Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Martin Iqbal - 2 December 2011
Updated December 20, 2011: expanded and clarified the section pertaining to the David Ben-Gurion quote.
Israel’s plan to eviscerate the Arab and Muslim states, eyes nuclear Pakistan as the final hurdle. In the wake of NATO’s deadly November 26 attack on Pakistan, the S.I.T.E. Intelligence Group rears its head to carry forward the Zionist deceptions.
In February 1982 an important Hebrew paper appeared in a Jewish journal named KIVUNIM (Directions). Penned by Oded Yinon and titled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties‘, the essay delineates strategies for Israel to become a regional hegemon in the Middle East. The short and long term strategies discussed involve the dissolution of the surrounding Arab states, and the expansion of Israel beyond its current (undeclared) borders. Over a decade later in 1996, a Zionist study group led by arch Jewish Zionist Richard Perle wrote a paper entitled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm‘. ‘A Clean Break‘ was largely a rehashing of Oded Yinon’s essay, adapting the same strategies to the contemporary geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
The Mossad false flag attacks of September 11, 2011 ushered in the Zionist-designed ‘War on Terror’. Before the attacks had even concluded, before any conclusive proof of the perpetrators could possibly have been attained, a prominent architect of the attacks appeared(1) on BBC World in order to name the states that had to be dissolved under Israel’s grand strategy (including Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran). The U.S. Military was to be used as a mere tool, a ‘host body’ that would act as the American glove protecting the Israeli hand from the blood and treasure that would be spilled and spent. Since that time the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and Central Asia has changed radically; we have seen the ‘Clean Break’ strategy unfold. In 2011 alone, Israel’s plan has lurched forward to engulf Libya and Syria. A major conflagration looms in the Middle East as Bashar Al-Assad faces a concerted destabilisation attempt mounted by Israel, the U.S, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Oded Yinon’s plan is centred around the exploitation of ethnic, religious and tribal divisions within the Arab world. He notes that the Arab states have been largely defined by Britain and France, with arbitrary borders drawn that are not faithful to the ethnic, religious, and tribal differences between the different peoples in the region. Likening the Arab world to a house of cards, Yinon surmises that the entire region can be easily broken up into tiny states based on ethnic, religious, or tribal lines. This would preclude any centralised governance, and ensure that power is only localised to these ‘mini-states’. In effecting this strategy, Israel would remove any real opposition to its regional dominance.
Egypt, Libya & Sudan
‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties‘ makes clear Israel’s goal of balkanising (or ‘breaking up into smaller states’) Egypt and the surround states of Libya and Sudan:
Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.
Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run.
The illegal war on Libya has already plunged the country into tribal conflict and chaos, signalling a new phase in Israel’s plan. Sudan, as we have seen very recently, has already been split into two distinct states: Sudan and South Sudan. In a piece(2) published by the Al-Khaleej Times, Fahmi Howeidi expertly lays out how Israel has brought about the balkanisation of Sudan by training and cultivating secessionist groups, and provoking internal wars since the nineteen fifties. As Howeidi succinctly writes, “the crop sown by Israel and its allies since the 1950s is beginning to bear fruit“.
Pertaining to Libya, Islamic scholar Sheikh Imran Hosein’s analysis is right on point. He theorises that the Libya war, waged by NATO, an extension of the Zionist entity, is a precursor to the balkanisation of Egypt. Hosein envisages a two-pronged attack on Egypt: NATO and its proxy land forces from the west, and Israel from the east.
Moving to Egypt’s eastern frontier, it is a well known fact that Israel covets the Sinai (the Egyptian peninsula east of the Nile River) for not only ideological reasons (the realisation of Greater Israel), but also economic ones. Yinon makes no secret of Israeli designs on the Sinai:
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. 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.
This corroborates Hosein’s theory that an Israeli attack is impending on the Sinai, potentially in concert with NATO-aligned forces in Libya. Recent belligerent posturing(3) by an Israeli Member of the Knesset further backs up this idea.
Syria & Iraq
Two other nations earmarked for destruction at the outset of the Zionist ‘War on Terror’ were Syria and Iraq. As Yinon’s paper demonstrates, these nations too are prime targets of Israel’s balkanisation plan.
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 of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.
