The way history is written and taught makes it too easy for all of us to view things with detachment.
Avigail Abarbanel. Psychotherapeute. Geboren en opgegroeid in Israel. Zij is samensteller van Beyond Tribal Loyalties: Personal Stories of Jewish Peace Activists (2012)
April 2008 schreef de Britse auteur en journalist Linda S. Heard, Midden Oosten deskundige gestationeerd in Alexandrië:
Is the US manipulating and remolding the area so that Israel can remain the only regional superpower in perpetuity?
This is not as fanciful as one might imagine on first glance. Read the following strangely prophetic segment from an article published in 1982 by the World Zionist Organisation’s publication Kivunim and penned by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with links to the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Yinon’s strategy was based on this premise. In order to survive Israel must become an imperial regional power and must also ensure the break-up of all Arab countries so that the region may be carved up into small ineffectual states unequipped to stand up to Israeli military might. Here’s what he had to say on Iraq:
‘The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front. 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 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 Shiite areas in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.’
Sound familiar?
Now let’s focus on the reality, 24 years on.
The eight-year long Iran-Iraq War that ended in 1988 was responsible for over a million casualties but did not result in Yinon’s desired break-up. Iraq still stood as a strong homogenous entity.
Iraq was, however, severely weakened in 1991 as a result of the Gulf War brought about by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Still, the country remained unified.
It took the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation to destabilize Iraq and split the country on sectarian lines. Indeed, its new constitution is drawn around a loose federation with partial autonomy for the northern Kurds and the southern Shiites, and the country is now rife with sectarian, religious and ethnic strife. Some say ‘civil war.’
Turning to Syria, until the March 2003 invasion of Iraq Syria under President Bashar Al-Assad enjoyed reasonably good relations with the West. We should also remember that Syria fought alongside the US-led allies during the Gulf War. Syria also voted, albeit reluctantly, for the UN resolution that oiled the invasion, and was a strong partner in the so-called ‘War on Terror.’
Then, lo and behold, Syria could do no right. Suddenly, it was accused to all kinds of ‘crimes’ from hiding Iraq’s mythical weapons of mass destruction, harboring insurgents and terrorists, and allowing the free passage of fighters and arms into Iraq.
Heavy pressure was then put on to Damascus to end its de facto occupation of Lebanon following the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and, now the Syrian government is being investigated by the UN, accused of involvement.
Today the US is actively engaged in weakening the Al-Assad government and is supporting opposition parties. If it is successful, experts predict that Syria, like Iraq, will fall victim to sectarianism and internecine conflict.
Lebanon, which had been recovering from a long civil war and an Israeli occupation, and was on the point of finding some semblance of unity, is also in danger of being destabilized with parties lining up into pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian confederations.
Yinon described the Arab-Muslim world as a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners and arbitrarily divided into states, all made up of combinations of minorities and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another.
He then goes on to bemoan Israel’s relinquishment of the Sinai to Egypt under the Camp David Peace Treaty due to that area’s reserves of oil, gas and other natural resources.
‘Regaining the Sinai Peninsula is, therefore, a political priority, which is obstructed by Camp David’ he writes. ‘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.’
Yinon then predicts that if Egypt is divided and torn apart, some other Arab countries will cease to exist in their present forms and a Christian Coptic state would be founded in Upper Egypt. Presently there are growing problems between Egypt’s Muslims and Copts, perceived by some hard line Egyptian Muslims as being more loyal to the US than their own country. This has resulted in open clashes often with resultant deaths.
Apart from Muslim-Copt divisions, Yinon was wrong in his calculations concerning Egypt. He believed Cairo would break the peace treaty with Israel giving the Israelis the opportunity to drive their tanks straight back into the Sinai and other coveted areas. However, the Egyptian government under the ever pragmatic President Hosni Mubarak has stuck to the letter of the treaty and has become an important US ally over the years.
Yinon’s solution to the ongoing Israel-Palestine problem was to herd the Palestinians across the Jordan River and label Jordan a Palestinian state.
