Poster displaying the
emblem of Irgun, the Jewish terror group of Mandate-era Palestine
Oded Yinon, whose 1982 paper for Kivunim (Directions) entitled “A
Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”, is often used as a reference point for
evidence of an Israeli aim to balkanise the surrounding Arab and Muslim world
into ethnic and sectarian mini-states, was recently interviewed. He discussed
the notoriety of the document which came to a wider audience a few years later
after it was translated into English by Israel Shahak. But while Yinon down
plays the specific application of his paper to actual geopolitical events, the
ideas posited in his article have arguably formed an enduring central policy
plank of the Zionist state; balkanisation having been a necessary condition
first in creating the modern state of Israel, and thereafter as a means of
ensuring its survival and maintaining its military dominance in the Middle
East.
The theme of
balkanisation has always formed an essential part of the rationale of Political
Zionism. The refusal by Sultan Abdul Hamid II of Theodor Herzl’s offer of £150
million (sterling) as a down payment towards the Ottoman national debt in
exchange for a charter enabling Zionist settlement in Palestine meant that the
early leaders of Zionism would in due course redirect their efforts in seeking
a means of creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.
A necessary
precondition of this would be the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, and a step
towards favourably positioning Zionist aspirations in the event of the
liquidation of that empire came with the agreement struck during the First
World War between the Zionist movement and the British government. The Balfour
Declaration and the implementation of the Sykes-Picot accord created the basis
through which the goal of securing a future Jewish state within the territory
designated as a British Mandate could be focused.
After the
establishment of Israel in 1948, a national policy of weakening Arab and Muslim
states, balkanising them, or keeping them under a neo-colonial state of affairs
has persisted. The prevailing logic was and always has been that any stable,
nationalist government in the Arab world poses an existential threat to Israel.
For instance, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was vehemently
against President Charles de Gaulle’s decision to grant Algeria independence.
Setting
communities against each other with the aim of weakening ‘national spirit’ and
balkanisation was at the heart of the policy of Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan when
it came to Lebanon, Israel’s northern neighbour. As Moshe Sharett, an early Israeli
prime minister recorded in his diaries, both men were keen to exploit the
differences between the country’s Muslim and Maronite Christian population.
They also desired the creation of a Christian state. In a letter written to
Sharett in February 1954, Ben-Gurion stated the following:
Perhaps … now
is the time to bring about the creation of a Christian state in our
neighbourhood. Without our initiative and our vigorous aid this will not be
done. It seems to me that this is the central duty, or at least one of the
central duties, of our foreign policy … We must act in all possible ways to
bring about radical change in Lebanon … The goal will not be reached without a
restriction of Lebanon’s borders.
Ben-Gurion
had wanted Israel’s northern border to extend to the River Litani. This was
made clear through the plans submitted to the Versailles Peace Conference in
1919 by the representatives of the Zionist movement. The water resources
provided by the Litani, the River Jordan, and the Golan Heights were considered
to be essential prerequisites for the sustenance of the inhabitants of a future
Jewish state.
For his part,
Dayan, who served as army chief of staff during the 1950s, envisaged that
Israel could groom a Christian military officer who would declare a Christian
state in the southern part of Lebanon, out of which the region south of the
River Litani would be ceded to Israel. This is evidenced by an entry into
Sharett’s diary dated May 16th, 1955:
According to
Dayan the only thing that is necessary is to find an officer, be he just a
major. We should either conquer his heart or buy him with money, to make him
agree to declare himself the saviour of the Maronite population. Then, the
Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the necessary territory and will
create a Christian regime which will ally itself with Israel. The territory
from the Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel.
Dayan’s hope
for a surrogate militia would come to pass in the 1970s with the creation of
the South Lebanon Army (SLA), which did the bidding of Israel in its battles
with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and other sources of
resistance to Israeli power. In 1979, the leader of the SLA, Major Saad Haddad,
a renegade officer of the Lebanese Army and a true life incarnation of what
Sharett referred to as the “puppet” desired by Dayan, would even proclaim an
area controlled by his group as ‘Independent Free Lebanon’.
While the SLA
is now defunct, the leaders of Israel continue to covet parts of south Lebanon.
It remains an important factor behind Israel’s goal of destroying Hezbollah,
the Lebanese Shia militia which forced the withdrawal of the Israeli Defence
Forces (IDF) from south Lebanon in 2000, and which repelled the IDF’s incursion
into south Lebanon in 2006.