Not only is Syria now undergoing the major Zionist destabilisation plot prescribed in Yinon’s strategy, but this plot is being carried out on the ground with major Turkish military, operational, and territorial support. This is something that was recommended in Richard Perle’s ‘Clean Break’ rehashing of the strategy:
(Israel can) Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, “comprehensive peace” to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
Readers will most likely be aware of General Wesley Clark’s ‘seven nations in five years’ testimony. Clark, a four star General in the United States Army stated that on September 12, 2001 – the day after Israel’s false flag – the United States had already made the decision to wage war on Iraq in spite of having no casus belli whatsoever. A few weeks after this, shortly after the start of the war on Afghanistan, Clark was shown a memo which named seven countries that the United States was to ‘take down’ in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. This is literally a laundry list of Israel’s targets; the ‘Israeli hand in the American glove’ metaphor becomes disconcertingly fitting and relevant:
Jordan & the Palestinians
‘A Strategy for the Nineteen Eighties‘ recommends a ‘final solution’ to Israel’s ‘Palestinian problem’. After ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their land in 1948, Israel was unable to uproot the indigenous Arabs from the portion of Palestine that is now known as the West Bank. Though Israel occupied it in 1967, they were unable to force the entire population into flight.
Yinon’s plan calls for the native Palestinians of the West Bank to be pushed east over the river into Jordan, where they may establish a state. This, without compromise, is the only solution the Israeli colonists will accept – something which is evidenced by Israel’s continued and accelerated Jewish colonisation of the West Bank.
There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from 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.
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 military 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,
The Atlantic boasts of a new Middle East
A 2008 Atlantic article by Jewish Zionist Jeffrey Goldberg contained a very telling map of a possible future Middle East. Readers may recall that it was Jeffrey Goldberg who said in 2002(4) that Saddam Hussein “could have an atomic bomb within months of acquiring fissile material”, and that the genocidal war on Iraq would be “remembered as an act of profound morality”.
The map makes for very interesting viewing; it is literally a visual representation of the Israeli plan to remake the Middle East and North Africa. On the Horn of Africa we see Somalia split into three states, and Sudan broken into two (something which has actually happened since 2008). Eritrea is occupied by Ethiopia, signified by the striped colour-coding on the map, and the Egyptian Sinai is given the same treatment, presumably indicating an Israeli occupation.
Palestine is merged into Jordan, in line with the plan to push the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into a state on Jordanian territory.
Iraq has been balkanised with the creation of a Shia state, a Sunni state, and a Kurdish state in the north. This outcome is being avidly worked towards by Mossad and elite elements of the Israeli military, who have been fomenting Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict in Iraq for years.(5) As a result, since the 2003 invasion the U.S. Military has constructed hundreds of miles of concrete walls in Iraqi cities, to separate the Sunni and the Shia from one another. Though most of these walls have since been torn down, their very presence is a manifestation of the Israeli plan to split Iraq on sectarian lines, “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.”
Pakistan: Gateway to the Zionist Endgame
In a widely circulated quote reportedly published in the ‘Jewish Chronicle’ on August 9, 1967, the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, elucidated Israeli opposition to Pakistan.
Zionist bloggers have attempted to debunk this quote as bogus by presuming that the ‘Jewish Chronicle’ in question is the London-based paper. Debunkers’ arguments centre around the fact that the London JC archive does not contain this quote and in fact the London JC did not publish on August 9, 1967. This quote is difficult to verify due to the sheer number of ‘Jewish Chronicle’ newspapers that have existed, and which do not have websites or online archives at this time.
I will demonstrate that this quote is in line with historical and current Israeli strategy, as well as the rhetoric that is now peddled by Israeli officials and lobbyists. Because of this, it is this writer’s opinion at the current time that this quote is authentic.
A matter of weeks after Israel’s conquest of the West Bank, Al Quds (Jerusalem), Gaza, and Syria’s Golan Heights – Ben-Gurion reportedly made Zionism’s staunch opposition to Pakistan crystal-clear:
The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs.
This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan.
Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work there from against Pakistan.
It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.
Relatively recent comments from Israel’s repugnant, racist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman corroborate this position, revealing that this Zionist strategy exists as a priority in the modern day. In a 2009 interview with a Russian daily newspaper, Soviet-born Lieberman (born Evet Lvovich Liberman) revealed(6) that he saw Pakistan as Israel’s biggest threat, as opposed to Iran which is commonly painted as Israel’s arch nemesis:
“Pakistan is nuclear and unstable and Afghanistan is faced with a potential Taliban takeover, and the combination forms a contiguous area of radicalism ruled in the spirit of Osama bin Laden,”
In the same interview Lieberman professed, “Believe me, America accepts all our decisions”, an arrogant but nevertheless valid analysis.
