AUGUST 2006
The
Beginning of the End for the Zionist State of Israel?
Mparent7777.
Alan Hart at International Institute of Strategic
Studies, New Civilisation debate, on Thursday, August 10,
2006.
I’m going to suggest to you that what we might now
be witnessing is the long beginning of the end of the
Zionist state of Israel. In the next 10 minutes or so I
will talk my way to an explanation of why I think so; and
then I’ll address the question of what the most
likely consequences would be. I can see two One State of
Palestine for All and real, lasting peace, or Catastrophe
for All… and by “All” I don’t just
mean Israeli Jews and the Arabs of the region, I mean all
of us, everywhere.
I thought I would be the first to give voice in public to
the idea that Israel might be planting in Lebanon the
final seeds of its own destruction, but while I was
working on my text for this evening, I came across an
interview given by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President
Carter’s National Security Adviser. He said: “Eventually,
if neo-con policies continue to be pursued, the United
States will be expelled from the region and that will be
the beginning of the end for Israel as well.”
As Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon unfolded, a great
deal of nonsense was written and spoken by pundits and
policymakers throughout the mainly Gentile
Judeo-Christian world about why it was happening. The
main thrust of the nonsense was that Hizbullah started
the war and that Israel was merely defending itself. I
think the truth about Hizbullah’s role in triggering
the war can be summarised as follows bearing in mind that
the border incident of 12 July was one of many since
Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, and
which more often than not, according to UN monitors, were
provoked by Israeli actions and/or Israeli violations of
agreements. By engaging an IDF border patrol, killing
three Israeli soldiers and taking two hostages, and
firing a few rockets to create a diversion for that
operation, Hizbullah gave Israel’s generals and
those politicians who rubber-stamp their demands the
PRETEXT they wanted and needed to go to war a war they
had planned for months.
I was reminded of what was said to me on the second of
the six days of the 1967 war when I was a very young ITN
correspondent reporting from Israel. One of my sources
was Major General Chaim Herzog. He was one of the
founding fathers of Israel’s Directorate of Military
Intelligence. On the second day of that war he said to me
in private conversation: “If Nasser had not been
stupid enough to give us a PRETEXT for war now, we would
have created one in the coming year to 18 months.”
Hizbullah’s purpose in taking Israeli
prisoners/hostages was to have them as bargaining chips -
to secure the return of Lebanese prisoners Israel had
refused to release in a previous prisoner exchange. As
former President Carter implied in an article for The
Washington Post on I August, it was not unreasonable for
Hizbullah to assume that an exchange would be possible
because “the assumption was based on a number of
such trades in the past.”But on 12 July 2006 the
government of Israel was not interested in trades. It did
not give a single moment to diplomacy or negotiations of
any kind. It did not even consider a local retaliation to
make a point. Israel rushed to war. As Defence Minister
Amir Peretz put it: “We’re skipping the stage
of threats and going straight to the action.”On the
subject of Hizbullah’s rockets, (which are
hit-and-miss low tech weapons when compared with Israel’s
state of the art firepower), it is right to ask Why,
really, were they there? What, really, explains Hizbullah’s
stock-piling and its bunkering down? The honest answer,
which has its context in the whole history of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and Zionism’s demonstrated
designs on Southern Lebanon in particular, is this:
Hizbullah was strengthening itself militarily for the
same reason as Eygpt did when President Nasser, with
great reluctance after America had refused to supply him,
accepted weapons from the Soviet Union. Nasser did NOT
upgrade Eygpt’s military capabilities to make war on
Israel. He wanted to be able to demonstrate to Israel
that attacking Eygpt to impose Zionism’s will on it
was not a cost-free option. In other words, Hizbullah had
been improving its military capability to deter Israeli
incursions and attacks, which was something the Lebanese
army was incapable of doing. Am I suggesting that
Hizbullah would NOT have let loose its rockets if Israel
had not gone for the war option? YES! The notion that, on
12 July 2006, Hizbullah was joined in conspiracy with
Iran and Syria to wipe Israel off the face of the earth
is nothing but Zionist and neo-con propaganda nonsense to
justify Israel’s latest war of aggression and also,
perhaps, to justify, in advance of it happening, war on
Iran.
