The present turmoil in the Muslim world which affects the world peace is of special concern to Pakistan being a deeply affected country.
The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. (article first published by Global Research on April 29, 2013).
President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank).
Moreover, by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and allowing for the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and beyond, the US president has provided a de facto endorsement of the “Greater Israel” project as formulated under the Yinon Plan.
Bear in mind: this design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, namely Washington’s intent to fracture and balkanize the Middle East. Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia.
The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to day, the “Greater Israel” project is consistent with America’s imperial design.
“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman, “A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:
• historic Palestine;
• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;
• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and
• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.
Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”
The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.
Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).
Note that Pakistan has lost over sixty thousand people in the terrorist attacks while economic cost is estimated to be over $ 100 Billions. While some terrorists are killed in the US drone attacks in FATA [Federal Administered Tribal Area] along Afghanistan border, majority of victims are civilians, women and children. Pakistan Army has broken the back of Taliban terrorists firstly by evicting them from Swat and almost wiped them out in North Waziristan single handily, while coalition of many nations lead by USA is fighting them in Afghanistan and Middle East. The US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has destabilised the region. Iraq, Syria have been ripped apart, while Islamic State [IS] has emerged as a power player, its neither “Islamic” nor “state” unrecognised by any country of the world. Sudden emergence of IS has shocked the world. Many questions need to be answered, i.e., who is funding IS? Who is supplying weapons? Who is the ultimate beneficiary of Balkanization of Middle East? Who is to benefit form destabilization of Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Many political scientists, analysts, thinkers and intellectuals have come up with many possible answers.
However to explore the issue deeply from another angle, let’s go back in time, 22 years ago a paper titled; “New Bernard Lewis plan will carve up the Mideast” was published. Amazingly the roots of present turmoil in Muslim world can easily be traced back. The events proposed 22 years ago by Bernard Lewis seems to be implemented systematically with some variations. An imperialist design to dominate the world through intrigue, covert and overt operations and wars.
BernardLewis, is a specialist in oriental studies, the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West. He is especially famous in for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire. Lewis is a 98 years old British-American historian who is also known as a public intellectual and political commentator. He is the Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Lewis served in the British Army in the Royal Armoured Corps and Intelligence Corps during the Second World War before being seconded to the Foreign Office. After the war, he returned to the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London and was appointed to the new chair in Near and Middle Eastern History.
Lewis is a widely read expert on the Middle East, and is regarded as one of the West’s leading scholars of that region. His advice has been frequently sought by policymakers, including the Bush administration. In his over a 60-year career, Lewis has emerged as the most influential post war historian of Islam and the Middle East. He is notable for his public debates with the late Edward Said, concerning the latter’s book Orientalism (1978), which criticized Lewis and other European Orientalists. Selected contents from his work from are reproduced here; it will help the reader to understand the hidden facet of turmoil in the Muslim world.
In 1980, it was warned that the strategy behind then U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Arc of Crisis” was a British plan to destroy the nation-state.
The outline is here:-
- Algeria: Anglo-French run civil war, pitting the Islamic movement against the government, threatens to spread into Tunisia and Morocco.
- Egypt: IMF conditionalities fuel potential for Muslim-Coptic Christian civil strife and war with Sudan.
- Egypt-Sudan: Plans to create an artificial Coptic Christian “Namibia,” carved out of the border area, are designed to provoke war between Egypt and Sudan.
- Southern Sudan: The British-backed SPLA is attempting to make the region into a separate state.
- Ethiopia: With a new Constitution approving any desired secessions, Ethiopia is set to be divided up along tribal and ethnic lines, as has already been accomplished with the creation of Eritrea.
- Somalia: Fragmentation into numerous warring clan, regions, with clan wars spreading into the Somali-majority ethnic regions of eastern Ethiopia and northern Kenya.
- Kenya: British efforts to topple President Daniel and destroy his non tribal ruling coalition, are meant to trigger tribal wars between the Luo and Kikuyu.
- Rwanda-Burundi: Ugandan-backed Tutsi massacres of Hutus in both states are designed to make both states into satellites of greater Uganda.
- Israel-Palestine: British and World Bank sabotage of the economy is meant to provoke a Hamas-PLO civil war that would destroy the Israel-PLO agreement, and to create the conditions for a new Arab-Israeli war.