On September 11, 2008, former chief AIPAC lobbyist Douglas M. Bloomfield wrote a panicked tirade against Pakistan,(7) insisting that the incoming U.S. President must focus on the country. Bloomfield’s article repeats all of the standard Zionist rhetoric, including the complaint that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are at risk of ‘falling into the wrong hands’.
Briefly returning to the ‘Atlantic’ map, you will notice that Afghanistan has been disembowelled; the ethnic states of Baluchistan and Pashtunistan have been created, and the northern region of Afghanistan has been absorbed into ‘Persia’. As a result of the secession of Baluchistan and Pashtunistan (both of which straddle the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, while Baluch territory extends into Iran too), significant chunks of Pakistan have been lost. This is part of a long-standing Zionist policy to cripple Pakistan as a nation.
Pakistan is a proud Muslim nation which not only has an ideological opposition to Zionism and Western colonialism, but possesses nuclear weapons. The nuclear deterrent, partnered with a cohesive and loyal army and air force presents a significant roadblock to Zionist and Indian aspirations of hegemony.
Shahid Siddiqi of Dawn.com muses(8) that,
“Due to its defiance of Indian diktat, Pakistan is for India an obstruction in its quest for domination of South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. Israel`s apprehension of Pakistan’s military prowess is rooted in the strength Pakistan indirectly provides to Arab states with whom Israel has remained in a state of conflict. Conscious that several Arab states look up to Pakistan for military support in the event of threat to their security from Israel, it is unsettling for Israel to see a nuclear armed Pakistan.
Again, this analysis gives a nod to David Ben-Gurion’s position on Pakistan – echoed by Israel’s Foreign Minister over forty years later. Israel’s deep military-intelligence collaboration with India(9) is yet another indication of this strategy manifesting.
This strategy was transposed into an overt act of war when in 1984, Israel attempted to destroy Pakistan’s Kahuta nuclear reactor. After becoming aware of the plot, Pakistan spurned the attack by pre-emptively scrambling jets to protect the facility. To this day the strategy continues by overt and covert means.
In the midst of the Zionist ‘War on Terror’ in June 2004, George W. Bush began drone attacks on Pakistan. The deadly attacks, ostensibly launched against ‘Al Qaeda’ and Taliban ‘terrorists’ and ‘insurgents’, accelerated in regularity and intensity from 2004 to 2011 – killing thousands of innocent Pakistanis. The real underlying motive for these attacks is to foment unrest in these regions, with a view to provoking and cultivating militant secessionist groups. The aim is to turn these groups against the collaborationist Pakistani government (which is impotent in the face of naked aggression on the part of its American ‘ally’).
The balkanisation of Pakistan and seizure of its nuclear weapons are the ultimate aspirations of Israel as well as the United States, which aims to preserve its declining superpower status in the face of a growing China. A prominent meme in the Zionist media is the notion that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are unsafe and at risk of ‘falling into the wrong hands’. This is the very justification that will eventually be used to launch an all-out invasion of Pakistan whereby Western powers will seize its nuclear weapons. The drone strikes, NATO provocations, and CIA-Mossad-RAW black ops serve to fan the flames of unrest, creating the necessary climate for military action and eventual dismemberment of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. The close relationship between China and Pakistan is a significant factor in the drive to break up Pakistan. China’s port at Gwadar is known as one of her ‘String of Pearls’, being of huge strategic interest and allowing for an energy corridor through Pakistan.
The latest chapter in the war on Pakistan transpired on Saturday 26 November when NATO helicopter gunships slaughtered 24 Pakistani soldiers.(10) In a naked act of aggression, NATO helicopters attacked a Pakistani army post for 45 minutes, then returned 20 minutes later and attacked for a further hour. Predictably this has triggered furious protests in Pakistan, and intense anger at both NATO and the Pakistani military, criticised for not responding to protect the soldiers during the two-hour attack. In the final analysis however, this event has unified the Pakistani people.
After NATO’s inexcusable attack on Pakistan the Zionist deceptions immediately followed, in a stunningly predictable development.