It’s true that the rhetoric of Iran’s President
gave and gives a degree of apparent credibility to
Zionist and neo-con spin but only to those who are
unaware of, or don’t want to know, the difference
between the facts and documented truth of the real
history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (as in my book) and
Zionism’s version of it.
To those who really want to understand why the Zionist
state of Israel behaves in the way it does, and is (as
described in a recent article courageously carried by The
Independent) “a terrorist state like no other”,
I say not only read my book, but give special attention
to page 485 of Volume One. On it I quote what was said
behind closed doors in May 1955 by Moshe Dayan, Israel’s
one-eyed warlord and master of deception. He was in
conversation with Israel’s ambassadors to
Washington, London and Paris. At the time the Eisenhower
administration was pressing Israel to abandon its policy
of reprisal attacks.
Eisenhower was aware that Nasser did not want war with
Israel, and that he would, when he could, make an
accommodation with it. Eisenhower also knew that Israel’s
reprisal attacks were making it impossible for Nasser to
prepare the ground on his side for peace with Israel.
In conversation with Israel’s three most important
ambassadors to the West, Dayan explained why he was
totally opposed - whatever the pressure from the West -
to the idea that Israel should abandon its policy of
reprisal attacks. They were, he said, “a life drug.”
What he meant, he also explained, was that reprisal
attacks enabled the Israeli government “to maintain
a high degree of tension in the country and the army.”
What, really, did that mean?Israel’s standing or
full-time army was (as it still is and must be)
relatively small, not more than about 23,000 souls in
all. The other quarter of a million fighting men and
women who could be mobilised in 48 hours were reservists
from every walk of Israel’s civil society. The real
point? Without Israeli reprisal attacks and all that they
implied that the Zionist state was in constant danger of
being annihilated - there was a possibility that some and
perhaps many reservists would not be motivated enough to
respond to Zionism’s calls to arms.Put another way,
what Dayan really feared was the TRUTH. He knew, as all
of Israel’s leaders knew, that Israel’s
existence was NOT in danger from any combination of Arab
forces. And that was the truth which had to be kept from
the Jews of Israel. Dayan’s fear was that if they
became aware of it, they might insist on peace on terms
the Arab regimes could accept but which were not
acceptable to Zionism. Among those present when Dayan
explained the need for Israeli reprisal attacks as a
“life drug” was the Foreign Ministry’s
Gideon Rafael. He reported what Dayan told the
ambassadors to Prime Minister Moshe Sharret in my view,
and with the arguable exception of Yitzhak Rabin, the
only completely rational prime minister Israel has ever
had. And we know from Sharret’s diaries what Rafael
then said to him: “This is how fascism began in
Italy and Germany!”
Ladies and gentlemen, I think future historians may say
that was how fascism began in the Zionist state of
Israel.
The idea of Israel as a fully functioning democracy is a
seriously flawed one. It’s true that Israeli Jews
are free to speak their minds (in a way that most Jews of
the world are frightened to do), and to that extent it
can be said that Israel has the appearance of a vibrant
democracy... But in reality, and especially since the
countdown to the 1967 war, it’s Israel’s
generals who call most of the policy shots, even when one
of them is not prime minister.
In June 1967 Israel’s prime minister of the time,
the much maligned Levi Eshkol, did NOT want to take his
country to war. It, war, was imposed upon him by the
generals, led by Dayan. As I explain in Volume Two of my
book, what really happened in Israel in the final
countdown to that war was something very close to a
military coup in all but name.
