Le Sinaï, partie intégrante du Grand Israël « du Nil à l’Euphrate »
L’armée égyptienne n’a rien fait contre les manifestants à l’époque où il fallait propulser le fameux « printemps arabe » 100% casher.
Avez-vous noté que les médias n’appellent pas au meurtre du dictateur « qui massacre son propre peuple », comme ils l’ont fait avec Kadhafi et Assad?
Après des décennies de soutient de la part des américano-sionistes, Moubarak avait lui aussi été éjecté, tel que stipulé dans le document « A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties » (résumé sous le titre « The Zionist Plan for the Middle East »).
Si le traité de paix avec Israël est rompu, Israël jubilera de bonheur d’avoir enfin un prétexte pour envahir préventivement l’Égypte… et reprendre (« sécuriser ») le Sinaï.
Gageons que cette fois-ci Poutine ne se privera pas d’armer et financer le camp antisioniste…
Egypt tears itself apart amid the pending Israeli seizure of the Suez Canal.
What will Russia’s next chess move be?
Also covered is the inspiring modern citizen/soldier’s tale of the defeat inflicted on Israeli terrorists crossing into Lebanon on August 6, 2013.Gather round your comrades for a show not to be missed!
Putin and the Jews–is he ‘one of them’ as certain corners of the ‘Truth Movement’ are alleging or simply a skilled chess player?
We are joined by ‘Alexander from Russia’ to discuss this and other issues. Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
Morsi’s recent meeting with Putin and their budding friendship–the kiss of death that led to Morsi’s overthrow? Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
That’s Not Exactly What We Meant… In the Sept. 2 issue, AFP published a “News Missed” item titled “Egyptian Shocker” that requires clarification. The brief item stated that the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) had reported Abdul Al-Sisi, the new military dictator of Egypt, was Jewish. AFP noted that MEMRI is “a neocon propaganda front group and Mossad asset.” The item went on to mention that a commentator appearing on “al Jazeera” television, Gamal Nassar, had said Al-Sisi’s coup was, in Nassar’s words, “a Zionist plot.” In fact, MEMRI did not endorse the claim Al-Sisi was Jewish. Instead, MEMRI was calling attention to Nassar’s comments as proof that Nassar—a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman—was an unreliable source. This is very different from suggesting, as some AFP readers inferred, that MEMRI was saying Al-Sisi was Jewish. Is Al-Sisi Jewish? We doubt it. Was his coup a Zionist plot? Perhaps. Israel has meddled in Egypt’s affairs for decades.
Conspiracy Theory A conspiracy theory floated by the Turkish president has a French intellectual behind the ouster of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. Crazy? Yes. But Bernard-Henri Levy seems to inspire hysteria.
Israël donne l’impression de se plaindre, mais cela fait l’affaire de tsahal parce que cela leur donne un excellent prétexte pour envahir l’Égypte et reprendre le Sinai, soi-disant pour se protéger des vilains islamistes fous furieux.
Israeli policy on turmoil in Egypt discussed at two-hour Friday meet; NYT reports that Israel has been in ‘heavy communication’ with Egypt’s el-Sissi, making reassurances that U.S. wouldn’t cut off military aid. As Israel monitors the crisis in Cairo, channels of coordination between the Egyptian military and its intelligence and Israel’s security forces continue to operate, maintaining calm along the Gaza border, says Haaretz’s Amos Harel.
Israel Keeps a Wary Eye on Turmoil in Egypt
“I think that the whole world should support Sisi,” Ehud Barak, a former prime minister and defense minister of Israel, said on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” last weekend. He was referring to Egypt’s military commander, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, who ousted Mr. Morsi, an Islamist, last month.
The current crisis in Egypt recalls a warning put forth by AMERICAN FREE PRESS more than two years ago. On February 14, 2011, AFP suggested that Israel benefited from (and was most likely instigating) the chaos raging as a consequence of the so-called Arab spring tearing apart its neighbors—including,most particularly, the uprising in Egypt, which led to the rise of the new government that was just recently toppled by the military. At the time, critics accused AFP of promulgating outlandish “conspiracy theories.”
However, no less than David Ignatius—the influential veteran foreign affairs correspondent for The Washington Post—has now confirmed the critical essence of what AFP reported.
