell, was the brief hanging of the stars and stripes over the old dictator's face.

Old Glory was hurriedly replaced with an old Iraqi flag, a pre-1991 design, which was rushed up the US army's statue-toppling hoist. The Iraqi flag was by that stage almost as recognisable as the Americans'. The red, white and black stripes with the Arabic script and three green stars had, after all, been pitted against the stars and stripes for many months before.

But that flag may be going the same way as the Soviet hammer and sickle, the orange, white and blue South African flag, and countless others swept away with the end of old regimes. The US-appointed Iraqi governing council has approved a radically different new design. Drawn by Iraqi artist Rifat al-Chaderchi, the two blue stripes represent the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq's Mesopotamian heartland, the yellow is for the Kurds and the crescent for Islam.

It has been met with some bewilderment in Iraq, largely because it resembles the Israeli flag more than any other. It also breaks the bonds between Iraq and its neighbours. Green, black and white, said to represent Islamic caliphates, are combined with red, the colour of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turkish empire, to form the pan-Arab colours. Jordan, Kuwait, Syria and Sudan all have them on their flags...


Israeli-looking flag is forced onto Iraq by U.S. Occupation:

New Iraqi flag, with Israeli colors, is forced onto Iraq:

Proposed flag, 2004 (later abandoned)

Proposed flag, 2004
(later abandoned)

On April 26, 2004, the U.S.-installed Occupation government, called the "Iraqi Governing Council" , announced a new flag for Occupied Iraq.

See below, for the stark contrast between the colors of Iraq's traditional flags (same colors as found throughout the Arab world), and the new Occupied Iraq flag, which prominently features blue and white.

(There was a little bit of yellow in the new proposed Iraqi flag, too, but then a number of the original proposals for the Israeli flag had included yellow, as well)

See below.

Only the Israeli flag features blue and white, out of all the flags found in the Middle East.

And, in 2004, the new Occupied Iraq flag featured blue and white, too:


Occupation tries to replace Iraqi culture with something more accepting of foreign occupation:

[Click on image to enlarge it.]

“Iraqi Landscape 2005”
by Hashim Al-Tawil
Etching, digital imaging collage, and hand coloring, 16”X20”


"From Pomegranate to Dearborn: The loss of Iraqi art"

- By Hashim Al-Tawil

The Arab American News (Dearborn, Michigan)

On the Web at:

"Out of Iraq: Artists' Meditations on Their Homeland," is an exhibit currently appearing at the National Arab American Museum (NAAM) in Dearborn. The question is why? The exhibit is of questionable origin and value and does not accurately reflect Iraqi art in America. Worse, it reflects the art of those trying to ameliorate Iraqi art and replace it with post-Saddam works that acknowledge and accept the occupation of that country.

The exhibit was initially curated by Leila Kubba and features the works of three Iraqi artists living in the States: Mohammed Fradi, Leila Kubba and Nadwa Qaragholi. The exhibit originated at the Pomegranate Gallery in Soho, a gallery owned by an Iraqi Jew, who left Iraq when he was a child.

The decision to host this show raises serious and troubling questions about the capabilities and/or intentions of those responsible at the museum. There was an obvious lack of artistic evaluation in this choice, and a lack of understanding of the impact of visual art on the Arab community. There was also obvious disregard for the intellectual awareness of the Arab American community. There is the possibility that if this disregard was not intentional, then a dreadful state of ignorance exists on the part of those running the museum, rendering them inappropriate for the job at hand. But first, some background.

Completely overlooked in the current popular discourse on Iraq - and rightly so given the chaos in that country - is the negative impact the invasion and occupation of Iraq has had on that country's hitherto magnificent store of Arab art and cultural artifacts. Remarkable levels of artistic, literary and cultural achievements had been reached in pre-invasion Iraq. Baghdad became the capital of Arab culture in the last decades of the twentieth century. And among the diverse trends, techniques, and styles Iraqi artists utilized in their creative endeavors, certain characteristics of modern Iraqi identity emerged. This was an identity rooted in the civilization of ancient Iraqis - those who first invented the rules of pictorial narratives and established the language of visual expression.