It is
important to note that the intellectual, if not moral, justification for the policy of balkanisation has come from many position papers produced by Israel-friendly
(many would argue Israel-First) neoconservative think-tanks and other
right-wing organisations, which have supported the idea of breaking up the Arab
Muslim lands of the Middle East and North Africa. These include those
disseminated by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Rand
Corporation. A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm, a document prepared in 1996 by the
Israeli-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, and
presented to Binyamin Netanyahu during his first tenure as prime minister,
called for Israel to “contain, destabilise, and roll back” a number of states
including Syria and Iraq.
Allied to the
intellectual justification is the use of military force to practically effect
such balkanisation. This has come through using the United States, over which
the the Israel lobby has continually had a decisive influence, as either the
main protagonist in military actions such as the invasion of Iraq, or as the
overseer of covert operations geared towards destabilisation as has been the
case in the Syrian conflict.
In January
1998, members of PNAC wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton urging him
to remove “Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.” This forceful plea was
followed by the passage in Congress in October that year of the Iraq Liberation
Act which made it official US policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It was always
understood that the termination of the rule of Saddam’s Baathist Party would
run the risk of fracturing the Iraq state into three component parts as Yinon’s
paper suggested: A Sunni, a Shia and a Kurdish mini-state.
Israeli
politicians including serving prime ministers have at times openly petitioned
US presidents to destroy Arab and Muslim countries perceived as threatening
Israel’s security. For instance, in January 2003, when the invasion of Iraq was
brewing, Ariel Sharon called on President George W. Bush to also “disarm Iran,
Libya and Syria”. Also, Binyamin Netanyahu has since the 1990s been actively
calling on the Americans to intervene in Iran, another state with a
heterogenous mixture of cultures and religious sects, which is viewed as
inherently vulnerable to efforts geared towards destabilisation and
dismemberment.
Iran formed a
central part of the ‘Bernard Lewis Project’, a proposal contrived by the
neoconservative academic in 1979, which argued the efficacy behind the West
pursuing a policy aimed at dividing the countries of the Middle East along
ethnic and religious lines. By encouraging groups such as the Kurds, Lebanese
Maronites, Azerbaijani Turks and others to seek autonomous rule, Lewis
envisaged an ‘Arc of Crisis’ which would spill over into the Soviet Union.
Lewis’s project encompassed the breaking up of Turkey and Arab states such as
Iraq and Syria since the creation of a Greater Kurdistan would necessitate
this.
The
usefulness of Lewis’s worldview to the cause of Israel was explicitly
acknowledged by Binyamin Netanyahu who, in eulogising Lewis when he died in May
2018, said that “we will be forever grateful for his robust defence of Israel.”
Lewis, whose influence in the corridors of Washington has remained strong over
the decades, supported the White House and Pentagon planners of the invasion of
Iraq, a conflict which Netanyahu admitted in 2008 “benefited” Israel.
Oded Yinon
unsurprisingly singles Lewis out for praise in his interview.
Lewis’s
influence on US foreign policy was apparent in the doctrine of the ‘New Middle
East’ unveiled by the then serving Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in July
2006. The aim of securing change through the fomenting of violence and disorder
hinted at the ‘Arc of Crisis’ rationale posited in 1979, with the neutralising
of the ‘Shia Crescent’, consisting of Iran, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah being
the centre of focus. The ultimate objective of balkanisation was alluded to in
a map prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters, a retired US Army officer
which was published in the Armed Forces
Journal in June 2006. It depicted a redrawn Middle East map which included
a Kurdish state, the creation of which is a present priority for the state of
Israel.
To the
perpetual Israeli goals of weakening and destabilising Arab and Muslim states
must be added the objective of acquiring more land for the state through
territorial conquest, a notable example of which was the annexation of Syria’s
Golan Heights in 1981 after it had been taken by the Israeli Defence Force
during the war of 1967. The conflict of 1967 was a war of conquest prosecuted
by right-wing ‘hawks’ who had seized control of prime minister Levi Eshkol’s
cabinet with the aim of completing the task of acquiring land which had not
been taken from the Arabs during the War of 1948. One of the most important
aspects of this reach for ‘Greater Israel’, in which Israel conquered territory
that tripled its size, was the desire to capture Jerusalem.
The war of
1948, while often posited in Zionist historiography as a defensive war, had
been waged to seize as much land as could be taken in excess of what had been
provided under the vitiated United Nations Partition Plan. An important part of
that campaign was Plan Dalet, which sought to expel Arabs from key areas so as
to ensure a Jewish majority in all territories which would be controlled by the
nascent Jewish state.