- Saudi Arabia and Emirates: The politically discredited British-run royal families and sheiks are about to be dumped, replaced by the networks run by Crown Prince Abdullah.
- Yemen: Continuing efforts to renew civil war and spill it over into Saudi Arabia.
- Greater Syria,; incorporating Lebanon, has been largely consolidated; an Israeli-Syrian war remains on the agenda.
13: Kurdish regional, straddling Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, has been blown up by the British, fuelling a possible Turkish-Iranian war.
- Turkey: Ethnic, sectarian, and political strife is meant to create a new “Algeria;’ destroying the last modem economy in the region.
- Balkans: Serbian invasion of Bosnia and designs on Kosova may lead to conflict with Albania and Turkey; Greece would ally with Serbia.
- Azerbaijan’s demands for reunification with Iranian Azerbaijan, from which it had been separated in the early 1800s, could spark a Turkish-Iranian war.
- Armenia-Azerbaijan: Continuing war over Nagorno-Karabakh creates conditions for Caucasus wide conflict, drawing in Russia and Turkey.
- Chechnya: The Russian invasion and destruction of the ethnic region has set into motion a guerrilla war of indefinite duration.
- Iraq is being subjected to continued efforts to divide it into a northern Kurdish area, a southern Shiite area, and a central Baghdad area.
- Western Iran: Plans are under way to unify the Turkmen ethnic region of northwest Iran with neighboring Turkmenistan.
- Afghanistan: The civil war will split the country into three parts: a Tajik entity in the north, an Uzbek central entity, and a Pushtun entity in the south, to incorporate part of Pakistan.
- Tajikistan: Russian manipulated civil war may aid separate British efforts to organize territorial conflict between the Iranic Tajiks and Turki Uzbeks.
- China: Turkish supported Turkic-ethnic separatism in Xinjiang province is meant to aid British efforts to split off neighbouring Tibet (ethnically non-Chinese), and fragment China generally.
- Pakistan: Karachi riots are meant to split off the Sind; Pakistan is to be divided in to a southern Balochi state that would also include part of neighbouring Iran, a Punjabi state, and the reunification of the Pushtun region into a new Pushtunistan carved out of Afghanistan.
- Kashmir: Long-standing Indo-Pakistani conflicting claims on Kashmir are being aggravated by a British supported Kashmir independence movement, and feed plans to foster an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war .
- Sri Lanka: The Tamil Tigers, supplied through international drug connections with Stinger-type missiles, have renewed war for the secession of northern Sri Lanka. [Resolved]
Bernard Lewis plan:
The “Bernard Lewis plan,” as it came to be known, was a design to fracture all the countries in the region, from the Middle East to India, along ethnic, sectarian, and linguistic lines.
This, was the strategic game plan behind the U. S overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and his replacement by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Oct. 31, I984 assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
In 1974, Lewis was seconded to Princeton University, where he became an adviser to the U. S. foreign policy establishment. Lewis sold his plan to the Carter administration with the argument that ringing the Soviet Union with Muslim fundamentalist states would break up the Soviet Union’s southern tier. From this location, he also has published an update on his thesis, which appears in the Fall 1992 issue of Foreign Affairs, the quarterly of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the sister agency to Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).
Lewis’s plan is modelled on the imperial methods of the Roman Empire: Grant local autonomy to a myriad of squabbling and politically impotent ethnic enclaves over which Rome can wield its military strength without difficulty. The subjected enclaves have a long leash, as long as the tribute is paid to Rome.
A geopolitical aim of the Bernard Lewis plan was the breakup of the edges of the Soviet empire. With this now accomplished. Lewis predicted that the entire Middle East would undergo a process of “Lebanonization” a reference to the civil war unleashed in Lebanon in 1975 by then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The war pitted Lebanon’s Catholic, Palestinian, Shiite Muslim, Sunni Muslim, Druze, and Greek Orthodox populations against each other. With a steady supply of arms to all sides, the war resulted in the de facto partitioning of Lebanon by Israel and Syria. Today, the nation-state of Lebanon, once considered the jewel of the Mideast, no longer exists.