This identity was enriched by the diverse ethnic, racial and religious composition that has always strengthened the Iraqi experience. Artists of Arab, Kurd and Turkoman background, Muslims of all sects, Christian, Jewish, Mandaean and Yazidi, contributed to the making of this splendid picture, which has been a source of inspiration to so many young artists throughout the Arab world. This rich experience was also fed by diverse political views among the artists themselves: Communists, Arab nationalists, Ba'athists, Islamists and apolitical practitioners as well.

The predominant characteristic of this Iraqi cultural identity - which is an extension of the wider Arab cultural identity - was derived from distinct Arabic-Islamic visual elements. Arabic culture is both the core and the final evolution of the Semitic culture and the bond among all major ethnic groups in the region. The Arabic language is the historic evolution of the Semitic dialects, highly expressive and communicative among them. Islam is the culmination of historic monotheism which embeds Judaism and Christianity, and also plays host to other minor denominations such as the Mandaens, Baha'is, Druze, and Yazidis. Both the Arabic language and the Islamic religion underpin and overarch the history of all ethnic minorities and subcultures coming out of the Semitic Middle East. Reasonable religious tolerance and pluralism were major components of the secular Iraqi culture in pre-invasion Iraq.

Subsequent to the invasion, the Ministry of Culture and Information was bombed beyond repair, along with other cultural facilities. The Iraqi Museum was looted and thousands of priceless and irreplaceable antiquities were stolen or damaged. Most are still missing. The National Library, Dar al-Hikmah, and many collections of rare manuscripts and archival materials were looted and burned.

The Saddam Center for the Arts was looted and its collection of about 7,000 works stolen. This collection represented the entire history of modern Iraqi art with works from the latter years of the 19th century to 2003. The Iraqi Museum of Antiquities is still missing 30 to 40 major pieces and more than 15,000 small objects and artifacts, while only about 3,000 modern artworks have been retrieved or returned. The military occupation also resulted in the abuse of archeological sites, and the damaging of Islamic monuments. The latest wave of sectarian strife has also inflicted damage on many Islamic monuments and mosques, the latest being the Askari Mosque in Samara and the Abbasid Minaret in Ana.

As military control alone cannot achieve the entire conquest of an occupied people, the occupation has employed a very specific strategy by which to ameliorate authentic Iraqi culture altogether, deconstruct its very essence and replace it with something more accepting of the foreign presence. Hence a program of "de-Arabizing" Iraq and to a certain extent "de-Islamicizing" Iraq has been implemented since the early days of the occupation.

The majority of Iraq's prominent artists and intellectuals resented the occupation and have not collaborated with the deconstruction of Iraqi culture. They have either left Iraq to resettle in neighboring Arab states, other countries in Europe, the Americas, or Australia, or have chosen to live in seclusion without their usual creative activity.

However, a few Iraqi intellectuals, artists of lower rank and amateur writers did choose to cooperate and support the occupation for various political and financial reasons. Many Iraqis in the United States have also collaborated with the U.S. occupation and extended their "expertise" to supporting the creation of the "new Iraq" in the various fields of art, culture and media work as well as military related activity.

The presentation of modern Iraqi art in the States following the occupation has reflected the chaos and the total ignorance of American art critics and art historians about modern Iraqi art.

So dismal has the American approach to this issue been that the media has created a fanciful cultural scene that totally ignored the long-established modern art and culture of Iraq. Scores of hybrid Iraqi "experts," amateur American journalists and so-called art curators - who have no knowledge of modern Iraqi art - have miraculously emerged as "authorities" on modern Iraqi art. They go on fantasizing on the subject, highlighting insignificant Iraqi art students and amateurs, and praising mediocre art as the rising new "post-Saddam" Iraqi art.