While most rational people would assume Israel would prefer to have neighboring states that are stable, successful participants in the region, this is not necessarily the case.
In fact, a carefully crafted “think piece” entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured in the February 1982 edition of the World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for Judaism and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy to wreak havoc in the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within.
The program—which amounted to “balkanizing” the various Arab republics, splitting them into religious enclaves in which, for example, Shiite Muslims or otherwise Sunni Muslims would predominate—was an agenda that Israeli dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was designed “to make an imperial Israel into a world power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby setting the stage for Israeli dominance in the Mideast.
The formula was founded on the idea of creating chaos among Israel’s Arab neighbors, hardly a policy any decent, well-meaning neighbor could be credited for fostering.
In fact, the current-day political and religious divisions and devastation in Iraq—the consequence of the American invasion of Iraq demanded by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington—mirrors precisely what the Zionist position paper laid forth as the ideal state of affairs for Iraq, from an Israeli point of view, that is.
But where does Egypt fit into all of this? Reflecting on the Zionist strategy paper, Ralph Schoenman—an eminent American Jewish critic of Zionism—writing in 1988 in his book, The Hidden History of Zionism, pointedly noted the paper’s intent of “double-crossing Mubarak” and emphasized that the Yinon paper hoped for “the downfall and dissolution of Egypt,” despite the 1979 Camp David peace agreement.
This is geopolitics at its best—or worst—and demonstrates the kind of gambles Israel has historically been willing to take.
Such gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as “catastrophic Zionism,” a termused almost exclusively by Israeli and Jewish writers.
The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel—as a state—relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence.
This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel. In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is vital—fundamental—to Israel’s survival.
And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
In actual fact, this notion—that peace could be dangerous to the survival of Israel—is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide.
Hard Assets Alliance
Now Ignatius has underscored AFP’s controversial assertions. Writing in the Post on April 26, Ignatius described what he called the “upbeat and introspective mood” in Israel—despite the fact the Middle East is in turmoil—and explained the reason for this positive worldview:
Israelis are realizing that, however much the upheaval threatens the established Arab order, it doesn’t necessarily hurt them. Israelis have been predicting for decades that the arbitrary borders set by the 1916 Sykes-Picot accord would ultimately dissolve and the Ottoman ethnic “vilayets” (or provinces) would return. Now, to some Israeli analysts, this Arab crackup seems to be happening, and what’s not to like?
The paradox of the Arab revolutions is that, though they have created instability on Israel’s borders, they have also reduced the conventional military threat. Israel’s enemies are tearing each other apart: Egyptians are squabbling internally as the economy sinks; Syrians are battling each other in a bloody civil war; Sunni and Shiite extremists are waging a war of attrition across the region.
On top of this, Ignatius noted, all of this turmoil positions Israel even more strategically if and when it finally decides to launch a military strike against Iran.
And although the Post’s foreign policy guru didn’t mention it, Ignatius has known for at least 30 years of this unusual and little-noted Israeli agenda for wrecking its neighbors from within.
As far back as December 8, 1982, when Ignatius was a young staff writer for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Ignatius wrote an article for the WSJ describing the Israeli plan for balkanizing the Arab world (referenced in AFP’s report).
Describing the scheme as “a recipe for chaos,” Ignatius’s article acknowledged that the Israeli writer Oded Yinon argued that “Israel should encourage the dissolution of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf nations into a series of weak, ethnic ministates, noting that Yinon said the Arab world was like “a temporary house of cards, put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the 1920s),” and that because of the dissent within those nations, this gave Israel “far-reaching opportunities” to undermine its Arab neighbors.
Although Ignatius asserted, at the time, that the article was not politically significant, other than for the outrage that it sparked in the Arab world, virtually everything theWorld Zionist Organization journal Kivunim advocated as an Israeli strategy toward the Arab world has since come to pass.