“Most of the states of the Middle East,” he wrote, “are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates-as happened in Lebanon-into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”
The End of Arab Nationalism:
The process of disintegration of the Mideast, projected by Lewis, is facilitated not only by the collapse of the Soviet Union, but what Lewis calls the “demise of pan-Arabism.” The coup de grace for Arab nationalism, Lewis states, was the United States-led war against Iraq. Lewis asserts that the war was primarily a war among Arab states, in which the United States only became involved “reluctantly.” The line up of the Arab nations against Iraq “marked the formal abandonment of the long-cherished dream of pan-Arabism, of a united Arab state or even a coherent Arab political bloc. As a matter of current politics and for the foreseeable future,[Arab nationalism] no longer counts as a political force. It is not a factor in international or inter-Arab or even domestic Arab politics.”
Further marking the political impotence of the Arab world, Lewis states, is the “end-at least for the time being of the effectiveness of oil as a weapon in the hands of the producer countries. This weapon, so powerful as an instrument of policy in past crises, was in this particular crisis totally ineffectual.”
These two phase-changes in Mideast politics represent a significant achievement for Lewis, who is regarded as the dean of Mideast area specialists within the Anglo-American elite. For him, the collapse of Arab nationalism removes the threat of industrial development and national independence in the Mideast. The unstated assumption of all of Lewis’s ruminations is the maintenance of the economic status quo; the Mideast will be developed, if at all, only under circumstances controlled by powers outside the region.
Lewis does not mince words when it comes to the military strength of such outside powers. The “most important lesson of the war,” Lewis proclaims, is that “the swift and overwhelming defeat of the Iraqi armed forces reminded the world of something that it had begun to forget: the technological and military edge that the modern West had achieved over the rest of the world, and which in the past had enabled even small European countries like Holland and Portugal to conquer and govern vast empires in Asia and Africa.”
This outside military strength will only be used to thwart threats to itself, Lewis implies, but the western powers will not directly rule the region. “Because of some resemblances of language and institutions, there is a widespread belief in the Middle East that the United States is the British Empire back in business with new management, a new trading name and a new address. This is not so. . . . The United States will no doubt seek to remain the predominant outside power in the Middle East, but the operative word is ‘outside.’
Instead, Lewis states, U. S. policy is the “balance of power” method that is associated with Kissinger.American policy, he says, “is to prevent the emergence of a regional hegemony-of a single regional power that could dominate the area and thus establish monopolistic control of Middle Eastern oil.” This overriding concern explains American flip-flops on Iran and Iraq.
The apparent exceptions to such tactical arrangements are US reliance on the “steadfastness of the northern tier” i.e., Turkey; and “the presence of a powerful, self-reliant and stable democratic power in the region”-Israel. Lewis is known in the intelligence community for his affection for Turkey. He published a book for the RNA, The Emergence of Modern Turkey. in which he focused on the potential use of religious, class, and ethnic differences to bring an end to the industrialization policies of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
In the case of Israel, Lewis states, Americans recognize the United States as having “stronger links, stronger mutual loyalties, and commitments and a more enduring relationship.” Otherwise, the U. S. has no loyalties to any state in the region: “The United States has obviously felt free to abandon such allies, if the alliance becomes too troublesome or ceases to be cost-effective-as, for example, in South Vietnam, Kurdistan, and Lebanon.”
The Lewis-Kissinger balance of power strategy outlaws the concept of a “community of principle”-alliances of sovereign nation-states based on a commitment to mutual economic development. Lacking such a community of principle and given the worldwide economic breakdown imposed by such agencies as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the countries of the underdeveloped sector are expected to explode into civil strife and wars. As long as the extraction of oil and loot is assured, Lewis makes clear, no one should expect the “outside” powers to become involved in such chaos. Lewis states explicitly: “The West would no longer be concerned but would remain indifferent to whatever happened, to wars, disasters, and upheavals, as long as the oil continues to flow”.
The western capacity for turning a blind eye, already manifested in other respects, should not be underrated. In the past, outside powers have sometimes intervened to prevent, to limit or to halt Arab-Israel wars. Arabs and Israelis alike would be unwise to count on such interventions in the future.”
In this regard, Lewis looks with favour on a particular variant of the diverse and often competing movements misleadingly termed “Islamic fundamentalist.” That British run variant which he favours is opposed to modern science and technology and, in opposition to the tenets of Islam banning usury, is loyally committed to paying IMF debt. As such, Lewis sees such a variety of fundamentalism as a battering ram against the nation-state.