Local Iraqi American art students have gone further. They have appropriated Iraqi culture by announcing the formation of the Iraqi Artists Union in America and the League of Iraqi Artists in America and Canada, among many other such shabby "ethnic" organizations.

One of the new "custodians" of "liberated Iraqi art" is Peter Hasting Falk, an American curator who has no knowledge of Iraqi art. He has introduced a mediocre Iraqi amateur - Issam Pasha - as the new "hero" of modern Iraqi art. Lavish funding has been allocated to purchase works from trivial Iraqi artists - some still in Iraq, others in Amman or other European cities. The works of these artists are being exhibited at the Pomegranate Gallery, which is being run by yet another "new Iraqi artist" - Oded Halahmi.

The Falk-Halahmi collaboration has produced a series of exhibits featuring works of mostly unestablished Iraqi artists such as Issam Pasha, Qasim Sabti, Delair Shakir, Ghassan Muhsin and Hayder Ali, as well as emerging artists such as Mohammed Al-Shammarey, Nazar Yehya and Hana Malallah, along with Halahmy. The Pomegranate Gallery acts as a New York outlet for the new "post-Saddam" Iraqi art with the aim of partnering with other outlets in other states.

Halahmi is an Iraqi-born Jew, who at the age of 13, migrated to Israel in 1951 and studied sculpture, and eventually relocated to New York. He still lives and works between New York and "Haifa." Right after the invasion of Iraq, he was commissioned to sculpt a menorah that was transported to Baghdad, installed in Saddam's palace in the Green Zone and used to celebrate Hanukkah in December 2003.

Iraqi art has always been pluralistic. But this gallery and its owner identify more with Jewish art and Israeli culture than with Iraqi culture. The phenomenon of Falk-Halahmy activity is a typical example of the attempt at "re-identification" of Iraq, and the de-Arabization/de-Islamicization of its culture. Similar cultural activities are being performed in other cultural fields - most notably in literature.

In their personal and professional lives, these three artists express empathy with the occupation of Iraq in different ways. Although Fradi and Kubba both have a reasonable record of artistic activity with quality work, their participation in this exhibit is of lower quality. The work of Nadwa Qaragholi lacks professional dimension. It can hardly be described as anything beyond mediocre. Qaragholi is hitherto unknown and is one of thousands of commercial artists who do landscape and portraits and other decorative work. Yet these works are being touted as representative of "Iraqi art."

The NAAM has been roundly criticized, mostly privately, for poor design and curatorship. It's time to ask: Do the museum and its galleries truly represent the culture of the Arab American community? Are there professional experts on Arab art, culture and history there who have the credibility to run a qualified museum? These are questions the community should begin asking before the Arabs' glorious history of achievements in the arts is trivialized by misrepresentation.

--Dr. Al-Tawil is professor of art history at the Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn


"Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened."

'Israel will attack Iran on its own'

Print Subscribe Listen to this article. Powered by
E-mail Toolbar


Shape public opinion:
digg reddit newsvine facebook

"I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran," Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents, George W. Bush among them, told the American Newsweek magazine in an article published Friday.

Citing conversations he had in Israel with officials in Mossad and the Israeli defense establishment, Riedel concluded that "Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened."

While some US experts doubt Israel's ability to tackle Iran alone, David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, was quoted by Newsweek as saying that although information on the exact location of Iran's nuclear facility is incomplete, Israel's air strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility on September 6, widely discussed in foreign media outlets, could be seen as a test run for any future strike on Iran's facilities, as well as a direct warning to Teheran.

Riedel told the magazine his impression that Israel would venture a strike on Iran on its own was formed before the publication of the joint US intelligence agencies' report, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). "This [the NIE] makes it [a strike on Iran] even more likely," he said.

Since the publication of the NIE, which reversed a previous American assessment by concluding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, leaders worldwide have been adjusting their publicly stated positions on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Even inside the US, President Bush attempted some damage control by stating a day after the report's publication that "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous...."