And that’s where we are today the generals
effectively calling the shots in Israel, to the applause
of the neo-cons.Why, really, did Israel’s generals
want to make war on Lebanon? There was obviously much
more to it than the collective punishment of a whole
people as part and parcel of a stated objective the
destruction of Hizbullah as a Moslem David which could
hit and hurt the Zionist Goliath.I think there were two
main reasons.The first was that Israel’s generals
believed they should and could restore the “deterrent
power” of the IDF (Israel’s war machine). They
believed, correctly, that it had been seriously damaged
by Hizbullah’s success in not only confronting the
IDF following Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982,
but eventually forcing it to withdraw, effectively
defeated and humiliated… I think it is more than
reasonable to presume that for most if not all of the
past six years, Israel’s generals were itching to
make war on Lebanon to repair that damage to restore the
IDF’s deterrent power. Put another way, it was time,
Israel’s generals believed, to give the Arabs (all
Arabs, not just Hizbullah) another lesson in who the
master was.
The second main reason for the insistence of Israel’s
generals on 12 July this year that war was the only
option…?I think it’s also more than reasonable
to presume that they saw the opportunity to ethnically
cleanse Lebanon up to the Litani River, with a view,
eventually, to occupying and then annexing the ethnically
cleansed territory. For Zionism this would be the
fulfilment of the vision of modern Israel’s founding
father, David Ben-Gurion - a Zionist state within “natural”
borders, those borders being the Jordan River in the East
and the Litani River of Lebanon in the north. Israel
gained control of the Jordan River border in its 1967 war
of expansion, but prior to its rush to war on 12 July,
all of its attempts to establish the Litani border had
failed. Since 1982 because of Hizbullah’s ability to
cause the occupying IDF forces more casualties than
Israeli public opinion was prepared to tolerate.According
to those currently calling the policy shots - Israel’s
generals and politicians, the neo-cons in and around the
Bush administration and their associate in Downing Street
- the name of the game is creating a “new Middle
East”. It IS happening. A new Middle East is being
created.
But what kind of new Middle East will it actually be? In
my analysis it will be one in which the Zionist state of
Israel, having rejected a number of opportunities to make
peace with the Palestinians and all the Arab states, will
become increasingly vulnerable and, at a point, actually
for the first time ever in its shortish history, could
face the possibility of defeat.In my view the seeds of
that possible defeat have just been sewn in Lebanon. The
fact is that Israel’s latest military adventure has
been totally counter-productive in that has caused
Hizbullah to be admired by the angry and humiliated
masses of the Arab and wider Moslem world. That being so,
would it really be surprising if, in growing numbers,
Arabs and Moslems everywhere begin to entertain if they
are not already entertaining something like the following
thought: “If 3,000 Hizbullah guerrillas can stand up
to mighty Israel for weeks and give it a seriously bloody
nose, what would happen if we all joined the fight?”
(Do I hear the sound of pro-Western Arab regimes being
toppled? Yes, I think so). I imagine that even the
thought of Israel being defeated one day will bring joy
to very many Arabs and other Moslems. But there ought to
be no place for joy because there’s no mystery about
what would happen in the event of Israel actually being
on the brink of defeat. I want to quote to you now from
one of my Panorama interviews with Golda Meir. (It can be
found, this quote, on the second page Volume One of my
book, in the Prologue which is titled Waiting for the
Apocalypse).
At a point I interrupted her to say: “Prime Minister
I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying…
You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being
defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take
the region and the whole world down with it?”
Without the shortest of pauses for reflection, Golda
replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m
saying.” In those days Panorama went on-air at 8 o’clock
on Monday evenings. Shortly after the transmission of
that interview The Times had a new lead editorial. It
quoted what Golda had said to me and added its view that
“We had better believe her.” How, actually,
would the Zionist state of Israel take at least the
region down with it? It would arm its nuclear missiles,
target Arab capitals, then fire the missiles. Such an
End-Game to the Arab-Israeli conflict, if it happened,
and which I would describe as a self-fulfilled Zionist
prophesy of doom, would probably take many years to play
out. But the countdown to such a catastrophe would be
speeded up if, as Brzezinski put it, “neo-con
policies continue to be pursued.” If they are, and
if Iran is attacked, I think that a Clash of
Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, would become
unstoppable.
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/11313638.html
Last updated 16/08/2006