July 27, 2006
Thierry Meyssan, French author and president of the Voltaire Network, has provided us with a summary of the neocon-Zionist plan currently unfolding in Lebanon. As I have written here for at least two years, the neocon project—taking its lead from militant Zionists in Israel—is all about attacking the Arab and Muslim Middle East, destroying its capacity to resist (or even effectively support human life, as is increasingly the case in Iraq) and break the region up into mutually antagonistic statelets based along ethnic and religious lines, as envisioned by various Israeli policy strategists, most notably Oded Yinon.
"Yinon revives the idea of former Labor Foreign Minister Abba Eban that the Arab East is a 'mosaic’ of ethnic divergence. The form of rule, therefore, appropriate to the region is the Millet system of the Ottoman Empire, wherein administrative rule was based upon local functionaries presiding over discrete ethnic communities," writes Ralph Schoenman (The Hidden History of Zionism). "Lebanon was the model, prepared for its role by the Israelis for thirty years, as the [Moshe] Sharett diaries revealed. It is the expansionist compulsion set forth by Herzl and Ben Gurion even as it is the logical extension of the Sharett diaries. The dissolution of Lebanon was proposed in 1919, planned in 1936, launched in 1954 and realized in 1982," and once again attempted in the latest invasion and round of mass murder.
"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," writes Israel Shahak in an introductory note of a translation of Yinon’s paper (see previous link). "The subsequent dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas, as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run. The dissolution of the military power of these states serves as the primary short-term target."
Of course, this precedent resulted in the creation of Hezbollah—probably at the moment the most potent resistance movement on the planet—thus requiring Israel to re-invade Lebanon.
However, it would be simplistic to assume Israel re-invaded Lebanon primarily to deal with Hezbollah, as we are told by a complaisant media. In fact, Israel’s re-invasion is part and parcel of the Zionist-neocon plan to violently splinter the neighborhood along the lines envisioned by Eban, Yinon, and the Zionist establishment, firmly entrenched in the racist and expansionist ideology of Ze’ev Jabotinksy, essentially the founder of the Likud party.
As noted by Thierry Meyssan and others, the current phase of the Zionist-neocon plan gelled during a Beaver Creek, Colorado, confab (more accurately described as a meeting of criminal minds) sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and held on June 2006 17th and 18th of this year.
"The purpose was to discuss the planned and impending Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invasions of Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. Cheney was thoroughly briefed and approved the coming assaults—before Hamas’ capture of an IDF soldier on June 25 or Hezbollah’s capturing of two others in an exchange first reported as occurring in Israel and now believed to have happened inside Lebanon after IDF forces illegally entered the country," writes Stephen Lendman. Two leading Zionists, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky, were in attendance.
Following the Colorado meeting, Netanyahu returned to Israel for a special "Ex-Prime Ministers" meeting in which he conveyed the message of US support to carry out the "Clean Break" policy officially ending all past peace accords including Oslo. At the meeting in Israel in addition to Binyamin Netanyahu were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres.
It appears Natan Sharansky "met with the right wing Heritage Foundation in Washington and then attended a June 29 seminar at Haverford College in suburban Philadelphia sponsored by the Middle East Forum led by US Israeli hawk Daniel Pipes. Sharansky appeared there with Republican Senator Rick Santorum who on July 20 was hawkishly advocating war against Syria, Iran, and 'Islamo-fascism’ in an inflamatory speech at the National Press Club attended by a cheering section of supporters composed of members of the neocon Israel Project, on whose Board Santorum serves along with Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Virginia Republican Representative Tom Davis," strident neocons all.
Iran may indeed be next (and Syria too) according to UK political scientist, human rights activist and writer Nafeez Ahmed in an article published in OpEd News on July 23 titled: "UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On." In it, Ahmed writes: "In the last few days, I learned from a credible and informed source that a former senior Labour government Minister, who continues to be well-connected to British military and security officials, confirms that Britain and the United States ’will go to war with Iran before the end of the year.’"
As New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh notes (see previous link), quoting a former high-level US intelligence official: "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and we want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism." Of course, the "war on terrorism" is simply a cover for the Zionist project. It is strictly for public consumption.
Meyssan writes that Israel "will … dismantle Lebanon, [and] create in its place a mini-Christian state and annex part of its territory," a plan "enunciated in 1957 by David Ben Gourion in a famous letter published as an annex to his posthumous memoirs" (see this document, in French at the electronic library of the Réseau Voltaire). "Particularly, it was inserted into a vast colonization project of the Middle East written in 1996 under the title: A clean break: a new strategy to secure the Kingdom (of Israel). That document, written up in a neo conservative think tank, the IASPS [the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies], was prepared by a group of experts assembled by Richard Perle [and] given to Benjamin Netanyahu. It is representative of the thinking of the revisionist Zionism of Vladimir Jabotinsky."
As noted in the "Clean Break" document (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm), the Zionists believe an "effective approach, and one with which America can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon…. Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea," that is to say the Jabotinsky influenced Zionist project of hegemonic expansionism, otherwise known as Greater Israel.
Naturally, the United States military is integral to this agenda, as Israel’s military, while highly rated (although knocked down a notch or two over the last few days as it confronts Hezbollah), does not possess the manpower to effectively take out Iran. It will be up to the United States to accomplish this task.
"It now appears that the primary policymakers in the Bush administration have been the Likudnik neoconservatives all along," Stephen J. Sniegoski wrote in 2003. "In fact, for the leading neocons, the war on Afghanistan may simply have been an opening gambit, necessary for reaching their ultimate and crucial goal: U.S. control of the Middle East in the interests of Israel."
In addition to balkanizing the neighborhood, the Zionist-neocon agenda, as stipulated in the "Clean Break" document, intends to solve the "Palestinian problem" once and for all. Sniegoski continues:
Likudniks have always sought to deal in a radical fashion with the Palestinian problem in the occupied territories—a problem that has gotten worse, from their standpoint, as a result of demographic changes. A U.S. war in the Middle East at the present time provides a window of opportunity to permanently solve that problem and augment Israel’s dominance in the region. The existing perilous situation, as Likud thinkers see it, would justify the taking of substantial risks. And a look at history shows that countries whose leaders believed they were faced with grave problems pursued risky policies, such as Japan did in 1941.
Indeed, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon with its partially concealed objectives presents "substantial risks" for America, as the idea here is to drag the country—the last remaining super power, albeit with a diminished military capacity, thanks to the last Zionist-neocon project in Iraq—into a larger war, possibly with a nuclear dimension.
Obviously, in order to defeat Hezbollah, more drastic measures will need be employed and "mini-nukes" fit the ticket, for as we have learned over the last few days (and to a lesser degree as the Pentagon attempts to deal with the Iraqi resistance) a well-motivated and sufficiently armed resistance movement, skilled in asymmetric warfare, cannot be defeated by way of conventional military means.
Unfortunately, it is too late for any sort of mass action on the part of the public—the vast majority ignorant of the Zionist-neocon agenda—and thus we have no choice but to wait out the unfolding of this insane game plan, an agenda on par or indeed surpassing that of the Nazis, as they did not have nukes. Hopefully, the Zionist-neocon agenda will fall apart, susceptible to some hidden or unnoticed flaw, however I am not betting the farm on it.
For more background on the specifics of how a cabal of neocons managed to capture the Pentagon and unleash its deadly power against the Arab and Muslim Middle East—including the up-coming war against Iran—see James Bamford’s Iran: The Next War, posted on the Rolling Stone website. "War with Iran has been in the works for the past five years, shaped in almost complete secrecy by a small group of senior Pentagon officials attached to the Office of Special Plans."