That Israel
at its inception was a belligerent power intent on extending its borders and
its sphere of influence cannot be denied. Just ten days after the declaration
of Israel’s independence, Ben-Gurion said the following at a meeting of the
general staff of Haganah, the precursor of the IDF:
We must
immediately destroy Ramie and Lod. … We must organise Eliyahu’s brigade to
direct it against Jenin in preparation for the Jordan Valley … Maklef needs to
receive reinforcements and his role is the conquest of southern Lebanon, with
the aid of bombing Tyre, Sidon and Beirut. … Yigal Allon must attack in Syria
from the east and from the north. … We must establish a Christian state whose
southern border will be the Litani (River). We will forge an alliance with it.
When we break the strength of the (Arab) Legion and bomb Amman we will
eliminate Trans-Jordan too, and then Syria falls. And if Egypt still dares to
fight, we will bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo.
While Yinon
claims in the interview that Israel does not require more territory, which he
links solely to the capacity it has of protecting its existing borders, this is
contradicted by the creeping colonisation of the West Bank, considered in
Zionist belief to be that part of the ‘Land of Israel’ known as Judea and
Samaria. Arab settlements continue to be constricted into small, increasingly
non-contiguous entities that many have referred to as akin to apartheid-era
‘Bantustans’. The stringent blockade of Gaza and the intermittent war and
military strikes on the territory appear designed to make living conditions so
unbearable and hopeless as to convince Gazans to pack their bags and migrate.
And if acquiring neighbouring land is not explicitly mentioned, the quest to
create additional territory by stealth through the creation of security ‘buffer
zones’ on its borders with Syria and Lebanon is real enough.
But just how
much more of the ‘Promised Land’ Israel would wish to acquire is an issue not
openly discussed in contemporary times. Yinon smirked at the tendency of
articles on his paper to reference a map of the Zionist ‘Land of Israel’ in its
maximalist borders extending from the Nile Delta to the Euphrates River.
Indeed, the claim that Israel continues to seek these borders is one which
Zionists point to as a ‘conspiracy theory’.
Belief in
Israel’s maximalist borders, which have a biblical origin, was taken up by many
in the modern Zionist movement. It was explicitly referred to in the emblem of
the Irgun terror group. However, since the creation of Israel, most hardline
Zionists have been content to publically refer to securing what they term the
sovereign right of the Jewish people to what was the western part of the
British Mandate of Palestine, with the Palestinian Arabs entitled to the land
east of the River Jordan, that is, the modern state of Jordan. However, until
Israel formally declares where it considers its final borders to be, fears that
it wishes to acquire more land will legitimately persist.
In the
interview, Yinon claims that his plan has never really been implemented by any
Israeli government, save for the adoption of some of his ideas by Israeli
military intelligence (AMAN) during the present Syrian conflict. An obvious manifestation
of this has been the medical and logistical support given by Israel’s military
to jihadist militias fighting the Syrian Arab Army near the Golan Heights.
It is clear
that the largely jihadist insurgency in Syria which aimed to bring down the
secular-nationalist government of Hafez al-Assad has been overseen by the
United States as a means of aiding Israel’s geopolitical goals. The objective
of American-sponsored balkanisation was clear from a US Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) document which noted that a declaration of a Salafist principality
in the eastern part of Syria would serve the interests of the internal and
external opposition to the Assad government. With most of the jihadists
defeated by the Syrian Arab Army in concert with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah,
this goal has been continued by American and Israeli support for Kurdish
militias in that part of Syria.
The
deliberate and calculated intervention in the affairs of the Arab world is something
which Yinon is content to admit is unnecessary given the artificiality of the
states which are the product of imperial draughtsmen. That was the criticism
levelled at his paper by Yehoshafat Harkabi, a former head of Israeli military
intelligence, who questioned the wisdom of working towards the dissolution of
such countries if the initial analysis is that they will eventually fall apart.
Moshe Sharett
warned against Ben-Gurion and Dayan’s plan to “transform” Lebanon because of
what he correctly claimed would be “an adventurous speculation upon the
well-being and existence of others”. The corpses of the victims of attempts in
recent times to reshape the Middle East testify to that.
Yinon’s claim
that an application of the spirit of his strategy has been limited only to the
conflict in Syria is patently wrong. The neoconservative-inspired wars waged by
the United States on behalf of the state of Israel in Iraq, Libya, as well as
the ongoing plans to destroy the Shia Crescent by attacking Iran provide
contrary evidence.
The ‘Yinon
Plan’ after all merely encapsulates Israeli policy of the past, the present and
the future.
© Adeyinka
Makinde (2018)
Adeyinka
Makinde is a writer based in London, England.
No comments:
Post a Comment