He rejected the land for peace principle, saying, ‘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 co-existence 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.’
Yinon, and others of like mind must once again be disappointed. Jordan gave up any thoughts of Pan-Arabism long before the demise of King Hussein and his son King Abdullah is now America’s staunchest Arab ally in the region. With a two-thirds Palestinian majority in his country, Abdullah has chosen self-preservation by hanging on to US coattails.
The idea of packing 4.5 million Palestinians across the Jordan is no longer being openly touted, although this option was on the table in 2002 according to an article by Professor van Creveld in Britain’s Daily Telegraph.
A then Gallup poll showed that 44 per cent of Jewish Israelis favored the expulsion of Palestinians across the River Jordan.
Professor Creveld (Joods Israëlische auteur op het gebied van militaire geschiedenis en militaire strategie. Hij is één van de meest gezaghebbende deskundigen op zijn vakgebied. svh) believed Ariel Sharon favored this plan too. Sharon was quoted in his article as emphasizing Jordan’s Palestinian majority and referring to it as the Palestinian state. ‘The inference that the Palestinians should go there is clear,’ wrote Creveld.
If you feel the idea that the US would put itself on the line for the sake of Israel is far-fetched, then it is worth remembering the words of the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who claimed in his book that the Israeli government was, in fact, responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East after the 1967 ‘Six Day War.’
Yinon’s essay does not focus on Iran, but let’s look at comparatively recent statements coming out of Israel on this subject.
During a visit to Washington in November 2003 two years before the US government turned its fire on Iran — the Israeli Minister of Defence Shaul Mofaz told US officials that ‘under no circumstances would Israel be able to abide by nuclear weapons in Iranian possession.’
During the same month, Meir Dagan, Director of the Mossad, told a parliamentary committee that Iran posed an ‘existential threat’ to Israel, assuring members that Israel could deal with this threat.
Last year, the rhetoric out of Israel was ratcheted up with the Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom telling the press that ‘the idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but also for the whole world.’
Israel’s Prime Minister designate Ehud Olmert is continuing the tradition of hyping the Iran threat, assisted, it must be said, by fiery rhetoric coming out of Tehran’s reckless leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
An article in the Daily Telegraph dated February 18 headed ‘America would back Israel attack on Iran’ clearly indicates that it is Israel leading the charge against Iran.
The article quotes George W. Bush as saying,
‘Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I’d listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I’d be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we’ve made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened.’
A year later and the US government is no longer portraying Iran’s purported nuclear ambitions as a threat to Israel, but a threat to the United States. In this way the case against Iran and the possible repercussions emanating from that, can be sold to the American people. Suddenly Israel’s concerns have become theirs. Interestingly, more than 55 per cent of the US public say they would back strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a recent poll.
As the columnist Doug Ireland (Amerikaanse journalist. svh) writes in his expose ‘The Real AIPAC Spy Ring Story It was all about Iran,’
‘Bush’s slip-of-the-tongue that revealed his real intentions was front-page news in Le Monde and other European dailies but received little attention in the States-side major media.’
Justin Raimondo (Amerikaanse auteur en editorial director of antiwar.com. svh) wrote in September last year,
‘This case has received relatively little publicity in relation to its importance. It isn’t just the fact that, for the first time in recent memory, Israel’s powerful lobby has been humbled. What is going on here is the exposure of Israel’s underground army in the US covert legions of propagandists and outright spies, whose job it is to not only make the case for Israel but to bend American policy to suit Israel’s needs and in the process, penetrate closely-held US secrets.’
Back to the question of whether the US is, indeed, waging wars on behalf of Israel. In short, we can’t be certain and we may never know since the Bush White House has sealed its private tapes and papers for 100 years.
There is one thing that we do know. Oded Yinon’s 1982 ‘Zionist Plan for the Middle East’ is in large part taking shape. Is this pure coincidence? Was Yinon a gifted psychic? Perhaps! Alternatively, we in the West are victims of a long-held agenda not of our making and without doubt not in our interests.
