In 1982 an article was published in Kivunim, a Hebrew journal promoted by the World Zionist Organisation (WZO). It was titled, “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, written by Oded Yinon, who was a senior official at the Israeli Foreign Ministry and also an advisor to Ariel Sharon.
What makes this article extraordinary is that it accurately foretells the geo-political events and misfortunes of the Middle East that we are continuing to witness even today.
The plans for expanding Israel’s borders as documented in this article align perfectly with the ambitious 1919 plan of the World Zionist Organisation. This is depicted in the 1919 map of Palestine as claimed by the World Zionist Organisation.
At the time the state of Israel did not even exist, it was eventually established in 1948 on the back of Stern and Irgun gangs’ sanguinary campaigns and terrorist attacks (2) in Mandatory Palestine.
Fast forward almost a century and we can see right in front of our eyes the map as proposed by the World Zionist Organisation in 1919, gradually taking shape. Almost all of Palestine is now occupied by Israel, which means that in time it won’t come as a surprise to us if parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as depicted in the map shown above are also subjected to illegal settlements one day.
Yinon’s Essay
The strategy and the military plan alluded to in Yinon’s 1982 essay would have been brushed off as grandiose and jingoistic chest-beating during that time. However when we take into consideration what has been eventuating in the Middle East and compare it to what Yinon has described, we’re left with no choice but to conclude that either it is a case of an uncanny chain of coincidences that have taken place or there is indeed such a plan that is being carried out with great precision.
It’s important to note that no one of credibility has claimed Yinon’s article to be a forgery. It has mostly been forgotten in the annals of history. A few political analysts have referenced it and have credited it as having influenced US Administration’s Middle East policies. Other than that it has been largely dismissed or ignored after it made appearances on websites promoting conspiracy theories.
Here I will highlight some of the more prominent ideas as described in Yinon’s essay.
Why, What and How
Oded Yinon’s essay talks about what the Zionist plan is and not how it would be implemented. Suffice it to say that it does make references to “direct” and “indirect” “options” with respect to social, political, military and economic solutions.
The translator (Israel Shahak) explains that the plan would have been communicated orally to the Israeli Establishment as a first step. During these conversations the how would’ve also been discussed in detail.
He further explains why this essay was published: to persuade the masses in Israel and the Israeli elite regarding the “realization of the Zionist plan for the Middle East”.
It is suggested that any risk arising from the Arab world (because of the publication of this plan) would be minimal or non-existent, especially when you consider the condition of the scattered Arab states.
Israel and the Unmistakable Mainstream Media Bias
Unfortunately it’s become extremely difficult to bring up the issue of militant Zionism in the mainstream media. It can’t be discussed freely by anyone without being labelled an anti-Semite. Even when only facts are stated about how Israel was created or how the state of Israel oppresses the Palestinians, this is sufficient for the mainstream media to target and ostracise those who express such views.
Those who are brave enough to talk about how Israel engages in “unlawful killings; forced displacement; abusive detention” and how it continues with illegal settlements on Palestinian lands, are either completely ignored and receive minimum to no air time on mainstream media or they are hounded by Israeli supporters where their integrity and credibility are continually ridiculed and attacked.
Some TV personalities and journalists have come out and spoken about how they’re strictly precluded from criticising Israel, even BBC has been accused of implementing this atrocious policy.
On the other side of the spectrum, attacking Palestinians and openly declaring that there’s no such country as Palestine is astonishingly all so common. For example, Ben Shapiro who regularly makes appearances on Fox News and other mainstream news outlets to talk about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, had the audacity to make the following claim on Twitter:
“Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock”.
Imagine if a Palestinian made similar remarks about Israelis…
The support for Israel by some is unfortunately based on irrational religious dogma. When Trump recently declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, Evangelical Christian supporters of Trump were ecstatic because according to their beliefs this brought them a step closer to the Apocalypse and the second coming of Jesus Christ. This is known in Christian literature as the rapture.
On the one hand you have Christian fundamentalists motivated by religious dogma and on the other you have militant Zionists who are also motivated by religious dogma. They claim that Jerusalem was the Jewish Capital for 3000 years (which is historically inaccurate and logically flawed because before the Israelites it was ruled by other nations like the Canaanites and later it was ruled by others like the Romans and Arabs) and that they must rebuild the Temple of Solomon (the Third Template) in order for the Messianic Age to begin when “the messiah” is expected to make a return.