The fact that Israel—in collaboration with the United States, Britain and other NATO powers—has played a part in stirring up and financing the assorted “rebel forces” throughout the Arab world may thus be no coincidence. –
more than two years ago. On February 14, 2011, AFP suggested that Israel benefited from (and was most likely instigating) the chaos raging as a consequence of the so-called Arab spring tearing apart its neighbors—including,most particularly, the uprising in Egypt, which led to the rise of the new government that was just recently toppled by the military. At the time, critics accused AFP of promulgating outlandish “conspiracy theories.” – See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=11936#sthash.wlxCi6Tw.dpuf
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
The latest victims of the “world revolution for democracy” were the Egyptians, who suffered a sort of “political gang rape” at the hands of what increasingly appear to be American and Zionist interests. Evidence suggests that the army coup orchestrated in Egypt was intended to “manipulate the protest movement,” to ensure that the Egyptian rulers remain in the United States – Israeli orbit and to prevent a real people’s government from arising.
These views on Egypt come from Professor Michel Chossudovsky, economist and founder of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Quebec. In an article published on the news and commentary website “RT,” just two days after the military overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, Chossudovsky provided a stunning summation of U.S. meddling in Egypt’s internal affairs.
Following in the footsteps of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began directing support to the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s to undermine Egypt’s then-President Gamal Nasser. This covert activity continued under and after the government of President Hosni Mubarak, when Mubarak was replaced by Morsi as part of a Muslim Brotherhood government in the northeast African nation.
According to Chossudovsky, the U.S. government’s objective was to use the “Arab spring” to sow chaos in the Middle East and north Africa and to promote “model” Islamic states subservient to “U.S. geopolitical and corporate interests.”
In 2011, the popular uprising against Mubarak resulted from more than two decades of International Monetary Fund (IMF) neo-liberal economic “reforms.” These IMF-backed changes sent the Egyptian people into unemployment and poverty by undermining Nile agriculture with U.S. and European food imports and by imposing privatization and “austerity” measures.
At the time, the CIA and most likely the Mossad used infiltrators, supported by the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House, to promote social unrest in a direction that was favorable to U.S. and Israeli interests. Morsi was elected, but his accession to power came at a price. He was expected to continue the plutocratic plundering of Egypt.
When true reform did not occur, and poverty continued to increase, some Egyptians took to the streets again to protest Morsi. The U.S. was ready with yet more controlled opposition, led by the Egyptian army under General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who was trained by and spent significant time in the U.S. and the UK.
El-Sisi communicated continuously with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel from the beginning of the protests against Morsi. When it became clear that Morsi could not re-establish order, el-Sisi initiated a coup, apparently with U.S. blessing. Besides making Egypt safe for the Rothschild banking empire’s debt slavery, el-Sisi’s overthrow of Morsi had one other motivation. Associated Press reported July 9, “The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] has stressed that while Morsi was ‘surprisingly compliant’ to Israel, of paramount importance now is preventing extremists from using Egypt’s turmoil to carry out attacks or smuggle arms into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.”
Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author residing in the free state of Kansas. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.
The recent overthrow of Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi had all the superficial appearances of being a “people’s revolution.” The real story is that Morsi—initially as much a carefully chosen puppet for Israeli and American interests as his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak—was taken down not by the “little people” in Cairo but rather by powerful players in Tel Aviv, Washington, D.C., New York and elsewhere who, after viewing recent developments in Morsi’s administration, saw Egypt falling out of their grasp were he to remain in power.
ThatMorsi was eyeing better horizons in search of brighter futures for his country was apparent from the very beginning of his administration. A mere month after he took office he broke with both precedent and protocol when he became the first Egyptian leader to visit Iran since that nation won its independence from the deadly grasp of Israel and the West in its 1979 revolution.
According to Israel’s online news source “Ynet,” while in Iran, Morsi met with then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—singularly hated by both Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C.—where the two discussed the danger that Israel poses to the region and, as Ynet stated, that perhaps Egypt would be better off abandoning its 30-year alliance with the West.
That a budding friendship had been formed during Morsi’s visit to Iran was further supported when Ahmadinejad returned the courtesy by also breaking with both protocol and precedent and becoming the first Iranian head of state to visit Egypt since the two countries broke off ties in 1979.
That this political rapprochement between Egypt and Iran was headed in a direction deemed dangerous to both Israel and America was made plain in the aftermath of these meetings, when Morsi declared his opposition to any outside armed intervention in the Syrian crisis and then insisted that Iran be part of the contact group that would oversee a political solution to the carnage. But Iran was not the only fly in the Zionist ointment leading to Morsi’s overthrow. Russia also loomed large, and particularly after Morsi sat down face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss various items involving trade, economic development, the possibility of Russia building asmany as four nuclear power plants and Russian assistance in developing Egypt’s various uranium mines.