Sinds Linda Heard’s artikel ‘Yinon’s Prophecy: Is the US Waging Israel’s Wars?’11 jaar geleden verscheen stapelen de bewijzen zich op dat haar sterke vermoeden geenszins ongegrond is. Israel’s plan om Irak in drie delen te laten uiteenvallen is werkelijkheid geworden. Ook Libië is door de militaire interventie van de NAVO gefragmenteerd. Syrië is door de militaire steun van de NAVO onder aanvoering van de VS, en bondgenoten Israel, Saoedi-Arabië en Qatar in twee delen opgesplitst, maar alleen dankzij de militaire hulp van de Russische Federatie werd voorkomen dat ook Israel’s noorderbuur volledig desintegreerde. Dinsdag 15 januari 2019 berichtte RT News dat:
Gadi Eisenkot, who was the Israeli Defense Forces’ Chief of Staff for the last three years, told the Sunday Times in a farewell interview that Israel had been directly involved in the Syrian conflict on the side of the Syrian rebels, something that Tel Aviv has been reluctant to acknowledge before.
The general, who is retiring from military service, said that Israel supplied rebels at the border with light weapons for the purposes of ‘self-defense.’
While the direct links between Syrian rebels and Israeli commanders have been officially revealed for the first time, rumors of close military ties between the armed militants and the Israeli government have been circulating for years.
Foreign Policy magazine reported in September that Israel supplied weapons and gave money to at least 12 rebel groups holed up in southern Syria. The arrangement reportedly included Israeli officials also giving $75-per-person monthly allowances to rebel fighters, in addition to the funds their leaders received to procure weapons on the black market.
In return, rebels were expected to deter Hezbollah and Iran proxies from the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights.
The scheme was reportedly in effect throughout Operation Good Neighbor, which officially kicked off in June 2016 and was wrapped up only last November. Within this undertaking, Israel was openly assisting the rebels but claimed that assistance was strictly humanitarian. Israel treated wounded Syrian rebels and their families in its hospitals, provided some 1,524 tons of food, 250 tons of clothes, 947,520 liters of fuel, as well as a huge amount of medical supplies.
In November, Maj. Gen. Gershon Hacohen, a former senior commander with the IDF, revealed that former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon had personally met with a group of Syrian rebels, without specifying the time period. Ya'alon was Israel's chief of defense from 2013 to May 2016.
Links Gadi Eisenkot, tot midden januari 2019 chefstaf van de Israelische Strijdkrachten. Haaretz schreef over hem:
'What happened in the Beirut suburb of Dahiya in 2006 will happen in every village from which shots are fired in the direction of Israel,' Eisenkot said to journalists from Yedioth Ahronoth. 'We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.'
Hence, in two short sentences, one of the Israel Defense Force's senior commanders stated, with the world as his witness, his intention to violate the two central tenets of the international laws of war: the principle of distinction, which states that every time military force is used, it is imperative to differentiate enemy combatants from enemy civilians, and that attacks may be directed only at the former; and the proportionality principle, which states that even in attacks against enemy combatants, disproportional use of power is prohibited.
It is important to understand this: The international legal definition of an illegal military attack is one directed at civilians, or one that involves a disproportional use of force. It was as if Eisenkot, then, was standing on a hilltop, declaring his intention to commit war crimes, yelling to passersby, 'My intentions are biggest of all!'
Wanneer Israëlische militairen spreken van steun aan ’12 rebel groups’ dan wordt daaronder tevens verstaan militaire steun aan terroristische groeperingen die sinds 2011 ontelbare Syrische burgers en militairen op gruwelijke wijze hebben afgeslacht. Op 31 mei 2018 werd tevens bekend dat:
Striking targets in Syria and threatening to assassinate the leader on the pretext of fighting Iranian influence is a sign that Israel is in ‘panic’ after losing its ‘dear’ terrorist assets, President Bashar Assad told RT.