“The eclipse of pan-Arabism” he writes, “has left Islamic fundamentalism as the most attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be something better, truer and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their rulers and the bankrupt ideologies foisted on them from outside.” He notes that British subversive movements acting under such a cover enjoy a practical advantage in societies like the Middle East. “Dictators can forbid parties, they can forbid meetings they cannot forbid public worship, and they can to only a limited extent control sermons.” As such they represent a “network outside the control of the state the more oppressive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositions.”
Elaborating on the subversive capacities of that variety of fundamentalism run out of Britain, he adds: “In a program of aggression and expansion these movements would enjoy, like their Jacobin and Bolshevik predecessors, the advantage of fifth columns in every country and community with which they share a common universe of discourse. There is also the possibility that they might have nuclear weapons, either for terrorist or regular military use.”
Such developments will lead to the process which he dubs “Lebanonization.”
“Most of the states of the Middle East . . . are of recent and artificial construction and are’ vulnerable to such a process,” he analyzes. “If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates as happened in Lebanon-into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”
A New Phase of Wars
A look at the area of the world Lewis designates as the Middle East shows that Lewis‘s pronouncements are active Anglo-American policy.
Take the case of Iraq.
The Anglo-American/French imposition of a “no-fly” zone over southern Iraq accelerated the dismemberment of that state into three pans, a Kurdish north, a central Baghdad region , and a Shiite south. Because of a common denomination, Shiaism, as well as diverse geographic and historical factors, a Shiite statelet carved out of southern Iraq would tend to fall under the control of neighbouring Iran. This fact, in addition to Iranian ambitions toward other Arab Gulf sheikdoms, will tend to foster the condition for a new Iranian-Arab war.
A Kurdish statelet carved out of northern Iraq will tend to fall under the control of the increasingly ambitious Turkey. Control over oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan was one of the promises made to the Turkish establishment to induce them to enter the war against Iraq. But the creation of an even nominally independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq would also inflame the adjacent Kurdish regions in Iran, and in Turkey itself, where a near war between the Turkish army and Kurds is ongoing. For such reasons, the division of northern Iraq will tend to provoke an Iranian-Turkish war. Such a war is made more likely because the Turkish-allied former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan is laying claim to Iranian Azerbaijan.
In the Balkans, the war in former Yugoslavia is rapidly drawing in neighbouring powers [this is almost over, paper written years ago]. If Serbia invades Kosovo as projected, Albania and then Turkey will join the war against Serbia, while Greece will side with Serbia.
In Central Asia, Anglo-American planners are attempting to pit Tajikistan, an Iranian-ethnic republic, against Uzbekistan, which is Turkic. The war could spread into neighbouring Afghanistan, already in a civil war, and even into neighbouring Chinese Turkestan, whose population is ethnically the same as the new Central Asian republics.
While provoking wars, the Anglo-Americans are hard at work in assembling regional alliances to administer the region on their behalf, most notably a Saudi-Israeli and Turkish-Israeli axis.
As part of this effort, the Anglo-Americans are fostering a Camp David-style separate peace deal between Syria and Israel. Under earlier arrangements, Syria and Israel gobbled up Lebanon. Now, it appears, Jordan is set to be “Lebanonized.” As far back as 1990, Pentagon planners began reconsideration of an old plan to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan and put in its place a “Palestinian state,” jointly administered by Israel and Syria. The arrest of Jordanian parliamentarian Laith Shubeilat on US orders has destabilized the country, especially given the fact that Shubeilat has been associated with a pro-Iraq policy. As Lyndon LaRouche has warned, an Israeli move to blow up the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem can be expected. Such attempts have been made by Jewish zealots before, under the professed aim of clearing the way for constructing the Third Temple of Solomon. The ensuing riots would set the stage for broader religious warfare in the region.
It is common to brush aside the conspiracy theories.
However if one critically examines the plans conceived decades back by scholar or groups with close association with the policy makers in USA and UK and the events on ground bear close semblance, its difficult to reject it out rightly.
The governments of Muslim countries should consider these aspects seriously and instead of investing in construction of high rise building and other symbols of luxury, should invest in education, and establish think tanks, with genuine intellectuals, analysts and thinkers. They should constantly review the international plans and conspiracies, suggesting concrete counter measures for the national survival and advancement of peace and stability.
- How to counter Zionist Plans? http://aftabkhan-net.page.tl/Counter-Zionist-Plans.htm