Friday, December 14, 2007

500 attend Campus Palestine event:

"Palestinians are living 'without power, food and water' "

"Pro-palestinian group at Case hosts 1st event"

Posted on December 6, 2007

Full article, with photos, is on the Web at:

Brief excerpts:

"Just before the Thanksgiving break, about 500 people gathered at Case Western Reserve University to hear speakers discuss human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.

"Two Arab-American hip-hop bands, The Philistines and The N.O.M.A.D.S., also entertained the crowd.

"The large turnout surprised even Rami Mikati and Zeyad Schwen, 20-year-old Case students who organized the event. It was the first big gathering hosted by the recently founded Case chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The duo started the group last spring to combat what they call media bias against Palestinians and to increase awareness of what they describe as the humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza.

"Among the speakers were journalist Alison Weir and author Anna Baltzer, the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, and the author of Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories.

"The Case juniors, both Muslims, launched the organization so students could have 'an alternate source of accurate information regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Palestinian politics, and the Palestinian humanitarian crisis,' says Mikati, the group’s president. 'We’re not advocating violence. I hope to see peace in my lifetime.'

"Palestinians are living 'without power, food and water,' says Schwen, a varsity soccer player and class of 2009 president. 'The economy (in West Bank and Gaza) is practically gone. (Palestinians) need medical treatment. Before we can move on to more complex issues, how to find a peaceful solution to this, we have to first recognize the most urgent thing they need now.'

"SJP began with only 15 members, but now 85 students have asked to be on the mailing list, adds Mikati, a Lebanese-American from Kent. Students who are Arab, Palestinian or Muslim make up about half the membership. The remainder is 'just American kids,' Mikati says. An Israeli student is very active, as are other Jews.

" 'Our goal is not to just preach to the choir,' adds Mikati, an economics major...."


U.N.: More alarm about devastating Israeli blockade on Gaza:

"Life-saving treatments are not available in Gaza hospitals..."

A sign in Arabic saying "no petrol" is seen at a petrol station in Gaza City.


"Alarm raised over effects of Israeli closure on Gaza economy"


December 14, 2007

On the Web at:

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Another UN agency joined the chorus of alarm on Friday about the devastating consequences of Israeli restrictions on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, in the run-up to a Palestinian donors' conference.

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs warned that the restrictions Israel tightened after Hamas seized armed control of the territory in June could irrevocably damage the Gaza economy.

It was the third international report released this week about the mounting difficulties endured by the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, following findings from the World Bank and the World Health Organisation.

"The isolation of the Gaza Strip has lasted six months, leaving the local economy to possibly face irrevocable damage, and the population in Gaza more reliant on aid than ever before," the OCHA said.

Severe shortages and restrictions on imports and exports have begun to distort markets in Gaza, putting anything other than the most basic goods and foods beyond the buying power of a large portion of the population.

Hundreds of business have gone bankrupt due to a ban on foreign trade, thousands have lost jobs due to the collapse of the building industry and construction projects worth 370 million dollars are on hold indefinitely.

Israel's reduction of fuel supplies -- in an effort to curb nearly daily rocket attacks from Gaza militants -- has affected all sections of the population and threatened essential services and water supply.

Life-saving treatments are not available in Gaza hospitals, with 17 percent of patients with referrals refused exit for treatment, while baby milk, medicines and cooking oil are increasingly scarce, OCHA said.

"Low stock levels, rising prices, increased joblessness and loss of incomes are having devastating consequences for the population and local economy, and the livelihoods of the people of Gaza," OCHA said.

"If the closures are not eased, the UN predicts the need for food and direct assistance will sharply rise above and beyond the current level of 80 percent of the population," the report said.

On Thursday, the World Bank said Israeli restrictions, including some 500 roadblocks in the occupied West Bank and a harsh clampdown on Palestinian movements from Gaza, must be eased if the Palestinian economy is to grow.

On Monday, the Palestinian Authority, which has effectively lost control of Gaza, hopes to secure 5.6 billion dollars from world donors in Paris to bankroll ambitious development plans and keep their finances afloat.

