Page
10, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS * February
14, 2011
* Issue 7 * AMERICAN FREE PRESS *AFP ON THE MIDDLE EAST
`Catastrophic
Zionism':
How Turmoil Benefits Israel
By Michael Collins
Piper
 |
. If
there is anything that can be said about the crisis in Egypt
— which is reverberating throughout the Middle East
— it is that it is ultimately open to multiple interpretations.
Any “expert” who purports to give you “the
last word” on the topic is deceiving you and perhaps
himself. Geopolitical strategists, armchair pundits and
conspiracy theory devotees are competing to tell the world
“what’s really happening and why,” but
there is no single truth to the matter.
 First
of all, consider the issue of popular unrest in Egypt. All
serious evidence indicates Hosni Mubarak’s regime
has sustained itself through force and oppression and, not
surprisingly, support from the Egyptian military. In addition,
Mubarak has maintained a close relationship with the United
States and, thus, with Israel, with which Egypt entered
a controversial peace agreement in 1979 that remains in
effect today.
These
factors have preserved Mubarak’s rule — at least
until now.
However,
within Egypt, there has long been widespread discontent
among a variety of domestic sources, ranging from Islamic
fundamentalists in the Muslim Brotherhood to more “Western”-oriented
young people to working families struggling to pay food
bills.
So
while there is breadth and apparent depth to the opposition,
the critics of Mubarak are by no means united across a wide
range of issues. However, the economic turmoil plaguing
Egypt in recent months seems to have been a critical factor
in helping spark the rebellion.
In
short, to suggest that the Egyptian rebellion was orchestrated
solely by the United States and/or Israel would ignore genuine
grassroots Egyptian concerns.
Israel
and the American supporters of Israel know that many Egyptians
of all political stripes and religious persuasions have
never been comfortable with the U.S.- Israeli-Egyptian relationship
and that an element of Egyptian opposition to the Mubarak
regime has been its cozy concert with Israel.
The theme of "catastrophic
Zionism" suggests that Israel -- as a state
-- relies on crisis and the potential of war with
its neighbors.
|
As
a consequence of this, many pro-Israeli elements are taking
a firm stand against “democracy” in Egypt precisely
because they fear a popularly elected regime replacing Mubarak
could be hostile to Israel, no matter what the new regime’s
religious flavor — if any at all.
Note,
too, that one of the leading critics of the Mubarak regime
is Nobel Prize-winning former International Atomic Energy
Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. Supporters of Israel consider
ElBaradei to be problematic because he was a critic of the
Bush administration’s campaign against Saddam Hussein
of Iraq, raising questions about Bush claims that Saddam
was engaged in building nuclear weapons. Likewise, ElBaradei
has stood in the way of Israeli and American efforts to
provoke a confrontation with Iran over its efforts to engage
in nuclear development.
However,
there are more than a few observers who perceive ElBaradei
as a ubiquitous double-dealer whose agenda is uncertain
In
the meantime, despite all of this, it is not a stretch of
the imagination to believe that Israel could stand to benefit
from turmoil in Egypt. The average observer might find this
difficult to understand.
While
most rational people would assume that Israel would prefer
to have neighboring states that are stable, successful participants
in the region, this is not necessarily the case.
In
fact, a carefully crafted “think piece” entitled
“A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured
in the February 1982 edition of the World Zionist Organization’s
Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for Judaism
and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy
to wreak havoc in the Arab world, dividing the Arab states
from within. The author was Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist
with close ties to Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
The
program — which amounted to “balkanizing”
the various Arab republics, splitting them into religious
enclaves in which, for example, Shiite Muslims or otherwise
Sunni Muslims would predominate — was an agenda that
Israeli dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was
designed “to make an imperial Israel into a world
power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby
setting the stage for Israeli dominance in the Mideast.
The
formula was founded on the idea of creating chaos among
Israel’s Arab neighbors, hardly a policy any decent,
well-meaning neighbor could be credited for fostering.
In
fact, the current-day political and religious divisions
and devastation in Iraq — the consequence of the American
invasion of Iraq demanded by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington
— mirrors precisely what the Zionist position paper
laid forth as the ideal state of affairs for Iraq, from
an Israeli point of view, that is.
But
where does Egypt fit into all of this?