As troubling as these topics may have been to Israel and America, the issue thatmore than likely caused the most political heartburn was reported by RT shortly after themeeting between Morsi and Putin: “The presidents agreed that diplomacy is the only solution to the Syrian crisis and that foreign intervention into Syria is unacceptable.”
That the fix was in and that the U.S. and her coconspirators knew that bad political weather was on its way in Egypt is at least circumstantially apparent. In a piece appearing in The Washington Times 10 days before the uprisings that resulted in Morsi being removed, 400 American troops specially trained to “respond to any threats, including protests and riots, to the security of Israel or the peace agreement” were sent to Egypt.
Mark Glenn is based in Idaho. See www.crescentandcross.com for more.
Nationalism, Not ‘Exceptionalism’ the Proper Course for America
by Michael Collins Piper
During the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney spoke of “American exceptionalism.”
The rhetoric sounded patriotic. In reality, this is a modern-day propaganda mask for old-fashioned Trostkyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism. Though wrapped in the American flag, there’s nothing American about it.
Rather than standing for American nationalism, this philosophy—quite the contrary—is a 21st century manifestation of the age-old dream of a global government under the rule of an elite few. Many call it the New World Order.
While some still fear the UN as the mechanism advancing the agenda, the fact is that the would be rulers of this global plantation now seek to utilize the U.S. as their vehicle for achieving that end.
The grand wizards who conjured up American exceptionalism are those infamous “neo-conservative” high priests of war who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and who now seek to contrive a war against Iran. They crave U.S. military meddling all over the world—not just in the Middle East.
Perhaps the foremost intellectual proponent of this warmongering madness is Yale professor David Gelernter. Defining “Americanism” as an incarnation of biblical Zionism with “a divine mission to all mankind,” he says the United States is the base of “American Zionism,” charged with a God-given duty to remake the world.
“Americanism,” he asserts, is the “creed” of what is the “fourth great Western religion,” the driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planetary regime.
“We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today],” he wrote. “If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the creed.”
Real American nationalists reject the idea the United States should be the world’s policeman. Instead, nationalists believe in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and sovereign borders, placing their own nation’s interests first. Nationalists do not start wars of imperialism. They respect the nationalist instincts of others.
Michael Collins Piper
Michael Ledeen: Un néoconservateur adepte de la théorie du « Grand Moyen-Orient »
Aujourd’hui, il est l’un des plus ardents défenseurs de la doctrine Bush et de la théorie du Grand Moyen-Orient, partisan de renverser non seulement le régime irakien du dictateur Saddam Hussein, mais aussi les régimes d’Iran, de la Syrie, voire de l’Arabie saoudite (ou du moins l’empêcher de « financer le terrorisme »).
Extraits d’un article de la revue Kivounim (Orientation), publié par l’« Organisation Sioniste mondiale » à Jérusalem (n° 14, février 1982). Ils présentent un plan de démembrement des États arabes qui constitue la référence du projet de « remodelage du Proche-Orient » de l’administration Bush.
Archives de février 1982
« La reconquête du Sinaï, avec ses ressources actuelles, est un objectif prioritaire que les accords de Camp David et les accords de paix empêchaient jusqu’ici d’atteindre (…) Privés de pétrole et des revenus qui en découlent, condamnés à d’énormes dépenses en ce domaine, il nous faut impérativement agir pour retrouver la situation qui prévalait dans le Sinaï avant la visite de Sadate et le malheureux accord signé avec lui en 1979.
La situation économique de l’Égypte, la nature de son régime, et sa politique panarabe, vont déboucher sur une conjoncture telle qu’Israël devra intervenir…
L’Égypte, du fait de ses conflits internes, ne représente plus pour nous un problème stratégique, et il serait possible, en moins de 24 heures, de la faire revenir à l’état où elle se trouvait après la guerre de juin 1967. Le mythe de l’Égypte « leader du monde arabe » est bien mort (…) et, face à Israël et au reste du monde arabe, elle a perdu 50% de sa puissance. À court terme, elle pourra tirer avantage de la restitution du Sinaï, mais cela ne changera pas fondamentalement le rapport de force. En tant que corps centralisé, l’Égypte est déjà un cadavre, surtout si l’on tient compte de l’affrontement de plus en plus dur entre musulmans et chrétiens. Sa division en provinces géographiques distinctes doit être notre objectif politique pour les années 1990, sur le front occidental.