But "the successful implementation of Palestinian commitments alone will not achieve even the modest growth anticipated" in the plan, the World Bank said.

"They must be fully supported by both the large increase in (donor) aid and the relaxation of the closure regime anticipated" by the plan, said the bank.

A week before the donors' conference, the World Health Organisation voiced alarm about the health consequences of the "intolerable" isolation of Gaza.

Israel closed the Gaza Strip to all but essential humanitarian supplies after the radical Islamist movement Hamas -- which does not recognise the right of the Jewish state to exist -- seized armed control in mid-June.


Thursday, December 13, 2007

"Israeli restrictions have caused a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank that is growing worse, leaving hospitals unable to treat the sick.."

"Red Cross says Israeli clamps worsen humanitarian crisis"

Thu 13 Dec 2007, 13:50 GMT
[-] Text [+]

By Stephanie Nebehay


On the Web at:

GENEVA (Reuters) - Israeli restrictions have caused a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank that is growing worse, leaving hospitals unable to treat the sick and keeping farmers off their land, the International Committee of the Red Cross said.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the neutral humanitarian agency called on Israel to "lift the retaliatory measures which are paralysing life in Gaza" and urged Palestinian factions to stop targeting civilian areas and putting lives at risk.

"The measures imposed by Israel come at an enormous humanitarian cost, leaving the people living under occupation with just enough to survive, but not enough to live a normal and dignified life," said Beatrice Megevand Roggo, the ICRC's head of operations for the Middle East and North Africa.

The Palestinian population has "effectively become a hostage to the conflict," she said.

The ICRC said Israel's "severe restrictions" on the movement of people and goods, imposed to tighten security, had deepened economic woes and affected every aspect of life in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

"The Palestinian Territories face a deep human crisis, where millions of people are denied their human dignity. Not once in a while, but every day," the Geneva-based agency said.

Most crossing points have been closed to the 1.4 million Palestinians living in Gaza since the violent clashes between Hamas and Fatah-affiliated forces that led to a Hamas takeover in June this year.


The ICRC estimated that 5,000 farmers in Gaza and their families relying on exports of cash crops like carnations and strawberries were "about to suffer a 100 percent drop in sales."

"The harvest season for these important crops started in June, but the embargo on exports has left them rotting in containers at the crossing points," it said.

Getting medical care or studying in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Israel or abroad has also become "nearly impossible," except for those needing life-saving treatment, the ICRC said.

Some 823 sick people -- nearly one-quarter of the 3,568 requiring medical care outside Gaza -- were prevented from leaving the territory for treatment over the last six months, spokesman Florian Westphal said.

Administrative and security clearance delays "have resulted in the deaths of three patients in favour of whom the ICRC had intervened," he said, noting restrictions had also caused a shortage of drugs for cancer patients and a lack of spare parts for emergency wards and operating theatres in Gaza's hospitals.

In the West Bank, the ICRC said many Palestinians have been powerless to prevent the confiscation of their land.

As a result of the West Bank Barrier, built inside Palestinian territory, it said "large tracts of farming land have been out of reach for farmers," who must fight through "a bureaucratic maze" to get permits needed to reach their fields.

Many applications are rejected on security grounds, which "may include a relative once having been in an Israeli prison."

The ICRC depends on its neutrality to distribute emergency aid and help victims of conflict and violence around the world.

It stressed that while Israel has the right to protect its population, "there should always be a sound balance between Israel's security concerns and the protection of the rights and liberties of the Palestinians living under occupation."

"So far, the balance between the legitimate Israeli security concerns and the right of the Palestinian people to live a normal life has not been struck," it said.

(For more information on humanitarian crises and issues visit

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Laura MacInnis and Tim Pearce)

"Israel" claims a lot of land:
"The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."

"The Zionist Plan for the Middle East"

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904)
and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

On the Web at:

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."


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)

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 contlict, 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

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.13

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

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, emigrationfrom 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 mifitary 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
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 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.