On Saturday 13 August, 2011 – over three months prior to the recent NATO attack – an American Jewish man named Warren Weinstein, working under the auspices of the U.S. government, was reportedly kidnapped by armed men in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore. Suspiciously, five days after the NATO attack, the S.I.T.E. Intelligence Group informs the world that ‘Al Qaeda’ have claimed in an audio message to be holding Weinstein. In a profoundly shaky statement a U.S. official was quoted(11) as saying, “It’s entirely possible that al Qaeda or one of its militant allies may be holding Mr. Weinstein, and the statement by Zawahiri supports this conclusion”.
Why would ‘Al Qaeda’ wait over three months to tell us?
Is it not convenient that, in S.I.T.E’s audio message, ‘Zawahiri’ also called for the lifting of the siege on Gaza?(12) Israel has consistently tried to link the global ‘Free Gaza’ struggle to ‘Al Qaeda’. This has been the Zionist entity’s modus operandi ever since the Mavi Marmara was brutally attacked, whereafter Israel claimed the activists were linked to ‘Al Qaeda’.(13)
Why are these ‘Al Qaeda’ audio messages invariably posted on ‘extremist websites’ that no independent person has access to and therefore can never be independently verified? Why is every such ‘Al Qaeda’ tape, without exception, found by S.I.T.E? This bizarre situation becomes clearer when we examine the S.I.T.E. Intelligence Group. Founded in 2002 at the outset of the ‘War on Terror’ by rabid Zionist and former IDF soldier Rita Katz (whose father was hanged in Baghdad for spying for Israel), S.I.T.E. is nothing more than the PR organ of the ‘War on Terror’. It exists to convince the world that the ‘Al Qaeda’ apparition is an eminent threat whenever and wherever it is required.
The invasion of Afghanistan was waged in the name of a number of important interests. It was an attempt to militarise Central Asia in order to counter the growing power of China, Iran, and Russia. It was meant to facilitate the construction of an energy pipeline to transport the rich energy reserves of the Caspian basin through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, southern Pakistan, and from there to Western markets. However, even more importantly the occupation of Afghanistan serves as a precursor to the war on Pakistan. It allows Western forces to learn the territory and develop the necessary tactics. It allows them to become familiar with local groups who can be armed, trained, and used as proxy armies as we’ve seen in the Libya war.
When we read of drone strikes against ‘militants’ and alleged ‘Al Qaeda’ kidnappings in Pakistan, we must view them through an analytical lens; nothing is ever as it seems in this geopolitical hotspot. While kvetching that Pakistani nukes are unsafe and a threat to peace, Israel, the United States, and India are actively working to violently destabilise the country.
The ‘War on Terror’ is an utterly false paradigm shored up by the sea of deception put forth by the Zionist media and groups such as S.I.T.E. We must strip away this veneer to expose the motivations and strategies of the Zionist entity and its American lapdog – the nations which constitute the biggest threat to peace on the face of the planet.
(1) ‘September 11, 2001: Zionist shock therapy and the birth of the lie’ by Martin Iqbal
(2) ‘Israelis can tell the whole story of Sudan’s division – they wrote the script and trained the actors’ by Fahmi Howeidi
(3) ‘MK: Prepare for War If Egypt Deploys in Sinai’ – Israel National News
(4) ‘Should the U.S. Invade Iraq? Week 2′ – Slate Magazine
(5) ‘Occupied Iraq: New Year, Same Zionism’ by Jonathan Azaziah
(6) ‘Israeli FM sees Pakistan biggest threat’ – nation.com.pk
(7) ‘Iran is bombastic, but Pakistan has the bomb’ – The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle
(8) ‘How safe are Pakistan’s nuclear assets’ – dawn.com
(9) ‘Israel and India: Brothers In Occupation of Kashmir’ by Jonathan Azaziah
(10) ‘Pakistan army says NATO attack was blatant aggression’ – Reuters
(11) ‘Al Qaeda Leader Zawahiri Says He Has American Hostage’ – ABC News
(12) ‘Al-Qaida: Israel must lift Gaza ‘siege’ in exchange for U.S. Jewish prisoner’ – Ha’aretz
(13) ‘Israeli Officials Claim Aid Flotilla Had Ties to Al Qaeda, PM Gives Military ‘Full Support” – Fox News