This is all very irrational yet the mainstream media mostly overlooks any of this and instead focuses on the misguided religious inclinations of the likes of ISIS; by extension the media attacks and targets Muslims and Islam. This is collective punishment and guilt by association. It raises the question about why the media would want to dehumanise Muslims, does it make it easier to justify the military campaigns waged in their countries?
Israel Shahak, the translator of Yinon’s essay discusses this controlled media coverage in the epilogue of his translation:
“In the United States … commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from … articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” … with Israel being their god which has not yet failed.
In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion – exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned.”
As Israel Shahak says, “the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned” in the news media and similarly nor are the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinians, at least without justifying Israel’s actions in one way or another.
The Plan
Early in the plan there’s a discussion about the risk of a cataclysmic war, which would be “over (depleting) resources in the world” that would dwarf the last two world wars. It would include conventional and maybe even nuclear weapons and for that reason it’s stressed that Israel must be ready to face such a scenario should it eventuate –
The details of Israel’s nuclear weapons program was disclosed by Mordechai Vanunu in 1986, who was later kidnapped by Mossad and sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage.
The plan identifies USSR as a “major foreign challenge” and a security threat for Israel. Suggesting that it is active in their region and that “one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located”.
A number of factors eventually led to the dissolution of the USSR on December 26, 1991. The Soviet Union ceased to be a major threat at the end of the Cold War, however Putin’s Russia does continue to pose the same level of threat as USSR once did, in terms of its desire to control the world’s and the Middle Eastern resources.
As accurately alluded to in the article, the Soviets pose a threat in the long run to the State of Israel whereas the Arab states pose a threat in the short run (unless they go through “revolutionary changes”).
The “Arab Moslem world” is not seen as a strategic major problem but it is identified as the “main threat” against Israel because of its “growing military might”.
“The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorities and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging.”
If we reflect on what’s being mentioned here, it’s worth noting that Israel was created with the help of the United Kingdom. The Arab world was divided in a way that was not conducive to reunification and Israel was placed right in the middle of that region, surrounded by many Arab countries. This has cast the region into chaos and disturbed the geopolitical balance, causing much upheaval and unnecessary conflicts.
The Arab countries are rich in natural resources, however only the Arab elites benefit from the vast number of oil reserves that exist in their countries. The other major beneficiary of course is the West (all the while Russia is vying for benefits in the region).
In fact one can argue that the Arabs have the oil but the West benefits from it the most, powering its economy in ways that the Arabs can only dream about. One can only assume that this situation was engineered and it’s not as a result of a fortuitous chain of occurrences.
The essay continues by discussing the Muslim World, the countries in the region and their demographics.
Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Oman and the internal conflicts that exist in these countries are described in pain staking detail.
Over and over again what stands out is the focus on the Sunni and Shi’a rift that exists in these countries. The Sunni-Shia population breakdown is documented and it’s pointed out that in some of these Arab countries the small ruling elite are Sunni but the majority of the population is Shia but in Lebanon it’s the other way around. Also in Iraq, the army is commanded by the Sunnis but the majority of the soldiers are Shia but in Syria it’s the other way around.
It’s suggested that these countries are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict.
“Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group.
Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state
This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region.
When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.”
It describes an “opportunity” where a country or a country’s army is commanded by an ethnic minority who rule over a separate ethnic majority: “this has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.”
Another point that is made over and over again is with respect to Jordan and how “Jordan is in reality Palestinian”. There is a desire to forcefully move Palestinians to Jordan.
This explains why the idea of a two-state (or even a one-state) peace policy is meaningless and essentially non-substantive.
Israel will never agree to a two-state solution, they are not interested in giving up what they claim is their God-given right. The Zionist plan is to expand the Israeli lands, they’re not interested in putting a stop to this expansion.
There’s no desire for a one-state solution either because the fear is that if Palestinians are afforded equal rights as that of Israelis, they can easily outnumber and potentially outvote Israelis out of office, which would not suit their plans. This is why the status-quo is purposefully maintained, which allows Israel to continue with its illegal settlements and expansions, giving them ample opportunity to coerce Palestinians to move or seek refuge in Jordan and elsewhere in the region like the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt.
Fragmenting the Muslim Nations into Statelets
According to this plan, in order for Israel to maintain its dominance in the region, it would attempt to divide the Muslim nations into smaller states with Israeli proxies. These statelets then would not be able to put up any form of resistance against Israel.