Over the last couple of months, Israel has intensified its bombing of military infrastructure in Syria, arguing that the Iranian presence in the Arab Republic jeopardizes its own national security. However, Israel’s justification for its air strikes based on alleged Iranian assets is a ‘lie,’ Assad told RT’s Murad Gazdiev in an exclusive interview.
‘We don’t have Iranian troops,’ Assad said. ‘We always said that we have Iranian officers, but they work with our army, we don’t have [Iranian] troops.’
Some Israeli politicians have threatened to ‘liquidate’ Assad and topple his government if Iran continues to operate in Syria and transfer weapons to the Lebanese Hezbollah. The Syrian president, however, has made it clear that he is not afraid of the threat.
‘The Israelis have been assassinating, killing, occupying for decades now, for around seven decades, in this region, but usually they do all this without threatening. Now, why do they threaten in this way? This is panic, this is a kind of hysterical feeling because they are losing the ‘dear ones,’ the dear ones Al-Nusra and ISIS, that’s why Israel is panicking recently, and we understand their feeling,’ Assad said.
Rejecting claims that Syria’s air defenses are practically useless against Israeli jets, the 52-year-old Syrian leader said the old Soviet weapons were capable of repelling numerous IAF strikes and the US-led bombardment in April, when the US, Britain, and France fired over 100 cruise missiles at Syria.
‘Our air defense is much stronger than before, thanks to the Russian support and the recent attacks by the Israelis and by the Americans and British and French proved that we are in a better situation’ than at the start of the civil war seven years ago, he said.
To protect the sovereignty of Syria, Assad vowed to ‘improve our air defense, this is the only thing we can do, and we are doing that.’
Dat het Westen op grote schaal terroristen in Syrië steunde, was al bekend in 2012 toen de prominente Franse journalist Thierry Meyssan begin augustus van dat jaar op Voltaire Network schreef:
No one doubts that terrorism in Syria is being sponsored by NATO and the GCC but until now it was being carried out behind a veil of hypocrisy. Unable to bombard and raze the country because of the Russian and Chinese double veto, the Western powers and their Arab partners decided to bleed the country while setting it up for an attack by mercenaries. Then on February 12 came the call to jihad issued by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Suddenly, NATO, the GCC and al-Qaeda found themselves pursuing the same objective. Notwithstanding, Brussels took the view that the Egyptian sheik’s declarations were his alone and were therefore unworthy of comment as if to underline that NATO doesn’t revise its positions in response to such fatwas. This rationale remained unconvincing because it ignored the issue of the common objectives shared by the self-proclaimed advocates of democracy, on the one hand, and Islamism, on the other. It did allow appearances to be preserved. The masks are now off. The Western powers have acknowledged their links with terrorists.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-west-and-the-glorification-of-terrorism/32193
Desondanks verzwegen de Nederlandse mainstream-media dit feit tot medio september 2018 toen duidelijk werd dat de terroristen van Al Qaida en ISIS in Syrië verslagen waren, en dat opeenvolgende Nederlandse kabinetten terroristen in dat land hadden gesteund. Dit alles vanzelfsprekend in overleg met de zelfbenoemde ‘Joodse staat,’ waarvan de strijdkrachten sinds enige tijd mogen deelnemen aan NAVO-oefeningen. Dit alles natuurlijk in het kader van wat officieel ‘The War on Terror’ heet. Aan het NAVO-besluit was geen parlementaire goedkeuring aan vooraf gegaan, een feit dat dat de ‘vrije pers’ weigerde te onderzoeken. Op die manier is eveneens Nederland direct betrokken bij het ‘Voeren van Israel’s Oorlogen’ en ook dit wordt hardnekkig verzwegen door de Nederlandse mainstream-media, die door deze ‘conspiracy of silence’ volop meedraaien in het verspreiden van ‘nepnieuws.’ Met betrekking tot het Yinon Plan is van doorslaggevend belang om de bredere context te bestuderen waarin de ontwikkelingen sinds 11 september 2001 plaatsvinden. Zo vertelde in maart 2007 de vier sterren generaal b.d., Wesley Clark, in 1999 NAVO-opperbevelhebber tijdens de Oorlog tegen Joegoslavië:
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.’ I said, ‘Well, you’re too busy.’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He said, ‘We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.’ This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?’ He said, ‘I don’t know.' He said, ‘I guess they don’t know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He sayd, ‘There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.’ He said, ‘I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.’ And he said, ‘I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.’
