[نصيرة تختوخ]

[ALIGN=CENTER][TABLE1="width:95%;border:4px outset red;"][CELL="filter:;"][ALIGN=center]Translated and edited by Israel Shahak
Publisher's Note
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. [See below ] 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
Foreword by Israel Shahak
The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed
plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East
which is based [mark=#FFFFCC]on the division of the whole area into small states, and the
dissolution of all the existing Arab states.[/mark] 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. [mark=#FFFFCC]The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel,[/mark]
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: [mark=#FFFFFF]"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[/mark].
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. [Remember these
prophetic lines have neen written 20 years ago! ggb ]

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
[mark=#FFFFFF]June 13, 1982[/mark]
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon
[mark=#FFFFFF]This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in Kivunim (Directions), A
Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14, Winter, 5742[/mark],
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 selfdestructive,
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.
[mark=#FFFFFF]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[/mark].
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,[mark=#FFFFCC]
Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of
Syria today[/mark]. 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.
[mark=#FFFFFF]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[/mark]. 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.
[mark=#FFFFFF]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[/mark].
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. [mark=#FFFFFF]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[/mark]
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. [mark=#FFFF99]Lebanon's total
dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world[/mark]
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following
that track. [mark=#FFFFFF]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,[/mark] [mark=#FFFFFF]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[/mark]. 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.[mark=#FFFFCC] Iraq is stronger than Syria[/mark]. In the short
run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. [mark=#FFFFFF]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.[/mark] 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, [mark=#FFFFCC]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[/mark], 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. [mark=#FFFF66]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[/mark]. 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. [18]
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. [19]
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\\
Conclusions - by Israel Shahak
Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to
understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for
the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.
The Military Background of The Plan
The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but
on the many occasions where something very like it is being "explained" in
closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is
clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches,
are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as
discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian "unrest" on the
West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The
answer to that is the method of ruling by means of "Haddad forces" or of
"Village Associations" (also known as "Village Leagues"): local forces under
"leaders" completely dissociated from the population, not having even any
feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The
"states" proposed by Yinon are "Haddadland" and "Village Associations," and
their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military
superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that
any movement of revolt will be "punished" either by mass humiliation as in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities,
as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan,
as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal
places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile
destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland
and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system
functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.
It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan
too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they
are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among
them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan
will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.
Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?
The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish
society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews,
combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the
Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin's speeches) has
to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as
indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written
material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid "persuaders"
and "explainers" (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually,
remarkably stupid). They then "learn it," more or less, and preach to others.
It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties,
has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was
"in opposition") the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a
year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering "the rest of
Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity" was explained in the
years 1965-67.
Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the
publication of such plans?
Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled
opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a
consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the
Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far
quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society,
and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In
such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli
expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual
and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is
the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset
of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the
persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of
the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag
symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the
stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that,
on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of
the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they
not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?
In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now.
The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel,
and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles
in the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of
Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state,
practice loyally what Stalin used to call "the constructive criticism." (In fact
those among them who claim also to be "Anti-Stalinist" are in reality more
Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In
the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has
always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a
plan would not be a matter for discussion--exactly as the Biblical genocides
committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The
Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation
exists in which Israel is really a "closed society" to the rest of the world,
because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the
beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.
Israel Shahak
June 17, 1982
Jerusalem
About the Translator
Israel Shahak (1933-2001) was 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 was the author of numerous articles and
books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State, Israel's Global Role: Weapons
for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982.
Notes (Yinon article)
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 of the 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.[/ALIGN][/CELL][/TABLE1][/ALIGN]

[سلمان الراجحي]

thank you for this subject

salman