It specifically notes Iraq as the “greatest threat to Israel”.
The plan provides Lebanon as an example of a state which was dissolved into five provinces and that in turn “serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula”.
“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.”
Israel Shahak explains the military plan involved in carrying out such a strategy. He bases this on information that is explained “orally” in “closed meetings” to the Israeli Establishment.
He says that the Israeli military forces won’t be sufficient for the actual work of occupying the wide territories of what is essentially Greater Israel, though it’s pointed out that eventually the army would be very large.
The Israeli Army would be “stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population”. In other words, Israel’s proxies planted in different regions.
This accurately describes what we witnessed in Lebanon over the past few decades. Lebanon was attacked by Israel on several occasions. In 1982 Israeli forces invaded Lebanon and remained in the South for 17 years in contravention of UN resolution 425.
In 1988 Lebanon had two governments in place, there was a civilian government in East Beirut and a military government in West Beirut that was backed by the Israeli armed forces.
In 2006, Israel again invaded Lebanon. This war lasted for 33 days. Iran-backed Hezbollah was able to fight off Israeli Defence Forces, however the war caused much destruction in Lebanese cities and displaced approximately 1,000,000 Lebanese civilians.
Arab Spring
It’s interesting that the revolutionary movement known as the Arab Spring where protestors took to the streets to demand their freedom of rights or what some called “liberal democracy”, very quickly escalated and turned into a large scale conflict affecting Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain.
The protestors may have had good intentions however this uprising caused the “biggest transformation of the Middle East since decolonization”. It was the spark that unwittingly started the fire in the Middle East and coincidentally it played right into the hands of the World Zionist Organisation; a cynic may argue that this is exactly what was planned, as described in Yinon’s 1982 essay.
Syria
“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
“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. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization”
The Iraq-Iran war started in 1980 and ended in 1988. The US sold arms to Iraq via Israel and Jordan. Israel also sold US$75 million worth of arms to Iran, thereby assisting both sides with arms sales and prolonging the conflict
The subsequent Iraq wars illegally waged by the United States, perfectly served the military ambitions of Israel. In fact the United States’ Middle East policy conveniently aligned with that of the World Zionist Organisation’s goals. It’s not very hard to understand why that is when we look at the hawks in the US administration.
The neo-conservatives or better known as neo-cons were the driving force behind these wars. It is well known that neo-cons serve the interests of US arms manufacturers and that of Israel.
And exactly as professed in Yinon’s 1982 article, there’s been a concerted effort to carve up Iraq into three separate states: Sunni, Shia and Kurdish. However, no one seems to be asking why (if Iraq were to be fragmented) it would be split this way: the first two states would be based on religious denominations and the third based on nationality. It’s no secret that there are Sunni and Shia Kurds.
The planned division makes no sense unless you take into consideration the real aim of this fragmentation.
Egypt
“Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.”
“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 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 economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run.”
Sinai has always been a target. Israel may even try to move some of the Palestinian population to this region, thereby strengthening its rule inside the country.
Jordan
“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 .. 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.”
“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, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.
Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order;”
This is one of the reasons why Israel does not wish to quit its policy of illegal settlements. It allows it to spread its population within Palestinian territories and later possibly within other Arab lands as discussed above. This is the only way that it can continue to expand otherwise it will end up losing the lands that it gains.
Saudi Arabia
“The entire Arabian Peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might is based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.”
Saudi Arabia is also singled out as a target and although it hasn’t been affected as much as some of the other Arab countries, the plan is also asking for it to be dissolved into smaller and weaker states. Perhaps this is something that we will see in the future.
The Economy and a Word of Warning
“The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure.”
“Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option.
We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future”
Conclusion
It’s hard to dismiss as just coincidence the uncanny chain of events and changes which have taken place and are continuing to take place in the Muslim world that directly align with the goals and the strategies as described in Oded Yinon’s 1982 article.
Even if it was all just fantasy, it is still worth studying to understand how someone can so closely predict the unfolding events in the Middle East. On that point, we should wait and see if Saudi Arabia is also going to be divided into separate states as foreseen in this plan.
This Zionist plan as documented by Oded Yinon (whether some organisation is consciously in charge of it or not) is ostensibly running like a fine-tuned machine, just as engineered.
Add Comment