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said, ‘Oh, it’s worse than that.’ He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, ‘I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — ‘today.’ And he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’ I said, ‘Is it classified?’ He said, ‘Yes, sir.' I said, ‘Well, don’t show it to me.’ And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, ‘You remember that?’ He said, ‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!’
In this stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a 'policy coup' at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
Dit Amerikaans beleid sloot naadloos aan bij het Israelische ‘Yinon Plan’ uit februari 1982, zoals blijkt uit de formulering in ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’ Daarin schreef de voormalige adviseur van premier Sharon, Oded Yinnon:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israels 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.
En aldus geschiedde tijdens en na de Amerikaanse shock and awe-oorlog tegen Irak, die bij gebrek aan een VN-mandaat een 'agressieoorlog' was, officieel een oorlogsmisdaad waarvoor de nazi-kopstukken tijdens de Neurenberg Processen de doodstraf kregen. Yinon, die Israel’s ‘Strategie’ in het Hebreeuws publiceerde in Kivunim — ‘A Journal for Judaism and Zionism,’ van de World Zionist Organization, met als opzet ‘Connecting Israel and the Jewish People’ — zette tevens uiteen dat:
The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula, and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique 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 those states serves as a 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 the 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 (ten zuidoosten van Damascus. svh) 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.
In zijn Engelse vertaling van ‘Yinnon’s Plan’ merkte de Joods-Israelische hoogleraar Israel Shahak in de inleiding op:
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.
In zijn boek The War On Terror. The Plot To Rule The Middle East (2017) benadrukte de Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist Christopher Bollyn:
This is the real Zionist operational plan that the U.S. and its allies have been applying across the Middle East since 9/11. We are not fighting terror. We are re-drawing the map of the Middle East to suit Israel’s strategic plan to dominate the entire region,
met als één van de gevolgen dat Nederland niet alleen deelnam aan de illegale opsplitsing van Irak, maar tevens terroristen in Syrië hielp, beide oorlogsmisdaden volgens het internationaal recht. Typerend voor de buitensporige invloed van de joodse lobby in de VS was de oprichting van het invloedrijke PNAC, geesteskind van vooral prominente joods-Amerikaanse neoconservatieven met een onvoorwaardelijke loyaliteit aan Israel, en waarvan de agressieve doeleinden perfect pasten in het al even gewelddadige ‘Yinon Plan.’ Wikipedia:
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is 'to promote American global leadership.' Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that 'American leadership is both good for America and good for the world' and support for 'a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.' With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War… PNAC's first public act was releasing a 'Statement of Principles' on June 3, 1997, which was signed by both its members and a variety of other notable conservative politicians and journalists (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). The statement began by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:
'As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?'
In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to 'remind America' of 'lessons' learned from American history, drawing the following 'four consequences' for America in 1997:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
While 'Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today,' the 'Statement of Principles' concludes, 'it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.’
The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.
Het PNAC was een fervent voorstander van zoveel mogelijke regime-changes in de islamitische wereld om zodoende de betrokken staten in het Midden Oosten te ondermijnen, waardoor Israel zou kunnen uitgroeien tot de belangrijkste regionale macht. Eén van de meest prominente voorstanders hiervan was de joods-Amerikaanse neoconservatief Richard Perle, een
American statesman who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under President Ronald Reagan… He served on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004 where he served as chairman from 2001 to 2003 under the Bush Administration before resigning due to conflict of interests.