Une fois l’Égypte ainsi disloquée et privée de pouvoir central, des pays comme la Libye, le Soudan, et d’autres plus éloignés, connaîtront la même dissolution. La formation d’un État copte en Haute-Égypte, et celle de petites entités régionales de faible importance, est la clef d’un développement historique actuellement retardé par l’accord de paix, mais inéluctable à long terme.
En dépit des apparences, le front Ouest présente moins de problèmes que celui de l’Est. La partition du Liban en cinq provinces (…) préfigure ce qui se passera dans l’ensemble du monde arabe. L’éclatement de la Syrie et de l’Irak en régions déterminées sur la base de critères ethniques ou religieux, doit être, à long terme, un but prioritaire pour Israël, la première étape étant la destruction de la puissance militaire de ces États.
Les structures ethniques de la Syrie l’exposent à un démantèlement qui pourrait aboutir à la création d’un État chiite le long de la côte, d’un État sunnite dans la région d’Alep, d’un autre à Damas, et d’une entité druze qui pourrait souhaiter constituer son propre État —peut-être sur notre Golan— en tout cas avec l’Houran et le Nord de la Jordanie. (…) Un tel État serait, à long terme, une garantie de paix et de sécurité pour la région. C’est un objectif qui est déjà à notre portée.
Riche en pétrole, et en proie à des luttes intestines, l’Irak est dans la ligne de mire israélienne. Sa dissolution serait, pour nous, plus importante que celle de la Syrie, car c’est lui qui représente, à court terme, la plus sérieuse menace pour Israël. Une guerre syro-irakienne favoriserait son effondrement de l’intérieur, avant qu’il ne soit en mesure de se lancer dans un conflit d’envergure contre nous. Toute forme de confrontations inter-arabe nous sera utile et hâtera l’heure de cet éclatement. (…) Il est possible que la guerre actuelle contre l’Iran précipite ce phénomène de polarisation.
La Péninsule arabique toute entière est vouée à une dissolution du même genre, sous des pressions internes. C’est le cas en particulier de l’Arabie saoudite : l’aggravation des conflits intérieurs et la chute du régime sont dans la logique de ses structures politiques actuelles.
La Jordanie est un objectif stratégique dans l’immédiat. À long terme, elle ne constituera plus une menace pour nous après sa dissolution, la fin du règne de Hussein, et le transfert du pouvoir aux mains de la majorité palestinienne.
C’est à quoi doit tendre la politique israélienne. Ce changement signifiera la solution du problème de la rive occidentale, à forte densité de population arabe.
L’émigration de ces Arabes à l’Est —dans des conditions pacifiques ou à la suite d’une guerre— et le gel de leur croissance économique et démographique, sont les garanties des transformations à venir. Nous devons tout faire pour hâter ce processus.
Il faut rejeter le plan d’autonomie, et tout autre qui impliquerait un compromis ou une participation des territoires, et ferait obstacle à la séparation des deux nations : conditions indispensables d’une véritable coexistence pacifique.
Les Arabes israéliens doivent comprendre qu’ils ne pourront avoir de patrie qu’en Jordanie (…) et ne connaîtront de sécurité qu’en reconnaissant la souveraineté juive entre la mer et le Jourdain. (…) Il n’est plus possible, en cette entrée dans l’ère nucléaire, d’accepter que les trois quarts de la population juive se trouve concentrée sur un littoral surpeuplé et naturellement exposé ; la dispersion de cette population est un impératif majeur de notre politique intérieure. La Judée, la Samarie, et la Galilée, sont les seules garanties de notre survie nationale. Si nous ne devenons pas majoritaires dans les régions montagneuses, nous risquons de connaître le sort des Croisés, qui ont perdu ce pays.
Rééquilibrer la région sur le plan démographique, stratégique et économique, doit être notre principale ambition ; ceci comporte le contrôle des ressources en eau de la région qui va de Beer Sheba à la Haute-Galilée et qui est pratiquement vide de juifs aujourd’hui. »