Reflecting
on the Zionist strategy paper, Ralph Schoenman — an
eminent American Jewish critic of Zionism — writing
in 1988 in his book, The Hidden History of Zionism,
pointedly noted the paper’s intent of “double-crossing
Mubarak” and emphasized that the Yinon paper hoped
for “the downfall and dissolution of Egypt,”
despite the 1979 Camp David peace agreement.
This
is geopolitics at its best — or worst — and
demonstrates the kind of gambles Israel has historically
been willing to take.
After
all, Israel helped subsidize and nurture the fledgling Hamas
faction within the Palestinian statehood movement, as a
means to counter and undermine the secular Fatah faction
led by senior Palestinian statesman YassirArafat. But Hamas
got out of control, grew in popularity, and now stands as
one of Israel’s chief rivals.
Such
gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as
“catastrophic Zionism,” a term used almost exclusively
by Israeli and Jewish writers.
The
theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called
“war Zionism,” suggests that Israel —
as a state — relies on crisis and the potential of
war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence.
This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right
wing” elements going back to the earliest days of
Israel.
In
short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is
vital — fundamental — to Israel’s survival.
And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic
Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy,
domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution
of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
In
actual fact, this notion — that peace could be dangerous
to the survival of Israel — is a governing concept
in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide.
|
Foreign
Interventionism
a Perilous Folly
EDITORIAL
The
violent demonstrations sweeping the Middle East have
been big news this week. The Tunisian government has
toppled. Yemen is close to falling. Egyptian leader
Hosni Mubarak is on the outs, we’re told. Jordan’s
king has replaced his entire cabinet, and the Palestinian
government in theWest Bank has called for new elections.As
AFPRC chairman Vince Ryan writes in the article below,
no one knows what the future will hold: Will these
revolutions result in leaders rejecting the influence
of the United States and Israel, or will another group
of easily Corrupted despots rise to power? There is
also growing concern that the demonstrations are being
shaped by the usual culprits for the purpose of sowing
further division and infighting between Shiites, Sunnis
and Christians.
As
far as Egypt is concerned, the Suez Canal is no doubt
of strategic importance to many countries, including
the United States. But as of 1950, Egypt, via the
state-owned Suez Canal Authority, took the canal away
from the bankers and the British government. So whoever
takes power in Egypt will have control of the canal,
and that controlling entity will undoubtedly want
to trade with other countries. There is little doubt
that those countries that remained neutral during
the unrest there will have better standing than the
countries that chose sides — especially if the
wrong man wins.
Upon
leaving office, GeorgeWashington offered Americans
these wise words: “The great rule of conduct
for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending
our commercial relations, to have with them as little
political connection as possible.”
That
is why the only thing that should be of concern to
patriotic Americans is that the U.S. never intervene
in the internal affairs of other countries.
This
country’s current obsession with attempting
to control the domestic affairs of other nations cannot
succeed in doing anything but involving us in wars
in which we have no legitimate interest. It can only
bankrupt the taxpayers.
It
was the case in Washington’s time, and it is
the same now. When will our politicians take heed
of the sage counsel of our first president? In February
the Congress is to read aloud Washington’s farewell
address, as they did the Constitution in January.
We hope they are paying close attention.
|
* * * * * * *
. . ..Michael Collins Piper
can now be heard on the Internet at
michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com.
He is the author of Final
Judgment, the controversial
“underground bestseller”
documenting the collaboration of Israeli
intelligence in the assassination
of John F. Kennedy. He is also the
author of The
High Priests of War,
The
New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America
, The
Judas Goats: The Enemy Within,
Dirty
Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up
in the 20th Century,
The
GOLEM: Israel's Hell Bomb,
and Target:
Traficant. These
works can be found at America
First Books and FIRST
AMENDMENT
BOOKS: 1-888-699-NEWS.
He has lectured on suppressed
topics in places as diverse as Malaysia,
Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi. |
|
(Issue #7, February 14, 2011, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS)
* * * * * * *
Update references:
A
Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by
Oded Yinon (with a foreword by, and translated by Israel
Shahak)
Egyptian
Revolution of 2011 Wikipedia article
Mohamed
Mustafa ElBaradei Wikipedia article.
|
| |
|