Perle, bijgenaamd ‘The Prince of Darkness,’ was in 1996 de opsteller van
a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC — Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton — 'were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein.' Clinton did seek regime change in Iraq, and this position was sanctioned by the United Nations. These UN sanctions were considered ineffective by the neoconservative forces driving the PNAC.
The PNAC core members followed up these early efforts with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, urging Congress to act. The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.
On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: 'we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections' and 'American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.' They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN 'containment' policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests…
On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating 'a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq,' or regime change:
'even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.' […]
According to critics, including Paul Reynolds, the neoconconservative PNAC aimed to promote American ‘hegemony’ and ‘full-spectrum’ dominance in its publications.
Ebrahim Afsah (hoogleraar Internationaal Recht aan Universiteit van Kopenhagen. svh), in 'Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking,' published in the German Law Journal, cited Jochen Bölsche's view that the goal of the PNAC was world dominance or global hegemony by the United States. According to Bölsche (vooraanstaande Duitse journalist. svh), Rebuilding America's Defenses 'was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, and is devoted to matters of ''maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.”'
George Monbiot, a political activist from the United Kingdom, stated: 'to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself.' […]
Former US Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin and UK Labour MP and Father of the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell, criticized PNAC members for promoting policies which support an idealized version of war, even though only a handful of PNAC members have served in the military or, if they served, had never seen combat.
As quoted in Paul Reynolds' BBC News report, David Rothkopf (joods-Amerikaanse hoogleraar Internationale Betrekkingen. svh) stated:
'Their [The Project for the New American Century's] signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened. The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neocons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration.’
Deze laatste visie gaat er vanuit dat de joods-Amerikaanse lobbyisten van PNAChebben gefaald omdat de VS niet zijn politieke en militaire doelen heeft bereikt. Hierbij wordt evenwel het feit buiten beschouwing gelaten dat het uiteenvallen van Irak nu juist het beoogde doel van de joodse lobbyisten van PNAC was. Bovendien heeft het Amerikaans oorlogsindustrie vele tientallen miljarden dollar winst gemaakt dankzij de zogenaamde ‘War On Terror.’ Ook het uiteenvallen van Libië en de chaos in Syrië is vanuit Israel’s oogpunt een succes te noemen. Alleen Iran moet nog aangepakt worden. Vandaar het gehamer van premier Netanyahu dat de VS ook dat land moet plat bombarderen. Het door de NAVO laten uitschakelen van Israel’s ‘vijanden’ is de kern van het beleid van de zionistische extremisten in zowel de ‘Joodse staat' als daarbuiten. Weliswaar is het niet gelukt om Syrië te versplinteren, maar daarentegen staat Iran nog steeds hoog op de lijst van de joodse lobby om door de VS te worden aangevallen.
Wikipedia meldt voorts:
Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) included such later Bush administration officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.
Kortom, de helft van van deze beleidsbepalers behoort tot de invloedrijke joods Amerikaanse lobby die het Israelisch extremisme blindelings steunt. Vanzelfsprekend is een dergelijke oververtegenwoordiging levensgevaarlijk. Wanneer slechts 2 procent van de Amerikaanse bevolking joods is, blijft het op zijn minst opmerkelijk dat 50 procent van de invloedrijke voorstanders van oorlog in het Midden Oosten joods is. Opvallend is ook de naam van John Bolton, aangezien deze Nationale Veiligheidsadviseur, na een onderhoud met premier Netanyahu, vanuit Israel liet weten dat het voornemen van Trump om op korte termijn troepen uit Syrië terug te trekken, niet zou doorgaan. Een ondergeschikte die zijn baas terugfluit demonstreert hoe groot de macht van de rijke joodse lobby in de VS is.
In verband met de lengte stop ik. Volgende keer meer.
Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia President
The New York Times
Mr. Trump’s threats to withdraw from the alliance had sent officials scrambling to prevent the annual gathering from turning into a disaster.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html
The New York Times
Mr. Trump’s threats to withdraw from the alliance had sent officials scrambling to prevent the annual gathering from turning into a disaster.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten