Discuss INU FORUM !

Un cheveu sépare le faux du vrai. Omar Khayyam

A quoi peuvent donc servir les académies? A entretenir le feu que les grands génies ont allumé. Voltaire

Il importe à l'homme supérieur que ses capacités ne soient pas limitées. Il lui importe peu qu'elles ne soient pas reconnues. Confucius

Since all human life is of undetermined but limited duration, very different lifestyles may be regarded as rational and valid. Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations

The only objective (behavioral) measure of collective happiness is the diminution of the suicide rate.                                                 INU                                                                                

A classic published by INU Press

                                          Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western
                                          by Guy Ankerl
                                          530 pp. ISBN 2881550045, $40.
                                          For detail see INU Press
                                          Order via email :  INU@INUGE.CH or 
                                          INU PRESS, case 5044, CH-1211 Genève-11

  •   Some important questions discussed in this book:
      - Are there any civilizations other than the Western one living in our so-called Global-Age?
      - "Eastern civilization"? Is the concept of East anything more than non-West? Or does there
      only exist, in reality, a distinct Chinese, Indian, Arabo-Muslim, and Western civilization?
      - Is the construction of large civilization-states such as China and India an unparalleled historical  achievement?
      - Do economic ties always eclipse other forms of affiliation such as those formed through kinship or 
        between speech communities?
      - What is the role of the "Latin" and the Jewish Peoples in our Anglo-American-lead Western world?
      - Is English today the global language or merely an international?
      - Is the Chinese thought pattern closely related to its writing system?
      - Is today's world one of (symmetrical) interdependence? Or rather one of hegemony?
      - If the so-called North-South or East-West dialogue fails in construction a universally accepted world  civilization, then what is the appropriate arrangement for reaching such a consensus within  human-kind. ?



Interuniversity Institute

CH-1211 Genève-11, case 5044 
Phone/fax: 41+22+7341718 
e-mail: INU@INUGE.CH


Hindi (devanagari)
  The Interuniversity Institute (INU) is an entirely independent, non-governmental institution founded in 1980. As the Founding Act states, it promotes the collaboration of academics with diverse backgrounds and affiliations in the field of human sciences adhering to principles of strict scientific standards.

INU endeavors to steadily enlarge the circle of people from different continents and civilizations who cooperate to realize the two major aims:

1) Freeing the human sciences from any Western-centered or other authoritarian arguments and sophism by researching and applying universally acceptable principles and methods, as it is the case in other sciences. Accordingly, the INU promotes research especially in those areas, where methods and paradigms can be developed that allow exact formulation, conceptualization in operational terms and inductive proofs. The objectives and approaches are detailed in the Founding act.

2) Contributing to the construction of a truly universal world civilization by systematic appreciation of approaches and accumulated knowledge emanating from the different living civilizations. (See Current main project.)

The field of activities includes - besides research - conference organization, lectures, documentation and publication (INU Press).

Indeed, the INU elaborates concepts and ideas, brings to light facts as well as proposes action. Although INU combats undisciplined thinking and the proliferation of information parading under the pseudonym of science, this self-imposed discipline in the creation and discovery of knowledge doesn't lead to a "weltfremd" mentality but implies a responsible approach to the solving of practical problems as perceived by individuals and communities. It also remains open to the discussion of any new ideas or findings with any group or individual independent of social status or prestige. This openmindedness, eliminating all considerations extraneous to its creative work, determines the INU's approach and spirit. The INU develops its own research program having its own priorities, disseminating the results for a broader audience, but it also serves as a clearing house for the communication of knowledge coming from others. The INU is a type of non-governmental cooperative university bringing together motivated people, a creative circle held together not by egotism but by common interests. It definitely doesn't try to perpetuate such traditional institutions as credentials and recommendations, affiliated or not, student or professor, full or associate, etc. Indeed, within the INU, dialogue is determined exclusively by complementarity and community of interest and knowledge. The INU is fundamentally against any form of self-complacency and fashionability.

Why and how to cooperate with INU?

As noted, the INU is open to the suggestions and arguments of groups and individuals from different cultural backgrounds without hierarchical considerations. It encourages, assists, and coordinates the work of individuals and groups following rigorous epistemological criteria.

In conformity with its goals the INU disseminates verified research results as well as verifiable ideas through its publications by INUPress and other modern non-conventional means - so far as these techniques are appropriate to channel scientific knowledge and do not serve as vehicles for undisciplined reflection however attractive the presentation might be.

The INU is not guided by other values than sound scholarship and scientific probity.

You can make commentaries by any of the above mentioned electronic or other means of communication. The INU replies to all inquiries.

For practical and financial reasons INUForum's "lingua franca" is English; however, as far as possible, any contributions or letters written in any other of the 6 languages of the U.N. - Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish - as well as in German - will be considered.

Feedback welcome: INU@INUGE.ch.


Dirk Pereboom:   Logique et Logistique. Une initiation. 2nd enlarged edition. ISBN 2-88155-002-9
  Apprentissage pratique des bases de la logique et de la logistique, en 233 pages assorties de nombreux exercices et leur solution.

- Guy Ankerl: Urbanization Overspeed in Tropical Africa. Facts, Societal Problems, and Policy. ISBN 2-88155-000-2

- Théopiste Butare: Secteurs traditionnel et moderne dans un processus de développement. ISBN 2-88155-003-7

- Guy Ankerl: Global Communication without Universal Civilization
  Book one:    Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations
               (Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western)
2000. XXIX+501 pp.
ISBN 2-88155-004-5 ISBN in Bookland/EAN 978 288 155 004 1.
$40 or 60 Swiss Francs.
Orders may be placed through your local bookseller or addressed directly to INU PRESS
1. case postale: 5044, CH-1211 Genève-11,
2. fax 041-22-7341718 or by
3. e-mail: INU@INUGE.CH
4. site: www.inuge.ch , or
5. via: Amazon.com.
All orders must be prepaid by the following means:
money order to PostFinance : IBAN CH05 0900 0000 1202 5493 3

I.  Communication and Civilizations                             1
The Problem, Approaches, Methods and Presentation
II. Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, Western Civilizations     49
Their Axial Institution and the Three Building-Blocks
(Shared Scripture of each one, Genetic Variation of
Breeding Communities and  Collective Self-Preservation)
III. The West as a Particular Civilization                    119
The Identity of the Western Civilization; its Parts;
Afro-Brazil Amalgam and the Anglo-American "Melting-
Pot" Paradigm
IV. Globalism                                                 245
The Globe as Anglo-American Sphere of Influence
V.  The Federative Agenda                                     339
From Hegemonic "Salvation of the Third World" to Co-
operation among Civilization-States
- Name Index with Bibliographical Reference
- Subject Index with Conceptual Cross-References


This unorthodox penetrating study exercises a fundamental criticism on the bipolarizing approach of the Western social sciences and  politics.

The "civilized West" should accept that there are not only major past civilizations but more than just one living civilization with which - at least in the foreseeable future - the West should coexist, as well as each one with each other.
Identifying these living civilizations and the problems caused mainly by the Western pretense of being a universal civilization is the main concern of this work.
This first volume outlines the Arabo-Muslim, Chinese, Indian and  Western civilizations according to their own anthropological, material and scriptural building-blocks. Because - beyond the present Western "civilization of business" - every other civilization  ranks these 3 fundamentals differently and practices a different scale of values, each also has a distinct axial institution.
Within the Western world the  interplay of the Anglo-American core, the Latin-Catholic periphery and the Diaspora is treated and contrasted with the Chinese and Indian civilization-states as well as with the countries of the Arabo-Muslim civilization brought together in the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).
In relation to the Western-inspired tendency toward globalism projected by a New-York-type cultural pattern and melting pot, the Brazilian model is also discussed as a more attractive one for the integration of the African civilization complexes.
The last, concluding part of the book introduces the second book. It proceeds with the falsification of the  Manichean formula of the Western mind set which divides the world into East-West, North-South or more precisely  into West and Non-West; consequently it looks for a valid replacement of so-called West-Third World dialogue by a round table of civilizations. Therefore the second book will design the passage from an unauthentic duologue to a  worldwide dialogue based on civilizational pluralism.

Subject index with conceptual cross-references



In English


- Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. INU Societal Research Series. Geneva: INU Press, 2000. 530 pp.

ISBN 2-88155-004-5.


Epistemological Enlightenment Centre, Khartoum 3.2007

Theology in Global Context by Neville.R.C. p.56, 2004

Xuehai, Hawai 1.2003

Etudes Internationales, 2002

British Journal of Middle East Studies,1.5 2002

Journal of Economic Literature, 2001

Amazon. Com., 2001

ACHA Bulletin, Sept. 5,2001

Urbanization Overspeed in Tropical Africa: Facts, Social Problems, and Policy.

INU Societal Research Series. Geneva: INU Press, 1986. 117 pp.

ISBN 2-88155-000-2.


Salvatore, Dominique: African Development Prospects: A Policy Modelling  Approach , p.70, 1989

The Rotarian. 5.1989

Labour, Capital and Society,1988

Contemporary Sociology, 1988

Africa News, 1988

African Urban Quarterly, 1988

The Black Scholar, 1988

Population and Development Review, 1988

The Third World Reports, 1988

Journal of Economic Literature, 1988

Population Index, 1988

Labour, Capital and Society, 1986

Budapest Reriews of Boooks,1.1992


Experimental Sociology of Architecture: A Guide to Theory, Research, and Literature. Studies in the Social Sciences Nr 36. New York – Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1981. 564 pp. ( Paperback edition1983).

ISBN 90-279-3219-0.


 Symbolic Interaction 123-55, 2.2006

Caliber 2.2006

Croome, Derek J. et al: Creating the Productive Workplace, p.66, 1999

McGuire, W.: Constructing  Social Psychology: Creative and Critical Aspects. p.105,1999

Vliet, van Willem (ed.): The Encyclopaedia of Housing. p.3,32,150, 1998

Fletcher, R et al: The Limits of Settlement Growth. New Studies in Archaeology. p.151, 1995

Sterling, Raymond L.: Underground Space Design.1993

Theory, Culture and Society,195-201,  8.1991

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1985

Contemporary Sociology, 1985

Environment and Behavior, 641-3. 1985

Canadian Journal of Sociology,476-9, 1984

Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt, 1984

Sage Urban Studies, 1984

Architectural Science Review, 1983

International Journal of Psychology, 1983

Magyar Epitömüvész, 1983

Design Book Review, 88-89, 1983

Domus, 1982

Review Journal of Social Science, 1982

Architects’ Journal, 1982


Towards a Social Contract on a Worldwide Scale. ILO Research Series Nr 47. Geneva: ILO, 1980. 50 pp.

ISBN 92-9014-165-4


World Development, 1983

Social Forces 1033, 1978


Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism: Distributive Justice in a Competitive Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1978. 117 pp. (Paper ed. 1979).

ISBN 0-87073-938-7


B. Burchell et al.: Job Insecurity & Work Intensification. P. 125. 2001

Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaften, 1990

Political Theory pp.121-4. 2.1981

ILO Review,1980

Sociologie Economique, 1979

Journal of Economic Literature, 1978


 The Relativity of Human Rights within the era of  society based on contracts between  equals.

International  Journal of Human Rights. London, sept. 2011, 14-36.

 Protection by Persuasion.

Contemporary Sociology. Washington D.C., 6.2010


Contemporary Sociology. Washington D.C., 3.2009.

 Stages of Globalization: Priority for Co-operation among Civilization-states instead of  New York-type Global Mixing of  Individuals by Migration (Dialogue among spheres of civilizations – the Key to safe future)

Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of  Global Awareness Society International. Bloomsburg University, 11.2005

 Business and Civilizations: The Basic Issues.

The Social Science Journal. Greenwich, CT., 1.1997. Pp. 1-5.  

 Post-modern Spaces and Cities. 

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 7.1996. Pp. 517-518.

 Tolerance: Variation of the Concept According to Different Civilizations.

Democracy and Tolerance. Paris UNESCO, 1995. Pp. 59-78.

The Relative Social Coherence or Connectedness in Europe given by a Preference Indicator of Telecommunication (With Dirk Pereboom).

Communications & Strategies. Montpellier, 1.1995. Pp. 117-130. and Cahiers de sociologie économique et culturelle. Univerité du Havre, 23. 6.1995, 123-134 l.

 The Native Right to Speak Hungarian in the Carpathian Basin.

The Hungarian Quarterly. Budapest, 1.1994. Pp. 7-23.

 Theses on Migration, on Society Mixed with Natives and Immigrants and on Relation between  Societies of Different Civilizations.

Europa-Ethnica.Vienna, 2.1994. Pp. 70-73.

 Mother Tongue and Others: The Use of One’s Mother Tongue in a Mixed Society.

Family, Child, Youth. Budapest, 3.1994. Pp. 11-15.

 New Orientation for  the “Contemporary Sociology”.

ASA Footnotes. Washington, D.C., 3.1994. P. 4.

 Computers in African Development. (rev.)

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 4.1993. Pp. 613-614.

 Urbanization Overspeed Reconsidered.

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 1988. Pp. 727-728.

 World Urbanization in Global Perspective. (rev.)

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 5.1987. Pp. 478-479.

Experimental Sociology of Architecture, no more and no less: A Comment.

Journal of Environmental Psychology. New-York, 1986. Pp. 86-87.

 Architectural Sociology.

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 2.1985. Pp.150-152.

 Traditional Construction and the Immediate Improvement of Tropical Africa’s Housing Conditions in the Urban Sprawls.

Actes de l’Académie Royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer. Brussels, 1984. Pp. 77-99.

Rapid Urbanization in the Third World, with Special Reference to Tropical Africa.

Labour and Society. Geneva ILO, 3.1983. Pp. 277-288.

Politics and Science.

Science. Washington, D.C., 1983. P. 604.

An Antibibliography of Book Titles Listed in Well-known Special Bibliographies and  Review Journals: A Research in Applied Epistemology. INUForum. Geneva, 1983. Pp. 1-26.

What Makes the Present Economic Trend Critical and the Economic Policy Open to Criticism in the OECD-Countries? INUForum. Geneva, 1982. Pp. 1-7.

Migration from Rural to Urban Habitat in Tropical Africa.

Mondes en Développement. Paris, 1982. Pp. 511-533.

Scientific Methods in Ethology (With Dirk Pereboom).

Science. Washington, D.C., 1974. Pp. 814-815.

From Intuitive to Formal Book Critique: A Semiotic Approach.

Heuristics. Chicago, 1.1972. Pp. 35-43

Epistemometrics: A Case Study of a Sociological Work.

Computers and Humanities. New-York, 1970. P. 1257.

Criteria for Ensuring Every Child’s Right to the National Welfare by means of the Family Allowance.

World Justive . Louvain, 1964. Pp. 435-451.





 - Urbanisation rapide en Afrique Tropicale : Faits, conséquences et politiques sociétales. Paris-Abidjan-Dakar-Lomé: Berger-Levrault & Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines, 1987. 180 p.

ISBN 2-7013-0673-6.


Population Index, 1988

Jouve, E. :Le Tiers monde. Que sais-je ? pp. 77 et 122, 1988

Afrique Contemporaine, 1987

 - Sociologues allemands : Etudes de cas en sociologie historique et non-historique avec le dictionnaire analytique de « L’éthique protestante et l’esprit du capitalisme » de Max Weber. Coll. Langages. Neuchâtel-Paris: La Baconnière-Payot, 1972. 316 p.


Moscovici, Serge etc.: The Invention of Society : Psychological Explanations  for Social Phenomena. 1999
Contemporary Sociology, 1977

Contemporary Sociology, 1976

Gazette Littéraire, 1975

Gazette Littéraire, 1974

Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions, 1973

- Communauté et Société : l’âge écologique et l’âge économique. Carnet bleu. Montréal : Les Presses Universitaires, 1970. 50 p.

- Concept de l’investissement humain comme aspect de la politique de répartition. (Thèse de doctorat). Ed. élargie : L’épanouissement de l’homme dans les perspectives de la politique économique. Coll. Internationale des Sciences Sociales et Politiques. Paris-Köln: Sirey-Westdeutscher Verlag, 1965. 266 p.



Schmollers Jahrbuch, 1969

Revue d’Economie Politique, 1968

La Pensée, 1968

Revue Française de Science Politique, 1968

Année Sociologique, 1967

Revue Economique, 1967

Les Etudes Sociales, 1967

Statistical Review, 1967

Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 1967

Neues Europa, 1967

The Economic Review, 1966

Revue Internationale du Travail, BIT, 1966

Recherches Economiques de Louvain, 1966

Population, 1966

Justice dans le monde, 1966

Archives Diplomatiques et Consulaires, 1966

Europäische Begegnung, 1966

Gazette Littéraire, 1966

Bibliographie de Philosophie, 1966




La coexistence des sphères de civilisations. De l’Etat-nation à l’Etat-civilisation.

(Essai de révision conceptuelle)

Mélanges Edmond Jouve. Paris, 2006.

Urbanisation mondiale: Un essai de synthèse des aspects démographiques, politiques, économiques et ethno-civilisationnels. 

Cahiers de sociologie économique et culturelle. Le Havre, 12.1990. Pp. 97-130.

Quelques données linguistiques sur la population indienne de l’Amérique ibéro-indienne.

Correo del Sur. Lausanne, 3.1990. Pp. 29-39 

Développement occidental, progrès sociétal et solidarité politique pour un pluralisme civilisationnel.

Mélanges. Paris, Berger-Levrault, 1988. Pp. 223-240.

Sururbanisation dans le tiers-monde ? Urbanisation rapide, problèmes et solutions.

Futuribles. Paris, 1.1984. Pp. 25-64.

Rapide urbanisation dans le tiers monde et plus particulièrement en Afrique tropicale. Répercussions sociales et perspectives.

Travail et Société, juillet 1983, 299-310 l.

Sociologie de l’espace, thème de l’architecture : Méthodes et  concepts objectifs dans les récentes recherches américaines.

Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité. Paris, 12.1973. Pp. 37-40.

L’environnement total et ses architectes.

Architecture Concept. Montréal, 1.1971. Pp. 24-26.

Face au synchronocentrisme, la sociologie est-elle l’histoire immédiate de l’ère audio-visuelle ?

European Journal of Methodology: Quality and Quantity. Bologne, 9.1971. Pp. 209-223.

Pourquoi et comment la répartition communiste est-elle dissociable de l’abondance et de la gratuité générale?

France Nouvelle. Paris, 10.1969. P. 5. 

Les critères  pour l’assurance des droits de chaque enfant au bien-être national par l’allocation familiale. (Mémoire de doctorat).

Justice dans le Monde. Louvain, 4.1964. Pp. 439-456.


Journal :

De l’Etat-nation à l’Etat-civilisation.

La Tribune. Genève, 6.6.2001.

L’unité des régions européennes n’est pas pour demain.

La Tribune. Genève, 4.3.1996.

Une Europe des cantons.

La Suisse. Genève, 17.12.1992.

Et si l’on sortait du schéma gauche-droite?

Journal de Genève. 20.6.1988.

 Mythes et réalités.

Fraternité Matin, Abidjan, 26.3.1982, 22-23 l.

Aucune trace.

La Liberté. Fribourg, 4.10.1957.

Que veut la nouvelle génération ?

La Liberté. Fribourg, 6.9.1957.



 Die besondere Bedeutung des Kinderzulagensystem für die persönliche Einkommensverteilungspolitik.

Sozialer Fortschritt. Bonn, 10.1974. Pp.236-238.


Spezifische Faktoren in stadtsoziologischen Analysen : Uberlegungen zur systematischen Analyse der Stadt als einem Netz und Struktur unmittelbarer Kommunikation.

Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Köln, 3.1974. Pp. 568-587.

Austausch und Integration.

Europäische Begegnung. Hannover, 3.1967. Pp. 130-132.




Globalizacion y globalismo.

La Provincia. Las Palmas, 1.1995.

Las Consecuencias Sociales del Creciente Poriceso de l’Urbanization.

Acts of the Second Congress of the AMS. Caracas, 1.1983.


American Men and Women of Science.  Jacques Cattell Press.

 Who’s Who in America, Marquis ed.  New Providence, NJ

Who’s Who in the World, Marquis ed. New Providence, NJ

International Who’s Who of Contemporary Achievement. ABI, Raleigh, NC

International Biographical Centre,  Men of Achievement, Cambridge, UK



What is INU?

The Interuniversity Institute (INU) advances scientific research according to universal concepts of science, without committing itself to a national school of thought or a particular ideology.

The INU primarily promotes the application and dissemination of exact knowledge in human sciences.

The INU has basically 2 functions: a critical and a creative one.

1. What is its critical function?

By analyzing postulates, premises, and basic concepts of scientific theories, the INU strives to identify and eliminate arguments implicitly or explicitly extrinsic to scientific reasoning.

The INU is independent of any authoritarian argument that might come from political authority, economic organizations, information monopolies, academic institutions, or individuals.

Within the academic community, the INU combats sophism, which by its implicit rhetoric obfuscates creative scientific research. For that purpose the INU develops and applies the methods of epistemology (e.g., practical epistemology for scientific criticism of sociological books), and the sociology of scientific knowledge.

The INU encourages all publications solely for their intrinsic scientific merit. It considers anonymous publications such as Bourbaki's, as a very appropriate way to restore scientific debate and creativity to their true concern, because anonymity prevents ad hominem arguments and the proliferation of self-serving publications.

It is clearly within the scope of the INU to consider critically the exactness of established facts in general. To benefit the everyday praxis of public life, the INU exposes abuses of semantics as well as inaccuracies in information that misrepresent the data of social reality.

2. What is its creative function?

By considering the present state of the human sciences and their position in the scientific community, the INU claims for them the same exacting stature that the others have earned for themselves. The Institute strives to conduct research according to strict scientific standards. Rather than perpetuating the ambiguous distinction between 'hard science' and ' soft science', the INU promotes research especially in those areas of the human sciences, where methods and paradigms can be developed that allow exact formulation, conceptualization in operational terms, and inductive proofs by falsification procedures (e.g., exchange, communication, and other spatio-temporal collective behaviors).

By insisting on vigorous scientific standards, the INU remains mindful of the societal purpose of knowledge, which is to enlighten and fulfill human aspirations - individual, collective, and social. Moreover, the INU's insistence on an objectivistic and experimental research strategy enhances the internal validity of findings and so prepares the ground for relevant and responsible action.

Experimentally controlled research applied to answering concrete questions also contributes to verifying the effective predictive power of science and so gives new impulses to further research.

Public and private organizations as well as individuals consult with the INU, giving advice and expert opinions based on interdisciplinary and transnational cooperation for solving technical, political or clinical problems. In order to assure the full usefulness of its recommendations, the Institute, with out necessarily agreeing with it, refers ultimately to the preference system expressed by the decision-makers themselves.

However, these preference systems are not completely out of reach of possible scientific scrutiny. The INU not only applies the science of decision-making and assists the decision-makers to reformulate their questions in scientifically operational terms, but it might also suggest categories for a discipline, called private science, in order to explicitly restructure a preference system.

INU Forum

This is an on-line publication. Articles can either be added as a new entry or replace a previous version. Thus each point in time an "up-to-date" version is delivered.

If you write us (inu@inuge.ch), we will publish your text


You learn from the INYT that president Ebessi, a former prime minister of the dictator Bel Ali is  a  "Copernican  revolutionary", the true  follower of Arab Spring.-  who  reversed the elected government of  the Islamic party Ennahda. It is an Anti-islamist pro-Zionist  restoration of the submissive dictatorship like Sisi's  did after Mubarak in Egypt. Ebessi will grant amnesty for Ben Ali. The submission of arabo-Muslim world is re-established.

"In Tunesia, the next Arab Spring" New York Times Oct.2, 1, 9.


In the same  issue of INYT  (p.9:  Devorah  Baum:  We are all Jew-ish  now") you learn even that"We are not all Jewish , but are all becoming Jew-ish." (By what?)


"Asian" triangle. 1.10.2017.

China has interest to respect India as an equal major power, - otherwise the US,  makes from India a (subordinated) military allies on the sea (and politically in Afghanistan).(Mattis visite India (Sept.31,2017).  

The West will encircle Eurasia, - and reign over the Arabo-Muslim civilizational sphere.



The editorialist of New York Times, Roger Cohen wrote (Sept.30,2017,p.9) that the expression “deutsches Volk” (German peole) should be replaced by deutsche Bevölkerung (German population), because the first  expression is nationalist.

It would be interesting to know what he means when he reads in all Zionist publications the expression: Jewish People.

 Should also be replaced by Jewish population? Or exceptionalism?

 September 16, 2017.

If Kurdistan comes, it will be first recognized by Israel,

; namely it will be its Trojan horse in the Muslim world. (See the declaration of Ajelet Saked, Israeli minister of justice.)

 August 31,2017.

In fact, since the end of the Cold War (and the Soviet-union)  Western initiative to enlarge its influence (NATO one's) created tensions and conflicts.


 Résumé 2017

1. At beginning, Israel is provided with arms mainly by help from the Zionist oligarchy in the Diaspora.

(The first credits  from US and the West had conditions.)

2. Half century ago the American oligarchy changed strategy: beside financing  Israel directly, it discovered  that a much more efficient investment would be to finance systematically congressional and presidential candidates who will be - by possible later blackmail - obliged to vote credits for Israel. This investment in the Israeli cause has a multiplied effect. This policy (of AIPAC, etc.) began with the punitive  non-reelection of  president J. Carter [1981] and George Bush [1993]  who made yet American help conditional. Meanwhile the assistance  to Israel increased constantly during the past half century.

3. In parallel, the direct engagement of the Israeli army  against the Muslim neighbors diminished, and more and more the West becomes a "proxy" for  make blood sacrifice for Israeli interests. The war against Iraq (2003) exemplifies this tendency.

4. A second  step in the charging others than Israel in its battle against the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere - which is not under Zionist influence - is the mobilization of  Sunni Muslim countries to combatting (the Shi'i) Iran in the future.

5. This military "reversion" from the Israeli army  to other armies is accompanied  by a new rhetoric too.  In the Zionist  political publications, in the press events are no more analyzed openly from viewpoint of  Israel. The Israeli interest is only implicitly expressed always as "Western  and  Israeli" interest.  (Of course, it is no possible  contraction between Western and Israeli interests, since the Western think tanks - financed largely by the Zionists  - defines  the Western interest itself  by Israel's one.)

30.7.2017. The present situation:  

President Trump is encircled by the Zionists. The so-called neoconservatives in the Congress follow AIPAC's instructions, and Trumps' son-in law,  the orthodox Zionist, Jared Kushner is now within the internal circle of the U.S. Administration. Both serve primarily Israel's interest defined by Netanyahu. The consequences are: systematic anti-Iran policy, military penetration into Syria, as well as weakening Putin's ("post-Khodorkovsky") Russia.

Iran is U.S's rival? No, it is too small to be. China is U.S.'s competitor. Iran is Israel's rival which has hegemony in the Near East.

Stephen Wertheim (King's College)  Cambridge writes (INYT June 25,17, 10):"Trump appears to be evolving into a kind of  neoconservative." Like the double citizen Charles Krauthammer..In this case the America First will be replaced by the Israel first and America second).

25.7.2017: The whole Ukraine conflict originates from the Zionist West:

McCain and co reversed in 2013 the elected Yanukovych government in order to extend NATO to the Russian border. Now  the McCain follower Volker tries to do that not de jure but de facto with arm delivery etc.

The Zionist inspired U.S. and NATO policy will install permanently military  bases in practically all (Dar al-Islam) countries with Muslim majority; they will stay in Afghanistan Iraq, Syria, Libya, Qatar, Turkey - perhaps in Pakistan. And they try to reverse the governments which resist. This generates Islamist resistance and emigration.

 The West has  also 2 very different problems with the Arabo-Muslim world:

1. The Western aggressive penetration and occupation in Muslim lands;

2. the designation of the place of immigrant Muslims in the Western societies.

        The first can be resolved by diminishing Zionist-inspired imperialism, and by this attitude the second will be  diminished too. I

As Islamism is a political  movement like Zionism, the peace between the West and the Muslim civilizational sphere should be concluded between the  the Islamists  - like the democratic movement of Muslim Brotherhood - and the NATO countries.

The Muslim immigrants` problem is a question of the application of Western norms and the toleration (limited application) of the Muslim norms in one of the same society.

  If we will a global political development, where civilizational pluralism replaces in the world the Zionist controlled American hegemony, it is necessary that China (Russia) and India cooperate - on equal footing  - with each other, and either tries to replace the Western hegemony with its own.

Saudi-Arabia as Israel ally against the Islamic Republic of  Iran? (2017)

        Since the conquest of the White House by the orthodox Zionists   - replacing the liberals - they follows in the name of  president Trump an even more aggressive strategy to assure and enlarge Israel hegemony in the Near East inspired by Netanyahu as well as by the extremist Moldovan Avigdor Lieberman.

        The goal is to accept  the illegal (see UNSC decision Dec,2017) West Bank colonization by the Arabs and the whole world. The  Palestinian issue should be put in parenthesis on the international agenda, while Israeli colonialist expansion should create the fait accompli.

         Under the previous US Administrations the West eliminated already Israel's Arabo-Muslim rivals like Iraq, Libya, and it "works" now on Syria (sending there first time even American military units ["stabilization team"] and bombarding Syria too). The Netanyahu inspired orthodox Jared Kushner - Trump main Near East totumfactum - will now mobilize the Saud-Arabia directed monarchical golf states to create a coalition against Iran, coalition in which eventually can be introduce  stealthily Israel. On this way Israel is recognized by the Arabo-Muslim world  without creating a Palestinian state.

        Saudi Arabia has been already used to demolish the Democratic Egypt in 2013 directed by the movment of the Muslim Brotherhood, - the most important Arabo-Muslim independent Muslimist (N. Cevik) political world-organization. Now the American Zionists use Saudi Arabia to isolate Qatar. Qatar is an important middleman between the yet indepedent Arabo-Muslim states (Iran) and formations (Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Hamas etc.), and the West. (Mehran Kamrava: Qatar. Small State, Big Politics.) 

        Within the Trump administration   the "unorthodox"  Rex  W. Tillerson ties to maintaining good relation with Qatar. In order to remain independent, Tillerson doesn't nominate Zionist "experts" in the State Departement like Adams or Robert Kagan. He prefers to clean his department. How long time can he resist the Zionist pressure exercised by Kushner and the whole Israeli lobby? (Sager-Harris-Landler: Discord emerges on Middle  East Policy (NYT June 28,2017. p. 1,5.)

 March 26,2017.

The American Israel Public Affair Committee (AIPAC) has its annual conference with participation of the Zionist lobby  (Israel First!): US vice-president Pence, former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, Blair former British prime minister, US deputies Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan etc

March 29,17. U.S. will diminish the UN peacekeeping force, - especially because Israel will suppress the contingent which is on Golan Heights since 1974 and Golan is now incorporated in Israel. (Nikki R. Haley US ambassador  to the UN dixit.)

March 18,2017. With the new UN secretary general, the week Antonio Guterres Israel will have more influence in the UN. Israel will not have more UN interference into  its population invasion in the West Bank and will have even more voice in the world organization activities in general. Israel is the USA's spoiled child because the overwhelming influence of the Israel lobby in the States.

Since Trump is president,  the Orthodox Zionist Jaron Greenblatt is responsible for the USA's Israel policy. Greenblatt reports to the also orthodox Zionist Jared Kushner,  and Kushner receives the instructions from the Israeli ambassador Danny Dermer.

Trump's "Iran Policy": "his director of Jewish outreach during the campagn was an Othodox Jewish immigrant from Iran, his friend, David Peyman." (NYT March 25.2017, 4)

"The world (!) fears U.S. again, thankfully" by Mark Moyar (INYT Dec.11,16)

Mr. Moyar says: "America's enemies are right to afraid."

This sound good, however follows a reversed logic.

U.S. as strong nation will be attacked by no country.

If it has enemies, it has mainly for two reasons:

        1. U.S. intervened - directly or indirectly - in foreign countries to subvert  - often democratically elected - autochthonous governments, e. g. in Ukraine and esp. Muslim counters like Egypt, Libya, Iraq etc.;

        2. under pressure of the American Zionist oligarchy it help by military, financial, diplomatic and all other means the Israeli expansion in the West bank, - without condition.

If these circumstances are suppressed the U'S, would be in security even without an army (like Costa Rica).


(11.2016) Trump: America first!

Truly not Israel first anymore?

And in the Senate with Lindsey Graham,  John McCain etc. and in spirit of bipartisanship  with Chuck Schumer?


A "maximalist" Western offer to the Palestinian poeple.

Past president Carter asks that the U.S. recognizes de jure  a Palestinian state; however "measures should  include  the demilitarization  of the Palestininan state" (in face of  an Israel armed to the teeth by the U.S.).

For the matter. this is the Western model for the relation with the independent Arabo-Muslim states in general (e.g., Iran).

(INYT  Nov.29,2016, 1,17.)


2016/17. In the White House bipartisan Zionism reigns: now is the passage from liberal (David Axelrod etc ) to orthodox Zionism. Trump is “intimately” encircled by his son-in law. Jared Kushner and his layer, Jason Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation league.

Indeed, we repeat the submission to Zionism is "bipartisan".

Kushner can have an official status  as US representative in the Palestinian tittle-tattle.

Greenblatt (with Schumer) hopes that all candidates  for the chairmanship of the Democratic Party will  make clear where they  stand on the issue viz,. affirming the unconditional support for Israel. (INYT Thanksgiving 2016, 7 and 15).


             1. July 3, 2013 the democratically elected Morsi - of the Muslim Brotherhood - as president of Egypt is reversed by a putsch orchestrated by his defense minister Sisi. US, and Israel recognize in tree days the putschist president.

            Consequently the Salafists find justification for violent political actions worldwide. (ISIS etc.)

             2. Following Western interventions the large Arabo-Muslim states like Iraq, Libya, perhaps Syria are dislocated , dismembered.


- for the West:

chaos, loss of independent partners for dialogue (remain yet Turkey, Iran as independent Muslim  states)

 -for Israel;

great advantage to ridding of their regional rivals.

           Indeed, this evaluation meets meets Israeli Oded Yinon's strategical script (written  after the war with Lebanon in 1982):

Balkanization of Near East by dismemberment of the great Muslim states into small ethno-sectarian enclaves.

 Concretely Yinon will divide

 - Lebanon into 5 parts,

- Syria into 3 (Alawi Shiites,  Sunnite Aleppo, Druze and Kurd)  

- Iraq into 3 post-Ottoman department (Basra, Bagdad, Mosul) and Kurdistan

- Libya into 3: Tripolitania (Tripoli), Cyrenaic (Benghazi), the petroleum-rich Fezzan (Sabha).



Israel Shahask: Stratégie pour Israel dans  les années 80.

In: Orientation (Kivim) no 14,February 1982

 Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yinon revanche? A panoramic of chaos in the Arab World.

In: Strategic Culture Foundation. 25.8.2013.

Oded Yinon: A strategy for Israel in the Niteen Eities. Arab-American University Graduates Inc. Delmont , Mass. 1982. Special Document no .1. ISBN 0-937694-56-8.


Yinon idea quoted by Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times. (24.6.2013. and 6.4.2017,9; “partition of Syria and the creation of a primarily Sunni protected area -. protected by international force, including USA troops.”)


World power equilibrium yesterday and today.

Yesterday: Soviet Union was much stronger than Russia is today, but at this time Soviet Union and China were in conflict not like today.


2016 In foreign policy the two US presidential candidates have only one question to answer:

Who does serve better Zionist interest?


Dynamiques contemporainses de l'Islam politique au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique du Nord

FSPI 3.9.2016

Contribution de Guy Ankerl

Evénements géopolitiques fondamentaux dans le monde arabo-musulman:

 1. renversement putschiste du président islamiste Morsi, démocratiquement élu  de l'Egypte.

            avec comme conséquence le renforcement des mouvements violents salafistes,

 2. démembrements, dislocation des grands Etats

            comme l'Iraq, l'Lybie et la Syrie.


 - pour l'Occident: chaos, perte de partenaire de dialogue (encore actuellement Turquie, Iran)

 - grand avantage pour Israël: débarrasser de ses grands rivaux.

  Ceci corresponds au script du plan stratégique de Oded Yinon (guerre du Leban  1982):

Balkanisation du Proche-Orient par démembrement des grands Etats Musulmans

en entité ethno-sectaire.

 La proposition concrète d?Oded Yinon:

 -Liban en 5 parties,

 - Syrie en 3 : Alawi shiite, Alep sunnite, (druze ou kurde)

 -Irak en 3 départements "post-ottomans" (Basra, Bagdad, Mosul) et Kurdistan

 -Libye en 3 régions: Tripolitaine (Tripoli), Cyrénaïque (Benghazi) et pétrolifère Fezzan (Sabha).



 Israël Shahak: Stratégie pour Israël dans les années 80. In: Orientations (Kivnim) no 14,

 févr. 1982

 Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yinon  revanche?  A panoramique of chaos in the Arab World.

In: Strategic Culture Foundation  25.8.9013.

 (L'idée est repris  par Thomas L. Friedman 24.6.13.. NYT.)


(New) NEW YORK TIMES Oct.2016

Roger Cohen is the smartest Zionist in the NYT:

he fight now ( before he was for [J-Street and 2 states solution] for one-state Palestine (=Israel) and  looks for politically submissive Arabs like Reem  Younis. ("Why Israel refuse  to choose" (NYT Oct 29,16  cf  From suicide bomber to fighter for peace NYT Nov.1,16).

Roger Cohen quote Moshe Dayan:

Our American friends offer us money, arms and advice. We take the money, we take the arms and we decline the advice

Yet it's uncertain (?) if  the U.S. is prepared  to calibrate its ironclad support in order to pressure Israel into change."

Roger Cohen knows why: because the ironclad blackmail of the Zionist oligarchy.

Curious Zionist control within (!) the US administration: (INYT Sept.6,16, p.8): "51 state Department employees (!) .. signed  a 'dissent channel' memo on Syria, have pressed privately (!)  for the US for carry out airstrike to hit Mr. Assad's plans..."


The INYT ( Aug29,16) based on  the Russian Renegade's, Gleb Pavlovsky's declarations blames the Margarita Simonyan directed station Russia Today (RT) with systematic disinformation.

            Anyway, if you will have balanced information, it is better to follow CNN AND RT and not only CNN

not only CNN.


(2016) The putch against Erdogan has Zionist origin like the Putch against Morsi in Egypt had.


VULNERABILITY  in international politics.

Nuclear vulnerability of both(!) sides guaranteed peace until 2000.

If NATO looks for one-sided invulnerability, it does  since it looks for hegemony.

Cf., International Newe York Times (June 17,2916): .."NATO looks vulnerable.." by D E Sanger.


-        Muslim countries like to be independent from the West and other civilizational  areas (like China).

-        If  there are free election, in most - if not all – Muslim countries the majority vote for Islamic parties.

-        This was the case in Algeria (90s), in Egypt, in Tunisia, Libya etc.

-        However, the West hindered these democratic processes by military coup (e.g., in the key coutry Egypt) and other  - indirect – maneuvers or illegal interventions.

-        This is the main reason that the Muslims use violence for reestablishing their sphere’s independence.


"Why terrorists commit terrorism?" Peter Bergen  INYT (=International New York Times) June 16,16. p8.

 No Muslim is born as "terrorist". The situation creates terrorism, people are radicalized. Why?

Muslims in general  became open to Salafist violent tactic after (!) the Western governments under Zionist pressure overthrow the elected Islamist government of Egypt.

 Peter Bergen  also recognizes in his article that the raison of terrorist acts is:

"dislike  of American foreign policy",

"oppositon to the American foreign policy" and

"objection to the American foreign policy".

Therefore the solution of terrorism problem in the West is not an issue of police but a policy, namely the liberation of the Western policy from one-sided Zionist influence.

Indeed, Islamism is the political Islam, while Zionism the political Judaism, Both concepts include more then one (strategical) tendencies, namely democratic as well violent one.

(See also Muslamism in Turkey and Beyond. Religion in Modern World. By Neslihan Cevik New York; mcMillan, 2015 Jeffrey Guhin in Contemporaty Sociology May 2017,297-8.)


TUNESIA's “new revolution” is - according  to H. Ibish  of the Washington's Arab Gulf States Institute, - post-Islamist. (INYT June 3,2016, p.6) This so-called “post-islamist new revolution" is as Sisi's in Egypt rather a restauration of  Western hegemony. The West intimidated the old  Ghannouchi to distance himself from the political and democratic islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

The West dreams about an emasculated Islamism subordinated to Zionism like Sisi in Egypt.

But in fact, the Christian  Europeans' dream is post-Zionism!


We can foresee (!)  the handling of each country by the Western mass media:

If the influence of Zionist plutocracy increases there, the handling  will be better; in other cases worse.

            Indeed, in Jun 2016 Brazil's, Argentina's image became better because the regime change.

            Turkey's, Venezuela's, Equator's, Bolivia's, Iran's. Russia's are the worst.

since their goverments are presently not directly under Zionist influence.


The Zionists don't accept an independent Muslim state in Israel's neighborhood. After annihilating by US assistance Iraq, Libya - and by military coup Egypt - they try Syria too.

And Netanyahu's Zionists didn't arrive to prevent the Iran-West agreement, now they try to make its realization impossible by maintaining U.S. sanctions.

(E. A. Cohen, E.S. Edelman and R. Trakeyh: Time to get tough on Iran. In: Foreign Affairs, Febr.2016. Roger Cohen: U.S. policy puts Iran deal at risk. INYT May 7,16, 9) 



"Turkish model' under fire" by Mustafa Akyol (INYT May6,16, 9).

          The Western image of Erdogan  was until 2010 positive.

Why did it change?

In this year Erdogan had a conflict with Netanyahu about the Gaza help action.

          According  to Akyol Rachid  Ghannouchi and its Islamist Ennahda Party is the example how the Islamists should cooperate with the West.


Ghannouchi subordinated himself and his party to Western instructions. The West doesn't accept that an Islamist movement with its majority leads even a Muslim country (cf Morsi).


Defense against invasion by soft power:

          INYT April 29 and 30: "China places strict control on groups from abroad. U.S. faults Chinese law on NGOs from aboard"

          Is this an expression of the dictatorship of an authoritarian non-democratic state?

          No, "powerful natons, including Russia and even India (! the world largest democracy) are cracking down on (foreign!) nongovernmental organizations." (INYT May 2,16,8)

         There aren't in the U.S. itself laws which prescribe registration for foreign nongovernmental organizations? (Double standard!)


11.2016 The new U.S. president, Trump  represents a passage from the neo-liberal Zionist influence to an orthodox-conservative Zionist by the Orthodox son in-law Jared Kushner and Trump's layer, Jason Greenblatt. Ambassador for Israel David M. Friedman.

Mr. Trump is urging  Kushner, his-son-law (since 2009 when Kushner converted Ivanka to Judaism) to join him in the White House. Trump's sentiment is shared by  Stephen K. Bannon; therefore Ron  Dermer - speaking with Trump - could absolve Bannon from the deadly label to be an  anti-Semite. (INYT Nov.18,2016).


(Stephen Castle, INYT April 29,2016, p.3 )

British Zionist supervision of Labour Party:

Since Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of British Labour Party the party is no more unanimously subordinated to the Zionist cause. Its big sponsor, David Abrahmans, Executive in the Channel Four - and former founder (with the BBC World and Virgin) of the UKTV - complaint in the Jewish News that the deputy Naseem Shah "endorsed a Facebook post displaying a graphic  that showed Israel's outline  superposed  on a map of the U.S."

Jeremy Corbyn is not a Zionist like the Biliband brothers, he is facing revolt (INYT June27,2016,1)


          The INYT (May 2,16,3) announces that the Labor candidate in the mayoral race in London, Mr. Khan former transport minister is an observant Muslim, however the other candidate, Mr. Goldsmith's religious belonging is not indicated in the article. Why?


April 26,2016:

The expansion of American military engagement is for hindering the enlargement of the Syrian government's influence,  and not in relation with the Islamic State. The pro-Zionist lobby tries for a long period of time to involve the US against Syria as it did in the case of  Israel's all rivals like Iraq and Libya. It also will the prolongation of  the occupation  of  Golan highs. Indeed, Syria has now a chance to win the internationalized civil war with Russian assistance.  By this American involvement the number of victims in Syria will increase.


Apropos: Impeachment in Brasilia 18.4.2016

Members of Congress explained their decisions as they voted for impeachment: They voted 'for peace in Jerusalem for the truckers 'for the FreeMasons of Brazil'”.. (INYT, April 21,2016).

March 29.23016. The Zionists try to reverse the Brazilian government, since it  doesn't agreed to the nomination of DANI DAYAN as Israel's ambassador who were chef of the Yesha Council, the umbrella organization of  the  West Bank settlers. (al Jazeera).

*Anti-Semitism as an Zionist apologetic.

          If all individuals  born from Jewish mother are

(a) Israelites,  now as well as

(b) automatically potential Citizen of the State of Israel, and

(c) if they also have an other citizenship,

they have a problem of double (divided) loyalty.

If in case of  conflict of interest, they opt for Israeli priority as the Zionism dictates,

and  they don't immigrate to Israel (Aliyah) but remain in diaspora,

they are exposed to anti-Zionist campaign, what will be called falsely by Israel apologists  (see Anti-Defamation League) as anti Semitism used for penal prosecution (inquisition in the West). However, it is self-inflicted anti-Semitism.

          Consequently, If  in 2016 the Anti-Defamation League or other organization will diminish the antisemitism,

(a) they should protest by the Israeli Government against the West Bank settlement policy or

(b) request the Diaspora to be first loyal to his birth-country's interest.


"U.S. offers $ 38 billion in military aid to Israel"

by Peter Baker and Julie Hirschfeld Davis (INYT Sept.15,16).

(Meanwhile) U.S. was effectively subsidizing regularly criticized

 Israeli settlements operation in the West Bank.

INU condemns all forms of anti-Semitism,  but it discusses often Zionism, the political Judaism  (cf. the Islamism as  the political Islam).

Indeed, the Zionism became  -  esp. since the non reelection of President Carter (1981)  -  a prevailing factor in the Western foreign policy; and on the other hand  the subject became in the mainstream thought (Think tanks)  and  mass media a taboo protected by censorship (e.g. France).

Israel, viz. the world Zionism exercises its power mainly by its Western diaspora, the Zionist oligarchy.

1. It finances the main think tanks in order to substitute Israeli interest for Western one (e.g. WINEP).

2 It finances the (re)election of the political decision makers (also by AIPAC), and finally,

3. by financing and controlling the mass media it exercises a censorship on the communication between the decision makers  and  the people.

 Therefore, it is not a hazard  that  the USA worked to overthrow the Brazilian president who refused to accept Dani Dayan  - who comes from the Occupied Territories - as Israeli ambassador;

it also is not a hazard  that Venezuela has a bad image in the press, Israel has not an ambassador in Caracas any more;

it is not a hazard  that Erdogan has a bad press too, since he has a bad relation with Netanyahu.

          The only question remain open in 2016:

why doesn't Obama - without possibility  to be reelected -  force an independent US policy, and  accepts  personal and national humiliation from Israel.

And in 2016, of course, all the US presidential candidates are Zionist.

Only   Sanders  refused to go for audition of the AIPAC.

A hero? No, he is Jew and doesn^t need a declaration of loyalty to Zionism


Basic dilemma of Europe:

The Western civilization

- either will pretend to be universal one and therefore must admit the Muslim and other costums in public life,

- or it will stay as a particular civilisational sphere with mainly Christian tradition, and in this  case it can ask immigrants to accommodate.


"The next chapter for Ukraine”  after the Zionist putsch (of Yatsenyuk, Proshenko, Groysman). See the global Zionist front:

"The Ukrainians who demonstrated against corruption remain an active force through civic organizations. One of  their is, Mikhail Saakashvili, the former president  of Georgia (!), who was brought  in by Porosheno as governor of Odessa.."

INYT April 16,16, p.8.


New York Times' Zionist prpaganda. Title of an article:

 "A Brussels mentor who spread 'gangstar Islam'"

INYT  April 12,2016, p.4

INYT April 9-10 and 11. 2016: Muslim Radicalization

But why?

The democratically elected Islamist president of Egypt had been overthrow by a military putsch accepted – and even assisted – by the Zionist USA. Now the Salafists find justification for their violent policy.

"Faulting Belgium, not Islam."Yves Goldstein, chef of staff for the minister-president of  Brussels Capital Region will explain on the German Marshall Funds meeting in Brussels why the young Muslims can't find their identity in "our society". INYT Apr.8,2016 p.2)

Why? Indeed, the Belgian government as the other Western government accepts de facto the expansion of  Israel and participates  in the bombing of various territories with Muslim majority (by an obscure international coalition), like Israel did in Gaza.


Typical imperialism is  to control relation among other  countries.

Indeed, the policy institution of  China and Latin America  program at Inter-American  Dialogue is in Washington (!) directed by Margaret Myers. (INYT April 5,2016,p10.)


The Zionist campaign against (Erdogan's - Morsi's friend) Turkey's  NATO membership goes on, - as did the camaign against Morsi in January 2013, - meanwhile the the Palestinian-Israeli “peace process” should be oblitered.

In the campaign against Erdogan the apostat clerk, Fethullah Gulen (living in the U.S.) does participate too. (INYT , March 31, 9 Thomas L. Friedman and INYT March 9.16. INYT March 30,2016).

Indeed, the Zionists'  objective is to throw out Turkey from the NATO, (INYT  March30,2016,7 [“Does  Turkey still belong in NATO?” INYT March30,16]. Turkey hinders that, in long view, Israel enters the NATO.

Meanwhile, as we said already, the campaign against Erdogan goes on since 2010, when Israel attaqued the Turkish Ship sent to Gaza.

* * *

 In the US the Zionist control is stronger in the Treasury and Defense Departments than in the State departement, - because the financial and military blackmails are more effective means than the rhetorical and diplomatico-legal.



New Studies 2017.

  1. The West, and the confrontation between Islamism, the political Islam and the Zionism, the political Judaism.

  2. The financing of  (so-called) independent think-tanks and the distinction between US and Israeli interest.

June 28, 2014.Netanyahu at  INSS think-tank in Tel Aviv told:

Obama should find(!) one(!)  think-tank in the States which is ready to distinguish between USA and Israeli interests.”

Per definitionem, American and Israeli interests can't clash, sdince US interest is defined by WINEP and other Zionist think tanks

           Indeed, there are Zionist control of the US foreign policy on 3 levels:

1.     The epistemological: by financing the prominent think tanks advising the government, in order that the definition of American interest follows Israel’s.

2.     The real political: the Zionist oligarchy finances the candidates’ campaign for (re)election.

3. The same plutocracy controll the media and therefore all the communication between the poltical decisionmakers and the people.

Ad 1.Literature about the financing of  US think tanks:

Thomas Medvetz  wrote a book about  Think Tanks in America (324 pp .Chicago UP, 2010; CS July 2014,558). He criticizes their financing which according to him comes from the Right and brings biased views. He doesn’t  show however that for the mainstream foreign policy think tanks  the main variable is not Right or Left, Republican or Democrat. Largely the bipartisan Zionist – or called also neoconservative - lobby supports them (Cf. in the USA well known so-called [neo]conservative institutions;   WINEP [Washington  Institute  for Near East Policy], JINSA [Jewish Institute  for National (!) Security Affairs], MEF [Middle East Forum], PNAC [Project for a New American Century], AEI [American Enterprise Institute, CSP [Center for Security Policy], HUDSON Institute, Heritage Foundation, FDD [Foundation for Defense of  Democracies], FPRI [Foreign Policy Research Institute], IFPA [Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis], Haim Saban Center at Brookings  Institution; for the personal interconnectedness and the media connection These institutions are funded and run  by individuals  who are deeply committed to advancing  Israel’s agenda.” (Cf. Mearsheimer-Walt 131 .) However, in the current literature about think tanks the Zionist connection is rarely identified. Mearsheimer and Walt’s work is a rare exception, but their work is not specially concentrated to the issue of think tanks (175-6, 131, 117). This statement is valid roughly for the whole special literature because the most authors themselves are engaged Zionists.


 Abelson, D. E. 2002. Do think tanks matter? Montreal Ithaca, N.Y.: McGill-Queen's University Press.

---. 2004. The business of Ideas: the think tank industry in the USA. In Think Tank Traditions, Policy research

and the politics of ideas., eds. D. Stone & A. Denham. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

---. 2006. A capitol idea: think tanks and US foreign policy. Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Adler, E. & P. M. Haas (1992) Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a

reflective research program. International Organisation, 46, 367-390.

Bentham, J. (2006) The IPPR and Demos: Think Tanks of the New Social Democracy. The Political Quarterly, 77, 166-174.

BEPA. 2012. European think tanks and the EU. In Berlaymont Papers, eds. A. Misiroli & I. Ioannides.

Bertelli, A. M. & J. B. Wenger (2009) Demanding Information: Think Tanks and the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 225-242.

Braml, J. (2006) U.S. and German Think Tanks in Comparative Perspective. German Policy Studies, 3, 222-267.

Dickson, P. 1972. Think tanks. New York: Ballatine.

Fischer, F. 1990. Technology and the Politics of Expertise. United States: Sage.

---. 2003. Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gaffney, J. (1991) The political think-tanks in the UK and the ministerial cabinets in France. West European Politics, 1, 1-17.

Haas, P. M. (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46, 1-35.

Hajer, M. A. 1993. Discourse Coalitions. The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain. In The Argumentative Turn in

Policy and Planning, eds. F. Fischer & J. Forester, 43-76. London: University College Press.

Jochem, S. & A. Vatter (2006) Introduction: Think Tanks in Austria, Switzerland and Germany - A

Recalibration of Corporatist Policy Making? German Policy Studies, 3, 139-152.

Kelstrop Jesper Dahl : Four Think Tank Perspectives. (Doctioral thesis.)

McGann et al., J. G. 2012. Global Go-To Think Tank Index 2011. University of Pennsylvania: Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania.

McGann, J. G. (2010) The Fifth Estate: Think Tanks and American Foreign Policy. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 11, 35-42.

Mcgann, J. G. & R. Sabatini. 2011. Global think tanks: policy networks and governance. New York:


McGann, J. G. & R. K. Weaver. 2000. Think tanks and civil societies: catalysts for ideas and action. 617 s.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

---. 2002. Think tanks and civil societies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

---. 2005. Think tanks and civil societies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Medvetz, T. 2008. Think Tanks as an Emergent Field. The Social Science Research Council.

--- (2010) 'Public Policy is Like Having a Vaudeville Act': Languages of Duty and Difference among Think Tank-Affiliated Experts. Qual Sociol.

Osborne, T. (2004) On Mediators: Intellectuals and the Ideas Trade in the Knowledge Society. Economy and Society, 430-447.

Pautz, H. (2010) Think Tanks in the United Kingdom and Germany: Actors in the Modernisation of Social

Democracy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 12, 274-294.

--- (2011) Revisiting the think-tank phenomenon. Public Policy and Administration, 26, 419-435.

---. 2012. Think-Tanks, Social Democracy and Social Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.

Plehwe, D. 2008. Forging a neoliberal knowledge elite (perspective) and restricted pluralism: The history of the Mont Pèlerin Society networks of intellectuals and think tanks. New York: Social Science Research Council.10

---. 2010. Paying the Piper - think tanks and lobbying. In Bursting the Brussels Bubble.The battle to expose corporate lobbying at the heart of the EU. Brussels: ALTER-EU.

Rich, A. 2004. Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sabatier, P. & H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy change and learning. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Schmidt, V. 2011. Discursive institutionalism: Scope, Dynamics and Philosophical Underpinnings. In The Argumentative Turn Revised: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, eds. F. Fischer & J. Forester.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Shoup L.: Wall Street's Think Tank. The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics. 1976-2014. Monthly Review Press, New York, 2015.

Smith, J. A. 1991. The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New York: The Free Press.

Stone, D. 1996. Capturing the Political Imagination. Think Tanks and the Policy Process. London: Frank Cass.

--- (2001) Think Tanks, Global Lesson-Drawing and Networking Social Policy Ideas. Global Social Policy, 1, 338-360.

--- (2007) Recycling Bins, Garbage Cans or Think Tanks? Three Myths Regarding Policy Analysis Institutes. Public Administration, 85, 259-278.

Stone, D., Denham & Garnet. 1998. Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

Stone, D. & A. Denham. 2004. Think Tank Traditions - Policy research and the politics of ideas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Thunert, M. W. (2000) Players Beyond Borders? Think Tanks as Catalysts of Internationalisation. Global Society, 14, 191-212.

--- (2004) Think tanks in Germany. Society Abroad, 41, 66-69.

--- (2006) The Development and Significance of Think Tanks in Germany. German Policy Studies, 3, 185-221.

Ullrich, H. 2004. European Union think tanks: generating ideas, analysis and debate. In Think tank

traditions. Policy research and the politics of ideas., eds. D. Stone & A. Denham. Manchester and

New York: Manchester University Press.

Weaver, K. R. (1989) The Changing World of Think Tanks. PS: Political Science and Politics, 563-78.

Wells, P. (2011) Prescriptions for Regional Economic Dilemmas: Understanding the Role of Think Tanks in the Governance of Regional Policy. Public Administration, 90, 211-229.

Xufeng, Z. (2009) The Influence of Think Tanks in the Chinese Policy Process: Different Ways and

Mechanisms. Asian Survey, 49, 333-357

Soehnchen Stefan: Politikberatungistitute in Israel und deren Einfluss uaf die Nahostpolitik. In Orinet 41(2000)1, 39-63 (Uber Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Begin-Sadat Cneter for Strategic Studies; Harry S Truman Research Insitute for Advancement of Peace; Mosghe Dayan enter for Middle Eastern nad African Studies; Leonard Davis Insitute for Internationa relations .

W. Reinicke: Lotsendienste für Politik: Think Tanks..Güterloh: Bertelsmann, 1996.

W. Gellner: Ideenagenturen für Politik und Öffentlichkeit: Opladen, Westdeutscher Vlg. 1995.


  ad 1.


  The West’s, the “NATO-world's" agenda  is subordinated to the Israeli interest (especially the US’s)


The Western politics is formulated by think tanks financed by the Zionist oligarchy which defines US interest itself in function of Israel’s. (In the USA the most well known [neo]conservative institutions are the folloing:   WINEP [Washington  Institute  for Near East Policy], JINSA [Jewish Institute  for National (!) Security Affairs], MEF [Middle East Forum], PNAC [Project for a New American Century], AEI [American Enterprise Institute, CSP [Center for Security Policy], HUDSON Institute, Heritage Foundation, FDD [Foundation for Defense of  Democracies], FPRI [Foreign Policy Research Institute], IFPA [Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis], Haim Saban Center at Brookings  Institution. (For the personal interconnectedness and the media connection  see Mearsheimer and Walt [131].)

On this basis the American interest coincides with Israel’s eo ipso, since the American interest is defined by American Zionists.

Foreign governments - democratically elected or not  - are backed, legitimized by the USA as far as  the Zionist influence is strong in them. Others are even exposed to subversion, to the “regime change agenda”. (That concerns today among others Russia, Belarus,Turkey, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia.  For subversive strategy see e.g. Michael McFaul; colonel Robert Helvey, Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy; A Conceptual Framwork for Liberation; Profil Books, London, 2012. for historics Stephen Kinzer. )

[The Helms-Burton Act of  1996  (against Cuba) show in general how the USA (using  USAID too) tries to reverse goverments which don’t follow its instructions. (INYT Nov.11,14, 6)]

Because the geographical situation of expansive Israel, the West can’t cooperate and even accept sovereign Islamist states.  The Zionist paradigm for the cooperation with the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere is the submission of the occupied Palestine.

In the Arabic core state, Egypt, following Western inspiration (2012/13) Sisi subverted the democratically elected Morsi regime (2013) because its independent anti-Zionist tendency.

In general, according to the Zionist policy no truly independent Arabic state should be stronger in Middle East than the nuclear power Israel. Syria, Iraq should be break up in micro-states (Oded Yinon Plan of 1982; Jeffrey Goldberg).

As a rule, the West  tries to disqualify as  chaotic, disordered and even illegitimate all countries, geopolitical regions which are outside the Zionist influence, - without distinction such as China, Russia. (Thomas L. Friedman’s opinion expressed in the New York Times [Order vs. Disorder 1-4. July 15,2014, etc] is Israel centric worldview.)




Plus de 2000 morts à Gaza! Conséquence pour Israël: 0.)


Les attentats islamistes ne peuvent être éliminés qu'en supprimant les motifs.

Or, les motifs sont géopolitiques.

La politique occidentale est sousmise à l'intérêt sioniste.

Elle a démoli tous les Etats concurrents de l' hégémonie d'Israël:

 Iraq,  Syrie, Lybie, Egypte démocratique de Morsi.

L'Occident veut une relation de soumission avec le monde arabo-musulman, à l'exemple de la relation entre Israël et les palestiniens.

Sans justice il n'y aura jamais de  paix.

2016 Geopolitics today in short:

The global influence of the US is overwhelming but not without limit (China).

However, thanks to the influence of the Zionist oligarchy in the West,  the “American and Western interests” follow the Zionist one (called by code Neocon, hawks, etc).

Every country has positive or negative image in the global media according to its degree of submission to  Zionist influence (Negative for example: Turkey, Russia).

Therefore without deep understanding of the international Zionist factor, geopolitical analysis can’t have validity. 

(Remark for the Vatican:) The opposition between the arabo-muslim world  and the Western one - largely under Zionist influence - is not an issue

--of blind violence and hate          

            but of power and (in)justice.

Explanation of the  present chaos in the arab-muslim geopolitical sphere

It is a fact that any democratic election in the Muslim world brings an Islamist majority (Algeria [1990], Egypt, Libya, Tunisia).

Yet the West can’t support, acquiesce this historical fact.

Therefore it tries to reverse the political situation  by coup d’Etat (Egypt).

As a result, the Muslim world learns that it can’t have independent power by democratic means.

This is the reason for present violence.

Meanwhile, the West remains without legitimate Muslim political representation to solve the conflict with dialogue.

 Consequence is that by the – neo-colonialist, neo-crusadist, neo-conservative - anti-Islamist mobilization of the West, it looses its energy in  endless battle for Israel’s regional hegemony instead of concentration for a competition with China. 

Summa summarum:

Basic world problem:

The American Zionist oligarchy by financing the prominent American think tanks assures that the US interest is defined  by Israel’s one, and on the other hand by financing – and helping by the media – their candidates in election campaign, it assures that anyway in political action US interest can’t prevail over Israel’s

February 28,2016

The destruction and dissolution of  stable  non-Zionist  countries like Syria, Libya, Libya and Iraq - as well as Sisi's anti-democratic putch in Egypt - serves the interest of Zionists.



 Dictionary for Western newsmen:

La démocratie occidentale:

-L'éligibilité est de facto déterminée financièrement par l'oligarchie.

-Donc les votants ont un choix restreint. Et car d'être élu ne nécessite pas un minimum de nombre de votant  (quorum), ça arrange les réélection pour les candidats de l'oligarchie. Ainsi  certaines opinions ne peuvent pas arriver à un expression politique.

-En plus, grâce au remplacement des votes populaires par "l'opinion publique" des sondages payés (sur les questions arbitrairement choisies) par les media - qui financent, - la démocratie oligarchique est  "bouclée".  

Neither the G7 nor NATO (nor Obama+Merkel+Hollande) could be called “the international community”.

The international Community is the UN General Assemble or its Security Council.

A new US world policy tries to extend its jurisdiction beyond its national borders

Instead of using the principles of international public law, - e.g., declaration of war - the USA tries to obtain satisfaction for its goals by targeting individuals, targeting  by drone attack (in Pakistan), or by blacklisting (concerning Russia). Beside the CIA, the FBI itself becomes an important instrument of foreign policy.

This new perspective (used again Russia and Muslim states) implies that the USA considers the whole world  under its jurisdiction.

(However, in term of efficacy, this strategy overestimates the (targeted) individuals' influence in international policy.)


Dimensions and terminology for analysis of  the Middle East conflicts and other intercivilizational conflicts:

Xenophobia is not identical with racism or supremacism.

Anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or anti-Islam propaganda can be condemned as blasphemy, or hate speech, but Islamism ( the political Islam) and Zionism (the political Judaism) are ideologically inspired political movement and the right to their criticism belong to the right to freedom of  speech.

Understood  that Zionism and Islamism are political movements. Concerning the means, in both are democrats and violent tendencies.   


The coexistence between the  autochthonous Westerns population and the Muslim immigrants is a problem, ans should eb solved by the acceptance of the life style and norms of the autochthon ous Western population.

But the imposition of  Western power and norms on countries with Muslim majority (Dar el-Islam) is an aggression.


The islamophobic Zionist propaganda tries to confuse two different problems:

- (1) the desirability the immigration of  large Muslim population into the West and

- (2) the respectful  coexistence between the Western countries and  the independent Dar al-Islam.

          However, you can agree with the second without agreeing with the first.

..The West is today politically subordinated to Zionism, while  in  case of free election, in Muslim countries the majority vote for Islamis


Translate mainstream press:

"populist" means "population", "political elite" means "establishment submitted to Zionist oligarchy".



1.If a country condemns a military coup which doesn’t serve its interest, and in contrary it doesn’t condemn another which serves its geopolitical interest (e.g. USA in relation to the coup in Egypt or Ukraine);
2. if an international organization like UNSC condemns a country’s action but doesn’t prescribe sanction (e.g. counter Israel) and again in other similar cases they prescribe sanctions (e.g. Iran).
(See the issue of nuclear arms in Near East.)

Double standard on terrorist organizations

The EU and USA dressed an official list of terrorist organizations:

Most Muslim organizations, even charitable ones are listed. But often violent - extremist organizations - like the Israeli Honenu and Price Tag - didn’t figure on this list.  In the Western media the term “terrorism” became a synonym to Islamism. (See Anshel Pfeiffer’s articles in Haaretz and S. Erlander: Extremism leads Israelis to look within INYT July 11,2014)

 In the core country of the Arabic geopolitical sphere, Egypt, the democratically elected president Morsi has been overthrow in 2013. This has been prepared already in 2012 outside Egypt, when Kirkpatrick David D. attacked Morsi as anti-Zionist (IHT 16.1.2014/17.1.14).
Domino-effect follows (Tunisia, Libya),  since – as already nted - it is for the Western world unacceptable that the majority choice an Islamist government.

Israel isn't perturbed by “The Middle East meltdown” (cf. R. Dothat INYT, June 16,14) since it will create “micro-states” (Jeffrey Goldberg), smaller than Israel (David D. Kirkpatrick INYT June 19,14; ).

  Th US  isprofoundly troubled’ by brutal beating of Palestine teen who turned out to be American ? No problem, Israel doesn’t risk American sanction like Muslim countries. Obama hasn’t the sufficient independence from the American Israeli lobby and  the Zionist oligarchy for that. This the basic world problem!

June 28, 2014.Netanyahu at Tel Aviv INSS think-tank told:

Obama should find(!) one(!)  think-tank in the States which is ready to distinguish between USA and Israeli interest.”

(Per definitionem, in Washington the WINEP can’t, since it defines American interest by Israel’s.)

See again WINEP follows Netanyahu’s position on Kurdish independence too. (INYT July 5, 14, p.5)

 The international Organization of  Islamic Conference changed its name in 2011 into ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION (OIC).  It is "the collective voice of the  Muslim World" and works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.”

What did the Organization fo Islamic Cooperation concretely (!) to solve the bloody conflict in Iraq (and Syria) and to establish within the “Umma” - if not a effective  cooperation but at least - a peaceful coexistence?

 The idea of Brothers Defence Alliance between Turkey, Pakistan and Iran (2014) goes back to former  Turkish prime minister Necmettim Erbakan’s proposal  for a pan-Islamic  NATO of 8 countries in 1995 (with reference to Jama al-Din-Afgani (1838-97).

 INTERNATIONAl LEGAL ORDER. The Soviet power was accused of subversive activities. Now the situation is reversed: the so-called «Western democratic nations» reverting all regimes of which don't follow its dictate. Indeed, the West helped to overthrow representative (!) democratic regimes like Egypt, Ukraine. They also try to do in Venezuela, Libya (and even in Russia).  They use the social media based in USA for inducing  crowding. They follows Nye’s soft power theory.

Soft power.

Indeed even Pew and other so-called “non-partisan data tanks”  try to “eclipse “ democratic vote results by - so-called global and other  - public opinion polls based on dubious samplings and ambiguous questionaries in order to legitimate coup d’Etat (in Ukraine [2013-4], Egypt [2012].

 In order to prevent the (re)election of non popular candidates, they should introduce a quorum, a minimal number  of votes to be elected.

 The Neocon – and neocolonialists - will have – or maintain (?) – world hegemony. The only hope to preserve civilizational  pluralism by geopolitical equilibrium,  comes from an active and effective cooperation between Russia and China (and the BRIC).

(Guy Ankerl: Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations.  ISBN  2881550045).

 The Soviet Union and Bolshevik danger are finished. Against which geopolitical enemy is necessary to have a special North-Atlantic Alliances? Russia or the  Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere? No one of them threaten any  NATO member-state.

Interestigly, the US refused to Germany – and other non-Anglo-Saxon allies – to be integrated into the so-called “Five Eyes” convention  of the Anglo-Saxon powers. (See Atlantic Charter of August 1941) (INYT July 12,2014)

   D.E. Sanger: Nuclear deal is elusive as (local?) opposition at home (!) ties(!) negotiators’ hand  INYT July 14,14).

Does come the opposition from the American opposition party, the Republican?

No expressly, the opposition is bipartisan. The party affiliation is not a main parameter in issues concerning Israel interest.

Many member s of the Congress in Washington would like to see this whole effort collapse.”

Is this perhaps Netanyahu’s position?

No, no, it is the position  of the American Democrat senator Robert Mendendez and  American Republican senator Lindsey Graham (who are by chance near to the American-Israel lobby AIPAC)

Presidential election 2016 in U.S.

In the  "pluralistic" U.S. the bipartisan choice  means:

you can choice Demacrate or Republican

both financed by the Zionist oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson from Las Vegas

There is a competition : to determine which one serves better Zionism.

On the marge:

Important fact about the distinction between the "gay right" and the publicity  for gays.

"..anti-gay violence has  never been about  individual acts against individuals (!),but. Against  the very idea that  L.G:B.T. people  should  be free to express ..  themselves in public."

Jim Downs A History of anti-gay violence . (In International New York Times, June 13,2016, p.13.)


If you hear in the synagogue that you as Jew should support Israel without condition, the criticism of Zionism becomes - as a result – Anti-Semitism. Israel can’t have regional military hegemony without the efficient pressure of the American Israeli lobby upon the US Administration and Congress. This the basic world problem!

        Until the American Administration isn’t enough independent from the sponsoring Zionist oligarchy - in order to penalize Israel for the expansion on the West Bank, - the West can’t have normal friendly, cooperative relation with the Arabo-Muslim  world.

The West doesn’t will democracy in countries with Muslim majority, since the Islamist parties will win the democratic election. Now it equates terrorist groups with Islamism, however the true causality is reverse:  since the West doesn’t accept democratically elected Islamist government, the terrorist movement expands.(From Muslim Brothers to Salafism).

The US accepted and promoted the  overthrow of  democratically elected Morsi – since he was the ancient president of anti-Zionist group in California. The military coup d’Etat  has been prepared already in 2012 outside Egypt, when Kirkpatrick David D. attacked Morsi as anti-Zionist (IHT 16.1.2014/17.1.14).
         Now the US will tacitly accept the subversion against the Libyan government by the American General Khalifa Haftar (their puppet like Sisi.

  1. Vandewalle-N Jahr: Libya’s unexpected Strength INYTMay 9,15: “A system was adopted after the war  to prevent  certain political parties, particularly  Islamist (!) ones  from dominating the system.” (See also F. Wehrey: Taking side in Libya. INYT July 8,14; INYT July 29,14, p.4)

Turkey's  government  defends  itself  against  Fehhulah Gulen, an apostate Muslim clerk who live now in Pennsylvania and serves Zionist interest (see INYT  March  5, 2016).

 Reaction to Roger Cohen's An Anti-Semitism  of  the  left (INYT March 8,2016):

Anti-Semitism on the left or on the right; it is entertained by the fact that the Jewish communities in all countries identify themselves with  Israel's expansive policy.


             THE WEST'S  SUBMISSION TO THE ZIONISM (4.2017).





The identification of the Zionist world movement as a player in the world politics,  presenting itself  as representative institution of the global political Judaism and the necessity to define independently   the interest  of the Western-(Christian) civilizational sphere.














THE  EXCLUSIVIST TENDENCY TO REIGN (the world Zionism as globalism)











(The special literature  of Zionism: its institutions, its authors;

the objectivity of well-informed Israeli insider authors free from “anti-Semitism” inquisition)










Penal inquisition

(C.F.C.A.: G.O.G.N. for Israel’s apologetics)




 The Western political elite and  its financial dependence from the Zionist oligarchy for election candidacy






Since the Zionist movement in 1948  arrived to create “the state of Jews” (Abraham Burg), the movement succeed even more and more to submit the long-term interest of  the Christian based geopolitical, mainly Western sphere to the Zionist one.

 (The ideological bias is such that through the  so-called Judeo-Christian construction the Christianity will be reduced to a messianic Judaic sect. (E.g., Pat Robertson and the Jewish Jay Sekulow teaching.) They constitute the so-called Christian Zionists by the dispensationalism [Mearsheimer 132, 128-140], and in the American political life by the neoconservatives, who are instrumentalized to serve  Zionist interest. In 1974 the Lausanne Covenant  reunited 2.300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries . The Baptist press see the Zionist intervention in the Near East  open the an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Charles  Marsh:  Wayward Christian Soldiers in IHT, 21.1.2003.)

          Under Zionism[i]in parallel with Islamism, which expresses the political Islam – we understand the political Judaism. It includes all these political movements  which have the intention to represent politically the interest what it  calls the "Jewish people".

(For example, in the USA the "neoconservatives" constitutes a group which - like  Wolfowitz, E, Adams, Perle - pushes the U.S. to intervene worldwide  in Israel's geopolitical interests. The Jewish People Policy Institute (JPI)   viewpoint is all-Jewish and long term, and a cornerstone of its work is the premise that Israel is the core of the Jewish people.")  Its think tank systematically and professionally examines the challenges, threats and opportunities that the Jewish people are coping with, and develops principles for policies and strategic alternatives. In addition, it may recommend on immediate steps needed to be taken in order to secure the continuity and prosperity of the Jewish people. JPPI was founded in 2002 by the Jewish Agency for Israel, and is run as an independent body. It is headed by a board of directors that is now chaired by Dennis Ross, the special advisor (!) for the Persian Gulf Southwest Asia in U.S. President Barack Obama's administration. Its current President is Avinoam Bar-Yosef.) Shmuel Rosen, editor of   The Jewish Journal of JPPI wrote (8.8.2014, INYT): If  all Jews  are a family, it would  be natural for Israelis to expect the unconditional love of their non-Israeli (!)Jewish kin. .If they still want to root  for a Jewish state, there's  no substitute for Israel."

Not only the  primacy of  Dennis Ross founded JPPI for Israel's interest is clear, as well its enlargement of this requirement for  the Zionists in the US government.  [E.g., In October 2009, the Institute convened in Glen Cove, New York for a two-day event to discuss what it calls ‘the triangular relationship of Jerusalem, Washington and North American Jewry’. Dan Shapiro of the National Security Council attended, and ‘spoke on behalf of the Obama administration, listened to the concerns of participants and communicated them back in Washington’.[9] ]

If we speak about political Judaism we should consider that the orthodox rabbinate which has a function as state-religion in Israel is not a straight continuation of the Abrahamic Old Testament which is a shared patrimony of  the three monotheists religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - but it is based  on various Talmuds.[ii]

          /1./An “epistemological” specificity of our epoch of free speech is that if somebody will  be free from the accusation of anti-Semitism, he should not write critically about Israel or the Talmudic tradition, except if  he self is Jewish origin. In the later case he is exempt from accusation to  violate a taboo. However for instance. criticizing the Muslim umma  could be freely done by not-Muslim, Zionist authors[iii].

          The basic problem with the Zionism as doctrine  for the West is that

(a) it proclaims as premise the complete coincidence of  the Western and Zionist  interests. (The Zionist newsman of  South African  African origin wrote in  the IHT [7.9.2001]:"Israel really is an European outpost in the Arab world." He forgets that the majority has not European Ashkenazi origin.)

(b) In a second conceptual step this common interest will be defined by Israeli   one; i.e., the Zionist interest substitutes simply the Western proper interest.

On this manner the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere which can limit Israel expansion and regional hegemony became ipso facto an adversary to  the (whole) West as such.

          If this substitution  is not working automatically, the Zionist plutocracy undertakes a “intellectual corruption”[iv]. It exercises a rough blackmail either by financial means or even by legal censorship (penal inquisition) pretexting anti-Semitic inspiration.  The Anti-Defamation League is the most important specialized organization which tries to exclude  from the mainstream intellectual life  tendencies which define and follow proper interest of the West, - independently from Zionist one.  This is  the basic "epistemological" foundation of the expansive Zionist policy.

           The installation of the doctrine  "Zionist interest defines the Western one" together with the financing of (re)election of the political elite by the Zionist oligarchy makes possible that the burden of the expansionist Israeli policy is transferred from Zionist community to the western Christian taxpayers. (The clearest proof for this affirmation is, that when the American president expresses opposition to the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and nerveless the Israeli government follows its expansionist policy, the American government doesn’t  reconsider the more than three billion assistance for Israel, - and even, if necessary it scarifies American blood in wars against Muslim countries rival to Israel. A typical fait accompli accepted by the USA legislation in 2015: the innocent sounding  Customs Bill implies that "American officials will be obliged to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations. Eyal Press: When Made in Israel is right abuse. 27.1,2015, )

          Furthermore, in the present  version of the Zionist doctrine  beyond the service of Israel's expansion and the defense of  particular interest of the Jewish people worldwide, a broader aspiration could be read, namely to construct a "wandering" mobile globalist world civilization replacing, eclipsing the other existing ones (Ankerl 2000), especially the Western.


          In fact, the infiltration of  Zionism – based on the Talmud – into originally Christian Western civilizational sphere is deeper than appear at first glance.[v] Since the  gradual secularization of the Western states – practically since the Renaissance – the legal order lost progressively its Christian moral foundation, the Christian Zionists opened the door largely to the Talmud -  to the  legal doctrine, Halakha  which is offered to replace the Christian taught.[vi]             

          Concerning the Western applicability of the Talmud H. Patrick Glenn, professor at McGill University arrives to surprising suggestion. He wrote in the chapter entitled “An universal Talmud?” (129ff) that the Western philosophy of  law lost its moral basis and the Talmudic law could serve as an alternative “model or example”. You can’t speak more explicitly[vii].

          Politically, the gradual subordination of  the interests of the Western great powers to Israel’s is an enigma. To reveal the Zionist strategy, the means and ways of its realization would be the task of think-tanks not corrupted by Zionist blackmail. We can emits the hypothesis that in democratic systems (1)  beyond the financing of think-tanks, (2)  the financing by the Zionist oligarchy the always more expensive (re)election campaigns of  pro-Zionist candidates of  both major parties is a crucial political operation. Finally (3) in prolongation of the financing of the think-tanks and other similar academic institutions , the Zionist oligarchy invest in mass media and creates what we can call the Zionist establishment. This is used, of course, for publicity in general but have a important political dimension. The screening control of mainstream mass media censures the communication between the elected power elite and the people. It is especially effective in countries where the state itself is not in possession of  significant public media like the U.S.A.

          To complete the image the frequent  surveys deform the so-called public opinion. The Zionist pollsters try even replace the legal election results by their arbitrary questionings.  Polls are often used also to mobilize the people against the opponents to the Zionist expansion. In this undertaking the Islamic counterpart of  Zionism, the Islamism  which promote the independence of the Muslim countries  became in a patchy manner a synonym of bloodthirsty terrorism. The deformed image of the Muslim movement also encloses the democratic Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. (As noted, it elected government for example has been reversed in 2013 in Egypt by Western consent.)

          The conquest of  Zionism  goes on the way to promote  hostility between Christian and Muslim peoples; envenoms their relation by suspicion and inspiring the NATO with the image of Crusade. (It is to note that the reticence of the Western public  in relation to the Muslim geopolitical sphere is secondarily facilitated by the massive Muslim immigration  to Europe (especially from the ancient European colonies).

The recruiting of the Western powers for the Israeli battle against the Arabo-muslim civilization sphere is the most perverse effect of  the Zionist dominance in the West.

            It is to explain to the  Muslim world that  the Western world doesn't is based on Christian values anymore: in the European Union’s Constitution it is intentionally avoided any reference to Christianity. Consequently, in Europe not only Muslim symbols could be freely radicalized, blasphemed, but also Christian ones. Characteristically, institution as hetero-sexual character of the institution of wedding or the respect for Christ are no more taboos[viii]. On the other hand, the new laws against anti-Semitism protect the Zionist symbols. Indeed, the main task of the European Christianity remains the  sacrifice as historical expiation. The peregrination of  new generations to Auschwitz is obligatory as that the Muslims' to Mecca.  Serving  the Zionism 's cause became a day-to-day activity of Western officials, especially by combative  acts. (Military assistance to the state of Israel). Lip service is not enough. The Muslim states, the Dar al-Islam also should realize that the Christian West is more and more hostage of the Zionist Power Constellation (ZPC) and consequently the Organization of  Islamic  Cooperation (OIC) doesn't have reason to have conflict with the Christian world as such.

          The general goal of the ZPC is to weaken all states by any means which can limit Israel’s expansive hegemony. This touches, of course, first Palestine, and Israel other  neighboring countries but also (Christian and  other) states where the Zionist lost influence like Russia.

Of course, the destruction of Arab states which are around Israel (Iraq, Syria, Libya) and are not submitted to Zionist influence (like Egypt and Jordan  are) and breaking them into small ethno-sectarian enclaves is the first objective as Oded Yinon exposed already in 1982 (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yinon revanche? An panoramic chaos in the Arab World. Strategic Culture  Foundation 25.8.2013. Israël Shahak: Stratégie pour Israel dans les années 80. Orientation[Kivnim] no 14, 2.1982.)




Since the end of the Cold War the world is no more divided in two parts, however it is not also under the unique power of the West any more. The West as geopolitical entity is represented by the North-Atlantic Alliance Organization. Since the European Union didn’t succeed to form a state the Anglo-American  United States  dominates it[ix]. The world largest state, the Russian Federation tries to reestablish its independence.

          Two other civilizations arrived to construct states, which we can call civilization-states, China and India. They unsurpassed political achievement is  to establish and maintain more than one milliard people in a sovereign state. They can't be constraint any more to serve foreign interests. Worldwide decisions can't be done violating their vial interest, even if - on institutional level - the U.N.'s Security Council ignores yet India's world power status.

          The crescent-shaped Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere also includes more than one milliard  believers, which is called  by Shahid Alam  Islamacate (139, 217).  "The term ‘Islamdom’ will be immediately intelligible by analogy with ‘Christendom’. ‘Islamdom’ is, then, the society in which the Muslims and their faith are recognized as prevalent and socially dominant,"( (Michel G. S. Hodgson: The Venture of Islam. Volume 1. The Classical Age of Islam. 1977. Pages 58-59.).

  However, the  (Arabo-)Muslim dominated sphere as such didn’t yet find  a proper  international representation. Even if its public presence become more and more visible, its cohesion is fragile and fractured.

          The Western presentation of the Islamacate and its political expression, the Islamism is deformed. The fundamental international political fact is that centuries no Islamacate countries attacked Western state, but the  Western powers initiate repeatedly wars with dubious  motives against one or other of these countries, as well as for years occupied them. However, these wars intending durable subjugation of the arabo-Musim civilizational sphere can't be won. The war against Iraq and Afghanistan produced  big economic lost, and meanwhile the North Atlantic Treaty Organization lost its virgin image, reputation to be a regional defense organization.   The CIA – as well as the US defense department – received from president Obama  (however initiated in Islam) the mandate to follow the war against the independent Arabo-Muslim sphere which are not subordinated to the West to conduct a hidden war against Muslim countries by armed drones, as well as by overturning – even democratically elected governments like  Egypt's in 2013.. The West operates this war in the only Muslim  in Somalia, Syria and so on, over the local government’s head, - even in the only Muslim land with nuclear power, Pakistan. (For example, in Western powers installed in February 2017 Faramjo as president who lived in the last 30 years in the U.S. and being double citizen travels with American passport.)

For  the originally anti-Soviet NATO, tacitly, the main enemy became  the non subordinated Arab-Muslim world, despite the fact that  no objective analysis confirmed existing projects attacking Western countries.

 Iran for example even if it tries to develop nuclear arms never made declaration and manifested intention or  made preparation to invade Western countries. Iran is only opposed  against the expansion of Israel in occupied Palestine.

          We can conclude that the Western saber-rattling against the Arab-Muslim world doesn’t originate from recognized Western interest. The Western world is not separated from the Muslim by irreconcilable antagonistic interest. For this very reason it would be fatal to concentrate  the North Atlantic power to holding the Muslim world at bay instead of developing with it a fructuous good neighborly relation. Also it should be looked for the power configuration which  hinders the West to develop a policy which would promote this peaceful cooperation based on equality. Which  is this power center which has an interest to mobilize Western force to intimidate the Muslim world, and   has . as well, the necessary influence to compel the Western power to execute this policy?

          Since the everyday observation shows that the nuclear-armed Zionist state of Israel - in the hearth of the Arabo-Muslim world  - follows a hegemonic and expansive policy, disproportionate with it size, it has obviously a visceral interest to mobilize the West against the Muslim world. On the other side, if the West help militarily, economically, diplomatically Israel in this undertaken without reserves, it could be expected that spontaneous militant Muslim movement emerge against the West. Indeed, without the Western submission to particular Israeli interest, the Muslim world would not be eo ipso the West's enemy. The so-called Muslim terrorism against the West is the West's self-inflected wound.

          In the West  we can recognize the  Zionist power configuration  (Patras)[x]  as the Power center which presses the West to neglect its own best interest, respectively subordinated it to Israel’s  - and to the World Zionism’s, even if it is called by a code-name “neoconservative”[xi].

          The present-day mobilization of the West against the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere originates in the fact that this sphere - if it forms an united front - could be the biggest hindrance to Israel’s expansionism and regional hegemony. Meanwhile the West losses its force in this battle (Alam 139) and by so doing becomes weaker in the Chinese-Western  competition.

          It also is necessary to define western interest independently from that of Israel and lay bare all maneuvers which deform the Western interest in order to submit it to Israel's political actions.

          It is a plausible hypothesis that the overwhelming and growing Zionist influence in the Western geopolitical sphere  come mainly by the fact that the Zionist Diaspora  gives primary to Israel’s interest and on the other hand,  the Christian part of the political elite is existentially exposed to the blackmail of the Zionist oligarchy. For verifying these explications  and to oppose  this  illegitimate Zionist influence it is necessary to systematically observe its functioning.




We can state that the declared objective of  the world Zionist movement is to create the state of Israel, and subsequently to serve the interest of its government as well as broadly the Diaspora’s interest (Herszlikowicz op. cit. 48ff). The general experience show that since the second world war the Western powers – even if they criticize in declarations the Israeli expansionary policy – more and more help Israel diplomatically, militarily and economically, even if this policy is not in accordance with the West’s interest or even with its declared policy (e.g., against the colonization of the West Bank)

          If the political anomaly, absurdity is true that a people of  a dozen millions - represented by the Zionism - enjoys a quasi-veto-right in relation to world most  influential state, the US and the NATO, the most powerful alliance, this need an explication.

(Example  in the other text  H 2 pages..)

          It  became a fact that the world’s political situation –e specially in the West could not be  studied, evaluated without  studying the world Zionist movement as an important political factor.

          In contrast to this necessity the Zionism as such became a kind of  taboo in the contemporary political studies. If somebody in elite circle touch the Zionist influence, the cold silence appears, like if somebody speaks about pornography. (The elephant is in the room, but the censorship interdicts to realize this fact.) The various methods of silencing, muzzling we will discuss later.

          Indeed, it is essential for the West to study the Zionist movement as factor in present-day politics. We also find in the West already numerous think-tanks, academic institutions  which studies the relation of various actors of world politics. But by examining these studies we can observe an omerta in the widely published and read studies of standing, they neglect the issue to discuss the difference and eventual contradiction between Israel’s  and the West’s interests. This issue is never studies in deep, if evoked it is in a cursory manner. In fact, the Zionist premises in tacitly accepted, that this contradiction is not possible. Indeed, the contradiction between Western and Israeli interest is - politically institutionally  - inconceivable, since the Western interest itself is defined by the influential think tank financed by the Zionist oligarchy in the diaspora, while the Israeli interest could be defined freely by the Israeli government. (The multidimensional influence of the Zionist Diaspora guarantee the epistemological censorship in key political research institutions as well as on public forums.) The Zionist oligarch, Naim Saban's ("a vocal supporter of Israel" [Maureen Down in INYT 6.12.2912]) in 1985 founded Center for Middle East Policy related to Brookings Institution is a good example, as well as  the Washington Institute for Near East Policy founded in 2002.

(Example one page)

          Lets enumerate some fundamental facts which make necessary a Zionism Observatory for non-Zionist “research”.

          The West puts Israel into a privileged position as representative of  world Jewish people:

- the secularist Western concept require that Christian and Muslim religious symbols to be forced back into the private sphere, while the Jewish symbols are protected by laws against Anti-Semitism, and Israel itself can remain an explicitly Jewish state.

- It is accepted implicitly that Israel be the unique nuclear power is the Middle East. We see that in the handle of the Iranian case (See also Mearsheimer [35] for the memorandum of  6.5.2009 between Nixon and Golda Meir and Kissinger’s note in 2007.)

- The UN declares illegitimate and condemns the Israeli settlement policy in Jerusalem and the other occupied territories. Israel doesn’t respect these determinations (UNSC decision no 446 March22,1979 and no 2334 Dec.30, 2016), while the West continue to  back Israel diplomatically, militarily and economically.

-Israel arrived to involve the  Western powers into an endless war against the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere like Iraq, Afghanistan. Despite the fact that

Western countries took the initiative to occupy islamacate, Muslim countries, while no Muslim power occupies Western country, the Zionist propaganda arrived to produce an image where the self-defensive Muslim world appears as the aggressive part in the conflict.

          It should be explored which are the cause of  this staunch Western attitude to serve first of all Israeli interest. Among the hypotheses figures the supposition that the  double citizens - especially  the Zionist oligarchy - infiltrated the Western political, media and academic elite as well as blackmail the remaining non-Zionist part of it.





The task of  Zionism Observatory (ZO) is to follow worldwide the activities of  the  organizations, institutions, networks which will represent the interest of  the chosen people. ZO observes systematically the coordinated[xii] actions  of the Zionist inspired movements in interest of  the state of Israel and its potential citizens in the diaspora. How they work, operate in various part of the world and in various levels of  collective organization (international ,state, NGO) for promoting its influence. 

          The ZO studies the Zionism not as a spiritual movement as such  but as a political one. The historical past (e.g., holocaust) or the religiousness in so far is considered that they contribute to the present and further political influence of the Zionist movements. The object of the study is the strategy, the power play  of them worldwide. Its subject is the self defined Jewish people.[xiii] By this representation of  this particular interest the Zionist movement became  active factor of  contemporary history. In this perspective Israel itself  is the central  symbol to define the Jewish political identity as well a mean for increasing the Jewish People's worldwide influence. For the Zionism as political Judaism – avoiding the maze of ethnic and religious definitions --  article 437[576] of  Israel citizen law from 1952 define the belonging to the Jewish people and nation. In short, Jews are  all these individuals who by entering in Israel and declaring the intention to reside permanently in Israel and proving his Jewish  origin can receive the Israeli citizenship directly.[xiv]

          In the line to enforcing the biblical continuity of  the Jewry among others, the Zionist Hassidim Isaac Perlman, called Eliezer Ben-Yehuda who migrated to Palestine in 1881, "reinvented" the Hebrew which was an non-spoken language during 1700 years. It became the official language of Israel. (The "renaissance" of the spoken Hebrew is also inspired by the Haskasa movement of XVIII and XIX centuries. (IHT 6.8.2008)

          In order to study  the movements  for promoting the interest of the community of  the Jewish people we find many sources. For scientific investigations numerous ones can be considered only as secondary source. Even by simulating a balanced presentations the most sources are either engaged Zionists’ work or  Anti-Semitic pamphlet. All these authors mix knowledge with propaganda. We find there selective  enumeration of facts, arbitrarily construed  narratives. Is not a exception that false facts are asserted,  therefore these publications loss their epistemological value.

          The Western academic political science  is one-sidedly under Zionist oligarchical influence by its gatekeepers, or at least under (self-)censorship. However, this doesn’t mean that the studies of Western think-tanks are monotonous. They cover all shades of Zionist strategical thinking. Some argue about the opportunity for enlarging Israel’s territory on biblical ground (Settler colonies as part  of a divine plan leading to the coming of the Messiah: "Tzipi  Hotovely, deputy foreign minister told the Israeli diplomatic corps that they should use the Bible as a tool for telling  the world that the entire land  between  the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River belong to the Jews INYT  26.5.2015.); others more globalist Diaspora authors are only preoccupied by the worldwide influence of the Zionism. (Tradition of Ahad Ha-am; Franck 85-6). Some accept completely the principle that the purpose justifies the means, again others  advise to operate within the framework of  international legal order.

          (The Begin-Sadat Center Strategic Studies of Ben-Ilan University published a paper written by Steven  R. David, a former adviser of CIA and US Defense Department. David justifies legally and morally the targeted killing by Mossad and the Shin Bet  services by the Bible (undiscoverable in the classical edition [Exodus 12:1]), by "the Jewish history and the history of the state". Indeed during the British Mandate and also later Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir,   Ehud Barak, Golda Meir ordered targeted killing. Ha'aretz/IHT 9.12.2002.)

The variety of strategies proposed for the Zionism gives the impression that  all  variants of possible policies in a given situation have been discussed. In reality, all these institutions are financed, operated and popularized by the Zionists, therefore although numerous policies came under consideration but only from one viewpoint: which is the better solution for Israel.

          (The forced research of biblical reference is also used for colonial conquest of East Jerusalem. The Elad - Ir David Foundation - as well as the archeologist Eilat Mazar of Shaslom Foundation try to "discover" King David Palace of 10th century BC which is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. The Ea. Ire David Foundation, commonly known as Lead [Lead] (Hebrew: אלע"ד‎‎, an acronym for "אל עיר דוד", meaning "to the City of David") is a Jerusalem-based,[1] Israeli association which aims is openly to strengthen the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, create a Jewish majority (!) in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and renew the Jewish community in the City of David, which is also part of the neighborhood of Silwan.[2] The foundation works to achieve its goals by tourism, education, archaeological excavations and obtaining homes in the area to establish a Jewish presence.[Wikipedia. S. Erlanger: King David's fabled palace : Is this it? IHT 5.8.2005.][3

          It is to note that, of course, Zionist researcher  has the full right to develop Zionist strategy, if he states explicitly his approach. However, the  ZO doesn’t’ follow this interest and is not concerned the internal debate of Zionists. ZO is concerned to detach Western interest from Zionist ones. It will fulfill this narrow free research space what remains between mainstream think-tanks engaged for Zionism and racist Anti-Semitic workshops.

Concerning this later Learned Elders of Zion (World Conquest  Through World  Jewish Government) an objectless debate developed. This text has been conceived in Russian.  In 1921 Henry Ford financed its  English translation  and Dearborn Independent published it  and sold  half million copies. It describes an so-called Jewish world conspiracy.  The debate around this text is mainly historical. It  questions its origin. The ZO is devoted to the politics of present time and doesn’t participate in this discussion. (In a certain sense the Zionists themselves maintain the Protocols in the actuality since they argue  longum et latum against its authenticity.  Professor Pierre-André Taguieff - of Russian-polish origin, - director in the French FNRS  group around the so-called The Protocols of the engages himself in a preface to the Protocols French edition (Berg Fayard, 2004) to prove its forgery. In order to assure about its impartiality, he negates his Jewish origin. On the other hand, Taguieff  is the front-line flightier of  the tendency to assimilate to anti-Semitism all anti-Zionist critics of  Israel in order to silence them even by means of  penal procedures. The same « idea » inspires Robert E. Wistrich [Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. Jewish Political Studies Review. 2004.6, 3-4]. For the ZO it is useless to debate that the Protocols is an authentic document or an apocryphal one: the relevant question is either the observable actions of  Zionist movement in present time meets the description of  found in the Protocols. Henry Ford declared  in February 1921 in the  New York World : « The only statement  I care to make about  the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on ». (Henry Ford : The International Jew: the World’s Foremost Problem 1920-27, This is published by Theodore Fritch . )

On the other hand, a similar debate developed for years  until today about the "authenticity", official nature of  Oded Yinon plan of 1982 (Kivnim [Orientations] no 14, February 1982) concerning the Zionist policy to parcel the large Arab state in Israel's neighborhood into small ethno-sectarian protectorates.  Were the Yinon-document an official one or not, the Zionists' inspired US policy by destroying Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan,  now the state of Syria - and by its hostility to Iran - shows that the plan is in process of implementation.

Independently from the Protocols Herzl defined the objective of the World Zionist Movement  in 1897 in Basle  to increase the influence of the Jewish people world-wide. Never denied this any Zionist movement since.

 (Laqueur Walter: A History of fg. MJF books, New York, 1972. Hertzberg Arthur ed.:

The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader.)

Thus the ZO concentrates on the present functioning of  the Zionist movement in all its aspects (objectives, way and means, results). Presently it doesn’t seem that there are a “Jewish conspiracy” in  the world. Indeed, the Zionist movement is absolutely open to the public it is rather very loud in the mass media. However,  the extremely influential American  Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) doesn’t publish its list of directors, -as doesn’t do the Freemason movement.

(/Wikipedia 14/ Michael Massing: The  Israel Lobby. The Nation. June 10,2002. Blackout about Zionist blackmail. Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker (Real Insidness. July 4, 2005.: “ a lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”)

The AIPAC will for any price avoid that it should be registered by the Department of Justice in conformity with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. In fact the organization avoid that since it is financed by the American Zionist oligarchy.

            As we already noted the Zionist world movement tries to prevent and hinder, silence by all mains any work which tries to define the Western interest independently or even in contradiction with  the Israel’s. This censorship is fundamental since it hinders  Western opinion to follow and recognize its own interest. The Zionist censorship is mainly realized by the self-censorship of the most influential Western institutions. The researchers use quasi exclusively sources which are agreed as “respected” by the Zionists (Mearsheimer 113-5, 139). The publication of Mearsheimer and S. M. Walt's famous manuscript about he "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy has been hindered 5 years (VII-IX) (Unfortunately, this work has no new edition with new data and consideration since 2005.) Institutions which doesn’t follow the line are brand marked  as “anti-Semitic” with reference to the Nazism. This censorship also has a brutal form, since works which are qualified an anti-Semitic can  cause penal pursuit.

            (A very good example is Roger Garaudy’s – who died in 2012. He wrote the book Les mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne. [1996, Samiszdat Paris, ISBN 2-951-000-5] and was penalty persecuted.) Near all European legislations have an article which allows this persecution. In Switzerland it is the article 261bis in the penal code.

          The Zionist censorship uses mostly more refined means than  the Christian Middle Ages and the Soviet regime used. One of this is that only ethnically engaged Jews can criticize Israel’s policy or handling Western interest independently from Israel’s one. without risking the blame to be an anti-Semite. If this loyalty control is not working, the Zionist press speaks about  “irrational Israel hatred, or self-hatred Jews”. (C. Franck mentions  Karl Marx. 62.) But  the critics behave mostly as the conservative Jew, Richard Goldstone, South-Africa judge did: In 2011 under the pressure of his coreligionists he recanted large part of  his  UNO report about Israel misdeeds in Gaza in 2008-2009. (E. Bronner and Israel Kershner: Inquiry chief retracts key finding of Gaza report. IHT 4.4.2011.)

 His crime against his tribe became venial. And as the prodigal son  has been forgiven by the Zionists.

          Before we can develop the issue how the Zionist movement make good its interest

-in the Western political sphere – namely in the U.S. legislation mainly by the AIPAC and in the executive branch by the Conference  of  Presidents of  Major  Jewish Organizations (CPMJO) – as well as

-in the public opinion by the predominance in the mass media,

          we should show succinctly which obstacle hinders the simple recognition of the Western interest independently from the Israeli’s.

          The Zionist censorship in the intellectual life exercises by 3 means:

1. It hinders the financing of  think-tank which operate exclusively by non-Israelis;

2. if these think-tanks exist from Arab financial source, the Zionist movement hinder the diffusion of the research results calling them "biased",

3. all  approaches which are critical to the Zionism receive the anti-Semitic or even the Nazism anathema,

4. if all these means seem insufficient thanks to the new post-war  legislation the authors could be persecuted as anti-Semite by the penal code,  viz., the modern inquisition.

          The censorship concerns fundamentally the interdiction of  evoking the basic issue:

The unconditional support for Israel is for the Western geopolitical sphere a major  burden which hinders a peaceful and fructuous cooperation with the Arabo-Muslim civilization.

          The material which should be studied by the CO are 2 sorts:

-declaration of influential politicians,

-material facts: measures, financial, military and diplomatic actions (e.g., exercise of veto right in the UNSC).

          The comparison of these two levels of  data  is one of the method applied by the ZO because this show clearly the behind the scene machinations of the Zionist movement.

          The Zionist inspired arbitrary presentation, narrative of the international series of event should be lay bar in order to show the proper Western strategical interest independently from Israel’s.



(THE WORLD CORPORATION OF  ZIONIST APPARATUS:  The Israeli democracy and  the diaspora’s established oligarchic organizations)


Recall that the Zionism Observatory (ZO) will not study, analyze, dissect the Zionism for its own sake.  Our concern (ZO) is to handle  the Zionism as an actor in the world policy, to reply the questions: in which respect,  in which directions and in which measures can the Zionist movement influence the West’s own interest recognition, its  implementation and subordinate them to the Zionist  own interest (Alam 192-3).  Indeed,  ZO  has an interest in the Israeli policy only insofar that Israel realizes its Chauvinistic policy in so fare that the oligarchic Zionist diaspora can subordinate the Western powers' action to the Zionist goals. Orlando Patterson of Harvard wrote about Ethnic Chauvinism (NYC, Stein and Day, 1977) and political parochialism.

          As a matter of fact, in the Western political life there are political actors which have  not public legal status  but these “civil” organizations can efficiently act without that. Among these today the Zionist movement appears eminently to be the most successful. This organization realized to constitute a national state  for the Chosen People in West Asian, in the middle of the Arabo-Muslim world (Alam 9, 223 [25-6]).

With the realization of  Israel on the Promised Land[xv] the Zionist movement accomplished its declared historical mission. The land is secured  by the most modern arms delivered by the U.S.A.

          The state of  Israel is the determinant for belonging to the Jewish people. The Israeli law of citizenship of 1952 (437/576) defines the criteria. As political actor, this definition  is more fundamental and comprehensive than to be an observant or nonobservant Jew. On the other side, this definition of the Jewish people by a fundamental

public law saves the ZO from the trouble to lose itself in the daedal of the ethnic and religious definition of the Chosen People.

          Avraham Burg past president of the Knesset, - and past provisory president of the state itself , - of the Jewish Agency and of the World Zionist Organization (which didn't hinder to receive also in 2004 the French citizenship) in his book (The Holocaust is Over: We must  Rise from its Ashes. MacMillan, New York, 2008; IHT, August 6, 2012,,8) said that “today, the meaning  of ‘ Jewish’ in Israel is mainly ethnic and religious” and he follows: “we never tried to separate  the synagogue and the state”. In issues of personal rights – like wedding – the Orthodox Jewish tribunal has competence. However, Burg would prefer to call  Israel “the State of Jews” than Jewish state (Burg 2.o.Wikipedia). His definition is in full coincidence with our position to define the Jewish people represented by the Zionists as the set of people having the potential (the possibility) to be automatically a citizen of  Israel (the law of return from 5 July 1950).[xvi] For and by the Zionists the state of  Israel became the determinant of the Jewish People as political entity which they will represent as well as its all-inclusive symbol. According the Israeli law you are Jews by birth, viz.  by matrilineal lineage or by a rigorous Orthodox conversion process. ("'Israeliness' is the new collective sense of Jewishness. Samuel Rosner of The Jewish People  Policy Institute quotes the orthodox president of Israel, Reuven Rivlin. NYT  June 12.2015.)  On the other side, according to the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel 50 laws discriminate against Arabs. This exclusion completes the large inclusiveness of Israel for the Jewish people on the whole world.

Incontestably  the basic aim of the Zionist movement  was the Aliyah, the migration to  the Eretz Israel, the  colonization of  Palestine. (Today, there are a strong expatriation movement from Israel. Only in Nevada - esp. in Las Vegas - live 10.000 Israeli expatriates.)

From the beginning the state of Israel defined by the UN in 1948 and 1967 and accepted by the world community doesn't correspond with Israel delimited by Zionists. Zionism  as  the national movement of the Jewish people supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as so-called  historic Land of Israel, including the whole Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land. This implies already an expansive regional policy which is not agreed by the world community (as confirmed implicitly the UNCI decision of December 2016.)

          After the creation of  Israel the goals of Zionism had been reformulated but the maintenance in the center of Jewish conscience the state of Israel remains a foundation of this movement. The sort of the Jewish people  left  in the Diaspore  also remains  essential preoccupation (Franck 85). The prophetic vision of a triumphal Israel should help the Jewish education and culture. The Zionist movement  flights  for the rights of the Jews everywhere, but also requires to promote in their homeland to influence the respective government in favor of Israel.  The post-Israel Zionist movement, on one side, extends the protection of the all co-religionists  - the Diaspora had originally a provisory status in the Zionism! -          in the world, and on the other side, it mobilizes this population as Israeli patriots.

          The fundamental trouble of the Zionist movement is the fact that this movement attributes  to these double citizens  in their native land a  “plant” role who serves Israel’s interest. The Zionism by not distinguishing between Jews in Israel and elsewhere, by representing  the latters too, it expect, consequently that the Diaspora behave like potential Israeli citizen.[xvii] This  Zionist requirement becomes especially unacceptable if members of the Diaspora reach situation where they become representative or public functionary of their home countries. On one side, loyalty breach could be produced in the homelands, and on the other side anti-Semitic tendencies can spread.

By representing all Jews as potential Israeli citizen the Zionist movements bring the wandering Jew in a contradictory situation which are demonstrated by the American spying cases (Jonathan Pollard etc.).

(Adams Elliott:  Faith or Fear in a Christian America. New York, Simon, 1997, 181: “Jews… are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is a very nature  of  being Jewish to be part- except in Israel (!) – from the rest of the population.” [Mearsheimer 167]

The Zionist association federates the Jewish interest in the world. See since 1978 Jerusalem Center for Public Affair’s  Center for Jewish Community Studies and the Jerusalem Institute for Federal Studies.)

According to Glenn (120) the modern rationalist reformist and the Concentration of  conservative Talmudist Jews opposing to the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel, could put in danger the unity of the Jewish people. Indeed, the Hadassah and Halakha are god-fearing people.

            After the foundation of Israel in West-Asia in 1948 the Zionist movements are living on borrowed time (like the NATO after 1990, when with the dissolution of  the Soviet Union survived its defensive mission). Israel territorial integrity was assured, but as unique nuclear power in the region, its donating intention made the conflicts in the region permanent.

(Mearsheimer exposes the Zionist Martin Indyk's  ideas [228-32, 234 257-8]. See also  Alam 48, 228[10] and Laqueur W. : A History of Zionism. New York, MJF Books 1972, 85.

Indeed, on the annexation of Golan high is the model for the West Bank. Israel expulsed 800.000 Druze and Bedouin from the High and installed 34 Israeli colonies  and created a city too. In December 1981 Golan has also been legally incorporated in Israel. (Mearsheimer 267 and Alam 195, 218.) Israel will have the occupied territories without its autochthon population.

            Unfortunately for the Christians because the disproportion between the disproportion between the Arabo-Muslim and Jewish populations for realizing its hegemonic policy the Zionists should ask the Christian population's help. (All unilateral and unprecedented sacrifices for Israel are by the  neo-conservative "crusaders".)

            The main strategical ideas of Zionist to provide this unilateral help is on one side

            (a) to present Israel's expansion as service for the Christians, and on the other side,

            (b) the Zionists try to divide the Arabo-Muslim sphere utmost, (Sunnites against Sheets, Arabs against non-Arab-Muslims, converted against inborn).

            The Zionists try to convince the Christians about this coincidence of interests or they engage them by blackmail to involve them in a conflict with the arabo-muslim geopolitical sphere. For realizing this strategy it is important that the Zionist double citizens are not exposed as a traitor in his homeland.

            This strategy is elaborated by institutions which function as communication vessels

between Israel and  Western institutions. One of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Shalom Center in Israel. (Mearsheimer 50,371[7]) A typical agent of these bridge think tank is  Andrew J. Tobler who studied on the American University in Cairo and work now parallel in WINEP, International Crisis Group and the Oxford Business Group (OBG).

The International  Center  for Study of Radicalization was founded in 2008 is related to the King's College of London University but also to the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya near to Tel Aviv. (Of course, this centers don't study Avigdor Lieberman's radicalization.)

            The "communicating tubes" relate not only the institutes devoted to strategic studies but the whole establishment - elite and oligarchy - of the  Zionist world movement. (in the media for example is not seldom to find the name in the Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem Post. E.g. Bret Stephen.

"Stanley Fischer  ...U.S. banker  received Israeli citizenship in the morning and was sworn in as the governor of Israel's Central Bank several hours later." IHT 2.5.2005.)

            (c) Since the foundation of Israel in 1948 the Zionists enlarged their mission not only to (re)create the great biblical Israel, but to follow a goal what we can call globalist pan-Zionist movement in service of the world potential Israeli citizen, the world Jewish people.

            This new strategy accept that a large part of the diaspora will not settle in Israel, but the World Zionist Organization and its associate institutions expect that this permanent diaspora doesn't loose its banter to Israel.

(Goldberg 350-1. U. Rebhun and L. Levy Ari : American Israelis : Migration, Transnationalism, and Diaspora Identity. Brill, Boston, 2010 /CS nov.2011, 740/)).  

 The Zionist strategists accepted even that some diaspora serve better Israel in his home country than as a settler in Israel.  (Besides presently for Russia more Jews migrate to the "odious" Germany than to Israel.)

            The representation of the Jewish people in Israel they are normal democratic channels - including the settlers outside Israel - the representation of the diaspora there are myriad competing organizations. In the USA there are more than 80 (Mearsheimer 116), Legally only  the Halakha of the Talmud could unify them. The representation of global Jewish interest based on the individual right is not happened. Often the polls replace it. (Mearsheimer 189). Peter Beinard men's that the democracy is lacking in the Zionist organizations [P. Beinard: The Crisis of Zionism. MacMillan, New York, 2012, IHT 14.2.2012 Roger Cohen].            Roger Cohen and other liberal Zionist claims that other Zionist organizations which speak in name of the Jewish People like Abraham Foxman's Anti-Defamation League, - following  the combative Jabotinsky line - the Zionist Organization of America, the AIPAC, the Jewish Committee neglect Arnold  Jacob Wolf J-Street line or the Union of  Concerned Zionists (Mearsheimer  113,352-3).

            The Zionist organizations are activist. According to Goldberg (162) since 1967 in these organizations the principles of equality, tolerance and social justice are replaced by the culture of loyalty to Israel and the engagement against the enemy of Israel. The degree of engagement became the criteria for membership in committee etc. This  meets well  the requirement of efficiency in the Zionist worldview.

            The power delegation emanate from Israel's government, the member's influence and his generosity.

            George Soros is one of this oligarch who used 8 billion dollars to influence public and cultural life in 60 countries by his single donor enterprise, the Open Society Foundation. He finances for his son, Alex Soros Foundation which finances  Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice. [Alex Williams: Trial and errors of living with the family name. IHT 2012.7.24.]

Soros original name was Schwartz (Kaufman Michael T.: Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire. Knopf, IHT 2002.3.27.). in 1947 he emigrated from Hungary to England. Tina Rosenberg calls him to be :“a devoted provocateur and accidental humanitarian”. (Tina Rosenberg: Some U.S. Charities Build Little State Department. IHT, 2001.8.14.) Soros monopolizes the term Open for himself. I could be associated with the word Society, Institute or Foundation. The director are Israelites. (The president  of Open Society Institute - since 2001.8.14 - is Aryeh Neier.)   

            Thomas L. Friedman describes the Zionist influence by money: “Add on  top  that, the increasing  role of money in U.S. politics and the importance  of single donors who can write mega checks to  ‘super PAC’ – and  the fact that the main Israel lobby AIPAC, has made  itself  the feared(!) arbiter of  which  lawmakers are ‘pro’ and which are ‘anti-Israel’, and, therefore, who should  or not be financed“)

Mearsheimer  171-173] The editor of WSJ   R. Bartley wrote: “Shamir, Sharon, Bibi - whatever those  guy want is pretty much fine with me.” Martin Peretz the editor of  New Republic admits: “I am in love with the state of Israel.”

It is the American Zionist oligarchy which pushed the second Iraqi war and it will since 12013 to bombard Syria and Iran, Israel's rivals.( [Mearsheimer 243]. )

In order to follow the Zionist oligarchy general Wesley Clark declared: “there is so much pressure  being channeled from New York money people  to the office seekers.” M. Iglesias wrote that Everything Clark said is true.  What’s more, everybody knows it’s true.” (Mearsheimer 302, 232 352-3.)

            The only democratic procedure existing within the diaspora in America it is within the Conference of Presidents of Majors American Jewish Organizations (CPMJO) where the organization with more than five hundred members has one vote. In fact, in the decision procedure the most wealthy and engaged organizations  have more weight. (Mearsheimer 127,397/58) as well as Goldberg (60, 201, 102, 103) underlined how the oligarchical part of the American Jewish population has more and more the upper hand. (According to Goldberg [102, 103] between 1916 and 1917 on the Paris peace conference the  American Jewish Congress' Committee "deputized themselves" to order to make a democratic image.


            While the AIPAC is concentrated on the presence of the Zionists in the elected part of the state body, the CPMJO is to place Zionists in the key position of the executive branch.

            A typical case of the infiltration on level of international organization is the American delegation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

            On the UN Racism conference  in Durban, South Africa in 2001, the Us delegation Elliott Abrams the US National Council senor director for democracy and human rights, and(!) the White House contact for Jewish groups and David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee  (IHT, 6-9-2001, 6).   

             In 2014 after the the invasion of Gaza by Israel increased the anti-Zionism in Europe. The American delegation in Berlin (14.11.2014 NYT) included  behind Samantha Power Abraham H. Foxman director of  ADL and Rabbi Andrew Baker "personal representative for combating  anti-Semitism" (?)- Israel boycott and  criticism is immediately assimilated and punished as anti-Semitism. Meanwhile the EU asked Palestine to not brig the case of Gaza-invasion before the International Criminal Court as Navi Pillay ancient Un High Commissioner for Human Rights (11.2014 NYT), what means doing notion to hinder Israel's barbaric behavior.

            The CPMJO as the great coalition of the Zionist organizations will

- represent the interest of the organized American Jewish people, meanwhile

- defend the enforce the safety  and dignity of the Jewish people in the whole world

- occupy on issues which cause indignation for the American Jewish community.

- CPMJO also looks for that the interest of Israel find a hearing in the circle of the decision makers, opinion former and within the public at large.

- The means for realizing these goals to forming and reinforcing a special relation between Israel and the USA.

            According the chart of the CPMJO is word by word

strengthening and fostering the special US-Israel relationship;

ensuring  that Israel’s interests are  heard and understood by policy makers, opinion molders and the American public;

 “addressing critical foreign policy issues that impact the American Jewish community; representing the interests of organized (!) American Jewry; protecting and enhancing  the security and dignity of Jews around the world.”

            It is clear as crystal day the circle of defended people, the defended interest as well as the means used even if the detail influencing procedure is not exposed. But it is well-known to hidden the "influence-peddling" the financial contribution to decision-maker doesn't come from AIPAC or CPMJO directly but these organizations incite their wealthy member to act individually  (e.g. Naim Saban for Mrs. Clinton, Adelson for Trump).  Indeed, AIPAC can't be  a "Pac" and can't do "linked donation" (Mearshaimer 155, 404[17, 20]-

            The actions od this organizations are often inspired directly by the Israeli ambassador. During the Johnson administration, for example, the Israeli ambassador encouraged these organizations that their members write numerous  protest letters to the president in styles. (Mearsheimer 121-2).

            They have also so-called emergency actions. In 2010 Adelson's Shalom Center in Jerusalem founded the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) in order to  counterbalance Obama tendency to condemn the settlement policy on the West Bank. Among the responsible we find Daniel Loeb, William Kristol, Rachel and Elliott Adams. They try to recruit neoconservative Christians like Garr Bauer who was a Republican presidential candidate financed by the Zionists.

            In  these maneuvers it is necessary to see that the discussion not around peace or justice but, what is better to increase Israel's influence, i.e. to see in this beauty contest  which is the pro-Israeli wing of the pro-Israeli community. In the competion between Republicans and Democrats in foreign policy. In this respect, not strictly the Israel as state  is on stake but as we see in the CPMAJO objectives this prioritizing for Israel extend to the relations with all countries in the world. They will be judged which relation has to Israel and the country's Zionist organizations. Not only Muslim countries came on this manner on the black list. It is among them  Venezuela as well Russia since the elimination of the Hrokovsky-Gusman click.

            The Zionist Organization of America  (ZOA) is a "normative" organization to show what are the (political) obligations of the American Jews. It is simply the support of Israel's policy. It is Israel's ambassador who determines that cause and the strategy to follow. (Mearsheimer 121-2, 123-4),

In the spirit of first loyalty the American Jews should not criticize Israel in public. Organizations which have the tendency to criticize Israel's policy before their home country's organ can't be member organization of the CPOMAJO.  Mearsheimer mentions the case of Edgar  Bronfman Sr.'s World Jewish Congress (124). See also Maersheimer 115-6.  Robert H Trice: Domestic Interest Groups and  the Arab-Israeli Conflict. In: E. Saïd: Ethnicity and  U.S. Foreign Policy. 121-.2.)

The leaders of Zionist organizations criticizing Israel are often exposed to personal attack in pamphlets etc. Under pressure of ostracism some organization retract themselves, go to Canossa or simply are obliged to dissolve themselves.(Maersheimer 125, 397 [51]).

The most actors of international public life have a standardized organizational and institutional system. In the case of Zionist organizations as nongovernmental organization  - called by James Petras   (J. Petras: Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power.  Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2008) Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) we can't see a central organ. These under various national flags masked organizations have not interest to exhibit its structure. According to strategic interest they also change often their denomination. The main directives comes from the Israeli government; however because the rich American diaspora the power distribution is diffuse. Indeed, Tel Aviv should share the power with the Zionist oligarch of New York - Washington axe (even BosWash including the intellectually influential  Charles River Zionists).

            According to Goldberg (403, 207, XIII-XIV) in the USA 3 organizations are the top. The American Jewish Committee with 30.000 mostly wealthy members, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The Committee has been founded in 1906 by a self-appointed German Jewish social elite. Goldberg 101-3). The It has been founded in 1913 and is nominally affiliated to the  B'nai B'rth (Children of Covenant). It is in fact an association of reformist rabbis. The Simon Wiesenthal Center today is occupied with tracing of Nazi graybeards. These two last organizations are  the Zionism inquisition police. It look in fact for organizations which criticize Israel.

Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum (founded in 1990) directed Campus Watch is typically an aggressive Zionist censorship organization.

By the censorship the criticism of Israel's policy diminished on the American campuses (Mearsheimer 183, 232, 302).

            As mentioned the non transparence of the various Zionist organization also artificially created using the chaos of western non-government organizations as a Golden Eden. Within the Zionist Power Configuration, we find organization which are related to the Israeli army, the department of finance as well as various rabbinic organization. These later by supporting Israel's policy expose themselves to attack on the Jewish faith. This engagement of the Israelite religion is also shown by the oration of Israeli prime minister in synagogues.  Dove Lipmann, previously American citizen became member of Knesset told thatthe prayer for  Israeli soldiers is commonly said in synagogues worldwide..(!)” (Jodi Rudoren: A rabbi’s quest to ‘equalize the burden”. IHT 2013.2.9).  This attitude of Israelite religious authority is a cause that the anti-Zionism becomes an anti-Semitic color. It is to recall that in Israel the Orthodox Jews and their religion have a special status inscribed in various laws. Rituals such as marriage and burial must  (!) be performed  under Orthodox regulation. /Contemporary Sociology, March 12, 180/. (Nachman Ben-Yehuda: Theocratic Democracy: The Social Construction of Religious and Secular Extremism. Oxford UP, 2010.)

            As exposed the various Zionist organizations have specific targets to increase their influence. The AIPAC "checks" the elective process, the CPMAJO target is the executive power. In the executive power the Defiance department for its assistance to Israel and the foreign Affairs Department for the diplomatic cover of Israel action, - e.g. US representative in the UNSC. Since 2001, the so-called war against terrorism the Zionists show for an increased influence in the Department of Treasury. They tries to control the respect of Iran's boycott but practically all money movement in the dollar zone with Muslim countries. In 2013 under David S Cohen's the Office of Terrorism and Finance Intelligence control with 700 collaborators the international financial flows. There are also an Office of Foreign Assets Control. They exert regularly influence on western banks. These office is practically under Zionist control with access to information for MOSAD. If the Zionists are not satisfied by the control  Robert Einhorn from  Brookings Institution exerts a pressure on the US authorities.

(The financial controller of New York, Benjamin Lawsky also exerts a pressure on the US Department of Treasury See "The  money flows to Iran: New York’s bank regulator  takes the lead in investigating  the practices of a British bank IHT 2012.8.15. and  U.S. looking into banks’ lapses in tracking cash. IHT 2012.9.17.)

            In the worldwide (!) secrete "anti-terrorist" killings by drone the cooperation between CIA and Mossad is high. MOSAD is here the teacher. These US activities are only controlled by the Senate Intelligence Committee. In 2013 Dianna Feinstein was its president (IHT 8.2.2013, p. 5,6. 2013.2.7 p.5).

            In an overview, we can say that the seed of the Zionist Power Constellation was the Rothschild oligarchy, the Belfour declaration of 1917 promising the constitution of Israel is addressed to Walter Rothschild, the president  of the Zionist Federation. In present time the mentioned oligarchical American Zionist structure is the model for the worldwide Zionist organizations. (The Zionist Organization of America exists since 1897.) Beyond their proper internal organization they align, adhere to the political world structure. There are Zionist organizations on all levels; local, national and even for example especially for the European Union. (E.g.: CRIF, Conseil representaif  des institutions  juives  de France is a copy of the American CPMAJO.)  It is to note that in its globalist universal aspiration since 2013 the ZPC tries to find influence with the ONU. This is facilitated by the fact that Israel is in the "West European and others" geographical group.

            It is clear that all alignment of Zionist organizations with the national denomination is a tactical concession to the existing world since - except the Jewish identity - the Zionist mission is a cosmopolitan world organization without borders accessible for intrusion (Alam 103, 222[8], 229[32], 238-9[2].

            The ZPC also sticks to various political parties as well as all kind of specialized organization on one side to learn how they can serve Zionist interest, and other side, how can present Zionist aspiration under the name of these organizations. In order to present Zionist interest under cover-name educational, human watch (Freedom House in New York) and especially non-Israelite religious institutions are very useful (Goldberg 50, Mearsheimer 116). The so-called UN Watch organization is directed since 2000 by the Jewish-Canadian Hillil C. Neuer. Israel’s Ma’ariv newspaper named him to its list of the “Top 100 Most Influential Jewish People in the World". Neuer also cooperates with Adelson' Shalom Center which tries to limit the right of non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel. The so called Freedom House in New York presided by David J. Kramer and partly financed by Soros tried to promote the Zionist candidate for Russian presidency Mikhail B, Khodorkovsky assisted by the Zionist Leon Aron an Russian émigré in the  American Enterprise Institute (3.10.2014 NYT).

Since the interest for the persecution of Jews during the Second World War diminished, the Zionist movements look for universal denomination for maintaining interest for this cause. In 1993 in Los Angeles a Museum of Tolerance opened. We learn that it "is operated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center" which calls itself a "global human right organization whose research focuses on the Holocaust narrative". In order to use it for the promotion of Zionism in general, the Center will opened a second one in 2003 in New York City. Since there are already the Yad Vashein, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center it will "focus on the 3.500 year history of the Jewish people". It will be interesting to see will integrate this museum the tolerance concerning the state of Palestine.

          Since 2000 there exists the so-called Honest Reporting organization which is registered as a charity organization in Skokie, ill. As such it is a tax-free organization, In fact, its editorial board is in Jerusalem. It is a witch-hunter Zionist institution in order to silencing  all criticism of Israel ( M. Suchov: Values Identity, and Israel Advocacy. In: Foreign Policy Analysis. 7. 2011, 372[31]).


For influencing the Christian public opinion it is much more efficient if the mass media present the Israeli interest in name of Christian Council on Palestine  - founded by Christian Tillich already in 1942 -. then by a overtly Zionist organization. (Alam 134-5). One of these organization is the Christian United for Israel  of John Hagee (Mearsheimer 180, 132ff. Michel Massing: the Israeli Lobby., June 2002, The Nation) and other protestant movements aliments the illusion that they will convert the Israelite to the "judoe-christianism". In reality, these organizations often have not adherents, it is a syndicate of orators who preach for the West Bank settlers.

            For identifying the true nature of the pro-Zionist organizations it is necessary to identify the names figuring in the directorate and the financing source (as well as number of contributing members). It is not an exception that the same Zionist group appear under different denomination. That allows that a petition is underwrote by more than one organization. These societies make demonstration on different days in order that the same person can participates in many. This "masked ball" is a preferred method of the mass media to promote various causes.  The founder of Zionist World Organization Benjamin  Zelev (Theodor) Herzl as himself journalist.




In the modern times the Jewish people lived either dispersed or in enclaves - having also often the tendency to migration- and an image developed according to which it hold more on the transnational solidarity within its own ranks than to be a patriot. It is called this problematic the "Jewish issue" or by the apologetic of Zionism the anti-Semitic prejudice. Our concern is a new one, corresponding to the situation after 1948. Indeed, in this year the Zionist  movement reached its goal, the Jewish state - or as the former president reformulated "the State of Jews" (June 2007 in Haaretz) - has been established, and therefore the issue of patriotism appears in a new context. We study which attitude the Zionism requires now from the Jewish people. We doesn't study in which proportion of of the Jewish people follows the Zionist consign, only in the rank of  its prominent representatives within the Western societies.

            We can evoke as a paradigmatic case  how the religious identity and the adherence to Israel's cause could be confused across young and sportive associations. The movement Maccabi has been founded in 1929. Today it exists in London the Maccabi Lions football-club. Only Jew can play in this club and its jersey bears the star of David present in Israel's flag. And the Israeli military operation in 1948 had also as name Maccabi. 

(Sam Barrden: Jewish Soccer Team Reflects Mix of Cultural Identity. INYT 29.4.2013.)

            The Zionism defines the members of the Jewish people as eo ipso potential citizens of Israel. Indeed, the first expectation of Zionism was the immigration of all Jews to Israel at short run. The natural consequence would be that the potential immigrant look first for Israel interest and the Jews loose the blame to  be unpatriotic cosmopolitan: only their new patriotism would  concern Israel and not their native land.

            The new problem is produced, namely the integral migration is not produced and now the diaspora is not only unpatriotic cosmopolitan in his native land but manifest solidarity with an other state, the state of Israel. Of course, if this person will continue to represent politically his homeland, it could be censured without anti-Semitic prejudice.

(G. Sheffer: Diaspora Politics. At Home Aboard. Cambridge UP, New York, 2003.)

            The paradox expressed in the title of this chapter find its curious resolution if New York's coryphaeus of cosmopolitanism are not systematically against all kinds of nationalism. Indeed, according the Zionism, the Jewish People is unique and has an exceptional universal mission. For this reason it can give full vent to the expression of its national identity defined by the Zionism (Roger Cohen in IHT 16.10.2009. S. Alam: Israeli Exceptionalism. op cit, p.47). In practical term the Israeli authors reveal only their deep conviction about nationalism, if they express their opinion about the irredentism of the settlers of the West Bank in Palestine. part of the Promised Land.

            The problem became critical if the diaspora in general will not emigrate to Israel - with reverse migration - and stay in the homeland as double citizen, since the Zionism requires that first loyalty goes to Israel and the Jewish people in general (Mearsheimer 146, 402). During the last decades in the Western representative democracies the problem deepened by the fact that the People of Zionist orientation increased its participation in the decision making political elite in all three  political branches (namely legislative, executive and judiciary) with strong support of the media. Indeed, the Zionist Observatory has the task to check the consequence of this situation in relation to the representation of the Western interest.

            We already mentioned how the judge Richard Goldstone respected the obligation which he freely accepted from the United Nations as an universal mandate. Indeed, the U.N. mandated him to lead an committee of investigation of five concerning the civil victims of the Israeli military action called Plumb Durci between 2008-2009 in Gaza. The report of the committee is deeply compromising for Israel. But at April 1, 2011 Goldstone surprisingly desolidarized himself from a large part of the report in opposition to the other four members of the committee; namely  he as orthodox Jew from South Africa followed in Israel the pressure of the same communion he belongs. Thus, the Zionist prescription for double citizen has been followed.

            Also interestingly Jean-Paul Sartre consequently defended the Algiers cause against France on the base of universal human right, however he never engaged for the Palestinian cause against the Israeli occupation. (C. Schindler: The European left and its trouble with Jews. IHT 29.10.2012.)

            Numerous cases could be presented. From autobiographies of  the Western diaspora we can learn how the socialization process of the diaspora installs a primary national solidarity with Israel. Mearsheimer cites many cases (148-9, 170).  Take now Eric Altman, a critical journalist. His grandparents and parents send him in a Hebrew  school and "my rabbi" made from him "a teenager leader" and conducted him into AIPEC. He tell "Imagine  a hypothetical clash between American and  Israeli interest. Here, I feel pretty lonely admitting that, every once a while. I’m going  to go with what’s best for Israel.“ (Can we talk Nation, 21.4.2003.)

            The organized "tourist tours" to Israel program consequently by its content should be increase the feeling of belonging to Israel. These are pilgrimages.

(Tours that Bind: Diaspora, Pilgrimage, and Israeli Birthright Tourism. New York UP, 2010 261 pp. Contemporary Sociology, May 2011,317 Alam 99, Maersheimer 149-.)  

The goal is to increase the chauvinistic solidarity, the synergy between the immigrants,  the double citizen living in their native land and the immigrants, the Yishuv, in included the settlers in the West Bank.

(Sheldon Adelson the American casino magnate who backs  Mr. Netanyahu and who owns  Israel Hayom (free) daily "ensures  that the  the Israeli government  continue this action and he will continue his  matching grant it of about $40 million to Birthright,(!) a program  that brings young  Jews to Israel”. (J. Rudoren: Political Neophyte, Yahir Lapid confronts harsh realities. IHT May 21,2013. J. R.: The day a mogul came to lunch IHT May 30,13.)

In the perspective of the Zionist movement the Jewish people can't be seen separately from the State of Israel.  The "Israel critic" Noam Chomsky were voluntary workers in Kibuc, Rahm Emanuel, president Obama's first  chief of staff  and later Chicago's major served previously in the Israeli army as voluntary. Eric Altman and Charles Krauthammer are American and Israeli double citizens, they don't have state function. As newsmen they can be partial for Israel but they should declare clearly in which perspective and interest are his  analyses the situation.

Henry Kissinger (Years of Upheaval. Little, Boston, 1982, 203)with a tortuous way of thinking presents the problem of double loyalty. By chance (?) the Israeli leaders were his personal friend and he had difficulty to master his affections. This affection dictated him to sign the memorandum of 1975 in the name of  USA which obliges Egypt to provide Israel with oil. ( It is to be noted that in October 1973 Kissinger allowed to Dayan to break the UNSC ordered armistice agreement  during critical 48 hours.)  Even more prejudicial for USA, which he represented, was the memorandum of 1972. It obliges the United States to never present a peace plan for Palestine without the previous contentment of Israel; meanwhile  the U.S. provided and provide Israel with the up-to-date military arsenal Kissinger initiated the policy which provided Israel military superiority in the region. The USA engaged itself to never obliged Israel with sanctions or other pressure, - only by positive motivation, namely by further gifts, subventions and new credits. Abba Eban called this time the golden age for the Israeli military supply. (Under the pressure of the Israeli lobby President Obama enlarged even the US generosity. He amplified further  the US-Israel Enhanced Cooperation Act of 2012 in 2016.)

Among others, Washington Institute for Near East (WINEP) - following Israeli instructions - provides the American presidents  arguments as pretexts that the service for Israel is good for the USA too.

 Following the inspiration from WINEP Obama in a speech in the AIPAC and in its interview in the Atlantic to Jeffrey Goldberg concerning Iran nuclear limitation  told: “preventing  Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just(!) in the  interest of Israel, it is  profoundly in the  security interest of  the U.S. It is right if Th. L. Friedman writes in the IHT (Israel's best friend, 8.3.2012):.."Every Israeli .. should  be thankful to the president  for framing(!) the Iran issue this way.” (Th. L. Friedman: Israel’s best friend. Friends with Benefits: Why the U.S.-Israeli Alliance Is Good for America. See also M. Eisenstadt and D. Pollack: Friends with Benefits: Why the U.S.-Israeli Alliance Is Good for America in. Foreign Affairs (7.11.2012.)

In reality, the US-Israeli cooperation helps Israel but hurts US-Arab relation. For example, how sees Uri Savir, the director   Peres Center  for Peace the desired out come of the so-called Oslo peace process: “the US and Israel should  negotiate  a defense pact guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military advantage..” (IHT  11.9.2013. U. Savir: Oslo, 20 years later.)

The Western one-sided and unconditional support for Israel results, on one side from the new definition of the belonging to the Jewish people (Mark Oppenheimer: Reclaiming 'Jews' NYT 24.4.217), and on the other side the submission of the non Zionist decision-makers to the Israeli lobby as described by Mearsheimer and partly by J.J. Goldberg (246).

Since 1948, in the post-Israeli perspective the members of the Jewish people are defined as potential Israeli citizens independently that they are faithful Jews or free-thinkers. The basic criteria is to be loyal to Israel. This ambiguity in the (transitive Israel centric) definition of Jewishness and Israelitness allows to stigmatize any critic of the state of Israel as anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile Israel follows its own interest independently from others. The Israeli minister Ephraim Sneh exposed already in 1990: “ We were against  US-Iran dialogue because the interest of the U.S. did not coincide  with ours.” The American- Israeli lobby  followed Israel’s lead.” (Mearsheimer 291).

The diaspora Zionists serving in their native country's administration should insist for all price (!) that Israeli and US interest coincides spontaneously as the specialists of  WINEP expose; otherwise they would appear as traitors.

Jason Vest affirms that the coincidence between US and Israeli interests is an opportunistic fiction.

(“The Men  from Jewish  Institute  for National Security Affairs and the Center  for Security Policy “underwritten by far-right American Zionists” and “both  effectively hold there is no difference  between US and Israeli national interests, and the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity  for both (!) countries is though hegemony (!)  in the Middle East – a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientelism and covert action”.  (Jason Vest: The men from NSA and CSP. The Nation. June 10, 20). William B. Quandt a former loyal US representative in the UNSC describes concretely how the subordination of the USA interest to Israel's works (Decade of Decisions: American Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1967-76. U of California Press, 1977. ).

The Zionist movement uses different methods that the coincidence of US and Israeli interests become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It tries to place  Zionists in the various administration that they have the power to define, simply replace US interest by the Israeli one. On this manner the coincidence is "tautological".

The end goal is to replace the Christian background od Western policy by the Zionist one. (We quoted already Glenn in this respect.)

            The  joint Program Plan and the National (!) Jewish Community Relations  Adversary Council (NJCRAC) stated already in 1957 casually : “The American public accepted the American  Jewish concern about Israel.. as a natural(!), normal(!) manifestation of interest based on sympathies and emotional  attachments  of a sort that are common to many Americans.” (Mearsheimer 394[7], 116.)

            The Zionist media follow also the line that Christianity mention always Judeo-Christian as the Israeli interest always together with the Western one. Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post and William Kristol in the National Interest insist that the war of Israel are ours, meaning the West one's. (Krauthammer as double citizen received  for its apologetic works in 10 June 2002  the Zion Award from the Ben-Ilan University [Mearsheimer 240]).

          In order to cover up the contradiction between Zionist engagement and state loyalty of  the diaspora many authors speak of  "variety of attachment " of man. (Measheimer 147. U. Schoen: Bi-Identität.  [Walter, Zürich, 1996 ] p.177: "Kein Recht, double loyal zu sein. " A.-M. Thiesse: La création des identités nationales. Seuil, Paris 1999.)  The most used sophism enumerates among the numbersome loyalties, e.g.,  that to  working place or family. However, these various loyalty concern institutions on different levels and doesn't hurt national loyalty and don't require a political choice as the loyalty to the home state and (the newly created) Israel in critical situations does.

          Since the creation of Israel the general admission of double citizenship in the West was a wishes of Zionists, even if they strive for the immigration to Israel. the double citizenship facilitates that Zionists if they are accused for state treason - or for any less noble reason - find refuge in Israel.  An eminent  case was the Russian Yukos case, when Gusinov, the Russian representative of  WJO, Navzlin, Dubov and Bridno find refuge in Israel against Russian persecution.

          Israel has also an interest to have in  administrations of foreign countries - esp. USA - Zionists who keep a "low profiled" (Measheimer  18, 118). Since the belonging to the Jewish people is defined simply since 1948 by Israel centric attitude the formal double citizenship is not necessary and advisable, - anyway is obtainable by Jews immediately at Tel-Aviv Ben Gurion airport.  In Hebrew they are named as sayanim, helpers. In the USA administration Bern-Ami Kadish made spying work between 1979 and 1985, Jonathan  J Pollard  and Steward David Nozette did in the Department of Defense. (Boston Globe , 20.10.2009. In general see James Petras publications: Bended Knees - Zionist Power  in American Politics. Site rense/com: J. P.: Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power. Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2008.)

          As we already noted the double loyalty implied in the double citizenship is not a important problem for the ordinary migrants (except if conscription exists), but if somebody has some political charges, the clearing his primary loyalty seems necessary. Zionists protests against tendency to exclude double citizens from politically representative function or at least made the existence of double citizenship public, pretending to be a discrimination. But even the Zionist norm to serve anywhere first Israel interest makes this checking of background necessary. 

Dan Eden exposes clearly (Dual Citizenship. Loyal to whom? (www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html  2012.11.8) that the American Nationality Act of 1940 forbids (art. 401[e]) that somebody votes in a foreign country. However, in 1967 the Supreme Court under Zionist influence made an exception in the case of  Byes Afroyim; even that he voted in Israel, he doesn't lost his American Citizenship.

Even more chocking is to learn the Zionist double standard in this very issue. According to the rules of Israeli Knesset (art 16A) nobody can be making the oath, if he also have a foreign citizenship and has the possibility to renounce of it.

We have no statistics which proportion of the Jewish people - believer (dati)  and nonbeliever (hiloni) - worldwide follows the Israel centrism Zionist requirement. Of course, the Zionist representation among the financers of think-tanks and in the ranges of the researchers which makes the design of geopolitical narratives, the deduced proposed strategy for complaisant political deciders as well as in the media which comments the decisions for the ordinary citizen is the most important question.

Concerning the Zionist street movements in the West against anti-Semitism, we can observe that more and more the Star of David appears on flags between two blue lines which is the flag of the State of Israel. On this way the defense of the adherent to the Jewish religion involved implicitly and immediately support of  the Zionist policy of a state, the State of Israel(See Mira Sucharov: Values, Identity,  and Israel Advocacy. In: Foreign Policy Analysis ,7. 2011, 366: G.  Gorenberg:  Think Again; Israel. In: Foreign Policy. 5.2008. Alan Dershowitz: The Case for Israel. John Wiley, Hoboken, 2003. Dershowitz at Harvard Law School is the typical representative of  "Israel über alles ".)

The CPMAJO and other Zionist organizations see that there is a hitch somewhere with the double loyalty and Zionist apologists try to hide the problem.

(Tivnan Edward ( The Lobby. Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1987. S. T. Rosenthal: Long Distance Nationalism. American Jews, Zionists and Israel. In: D. E. Kaplan ed.: The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism. Cambridge UP, 2005, 209. Critical position we find in Measheimer 13, 115, 118, 146-50, 393[5]. )

Roger Cohen, a journalist the New York Times - born in South Africa - shows how the evaluation of a political parties - in the case of  British Labour Party - by the media  depends from the participation of Zionists in their direction.  Since the Zionist Miliband brothers - Ralph and David - lost the power to Jeremy Corny who is not unilaterally engaged for Israel  it is constantly attacked by the press. The title of Cohen's article is clear: "A Jew not quite English enough" (IHT 8.10.2013). Cohen describes the two brothers as "trembling Israelites, since the state of Israel exists and their national loyalty is questioned. The Daily Mail (A man who hated Britain) stated that the Milibands' father, a Polish immigrant hated Britain.  Cohen concludes his reasoning with the sentence: "David Mili tweeted that his father loved Britain. He now lives in New York, a city of "full-throated Jewishness."

In general terms, the Zionists created basic problems  for the West by relating the definition of  "World Jewry" objectively to the state of Israel and subjectively requiring the loyalty to it.

(Mark Openeimer in Reclaiming 'Jew' [NYT 24.4.2017,11] wrote: "The Founding of  the State of Israel has given the word "Israelite" new connotation.")

As already mentioned,  the Agency for Israel created in 2002 the Jewish People Institute . It describes its mission with precision: (a) serving the interest of the "World Jewry" with research and action ("alert to emerging opportunity and threats") and (b); in the defense of these interests the state of Israel creates the "core".  Significantly under the founders and leaders we find personalities who  largely influenced the U.S. policy as insiders like Dennis Ross and Stuart Eizenstadt.

If those belong to the Jewish People who can obtain automatically the citizenship of the State of Israel - allowed by the (orthodox) rabbinate, - this large definition permits to englobe in the Jewish People observant religious Jews and also secular non observant ones. But by accepting the dependence to the Jewishness from a political concept, - namely the State of Israel,  - the members of the world Jewry's capacity to represent politically other states become necessarily questionable. On one side, the problematic of double loyalty emerges, and on the other side, the reserves against engagement of Zionist Jew as civil servant could not (!) be systematically assimilated to old Christian biblical anti-Semitism anymore.

After situating the Zionism as major political factor in relation to  the West, we look on  the Zionism global aspiration.


[i] The expression Zionism originates from the Viennese newsman,  Nathan Birnbaum (1880). S. Monoz wrote about  Naissance  politique  (Gallimard, Paris, 1981.) Claude  Franck and Michel Herszlikowicz (Le sionisme. PUF, 1980, 6) state that the Zionism is the national religion of the Israeli people. Therefore the Zionism is a political movement. 

[ii] Patrick Glenn : Legal Tradition of the World. Oxford UP, 2010, 109-111, 104-5.

[iii] Weiss B. (Interpretation in Islamic Law, Am  J. Comp. Law 1978). See also Glenn 216-7.

[iv] The general strategy of Zionist movement to make existentially dependent of  the society’s influential circles. Glenn  (28-30) distinguishes correctly « pecuniary, institutional and intellectual  corruptions ». In the later case “authority would replace justification, invocation of heresy or treason would  replace exchange.”

[v] The Harvard Law School is  practically occupied by the Zionist. See the activist professor Alan Dershowitz censuring activities.

For the situation an the American elite institution it is characteristically the Yale historian Paul Kennedy’s remark:  ( Which Catholic Church? Feb. 27,13, IHT): “being about the only (!) professor  at liberal, tolerant, cosmopolitan  Western university who is known to be a practicing catholic – baptized (!) .. – I  have been asked …”

[vi] Shahid Alam : Israeli Exceptionalism : The Destabilizing  Logic of  Zionism McMillan, 2009.He call the Zionism a secular messianism. (47ff).

According to Glenn (101, 109): Talmud + Torah =  Halakha + Haggadah.

The terminology concerning Torah is not unanimous. The same term also is used to designate The Pentateuch, Moses five books on the beginning of the Old Testament as a written version of the oral Torah. Some times the Torah designates all the Old Testament. The acronym Tanakh incudes Torah, Moses five books, Nebiim, the book of prophets Ketuvim and other sacred writings. Anyway the designation of  Hebrew Bible for the Old testament is false  because it excludes the part written in Aramaic. (William Safire in IHT, 26.5.1997.)

Anyway the present Judaism is Talmudic. The Talmud itself has two versions the Jerusalem or Palestine (conceived between 230 and 500 A.D.) and the Babylonian (500 AD). Judah wrote the Mishna (repetition) as a commentary to Torah. Probably it originates from 150 A.D. – surly between 70 and 200. We find in this work the law-book Halakhah and  the Haggadah  containing legends. The Hebrew Mishna  and the Aramaic Gemara constitutes together the Talmud. The various Talmuds are text coming from the oral Torah. These collections of Rabbinical interpretation of the Bible as well as theological controversies originated between 70 and 200 A.D. 

Contrary to the Judaism’s reformist and conservative tendencies of  New York the orthodox Judaism “is in charge  of  the (Israeli) state religious bodies like the chief rabbinate” (IHT Sept. 6,13, p.2).


[vii] Glenn: “This must be done, if more generally, talmudic law is to serve in the future  as a model or example (!) for  western law.” (See yet in the chapter “Talmudic Example?” : “How can such an ancient and religious tradition continue  to provide a model, however in contemporary states which  see themselves as secular?” “More generally,  it [talmudic tradition] is enriching western thinking  on how law can be conceived (!).” (128) “Again in the U.S.A., it is said that the academy is suffering a loss of confidence  in the moral and intellectual basis of authoritative and supposedly neutral legal  interpretation and in liberal political theory  generally and would now be seeking  ‘alternative model’.”

            The advance made by the Talmudic tradition to the Western lawmakers see also

Stone  S. L. : In Pursuit of  the Counter-Ext: The Turn  to the Jewish Legal Model in Contemporary American  Legal Theory. Harvard Law Review, 1993, 106, 813. :“So talmudic law in the U.S.A. would  be being reinterpreted to provide (!) a requisite ‘counter-model for U.S. law, while  its incorporation (!) into the  U.S. legal thinking would also redefining U.S. legal theory.” 

Yet Stone about Maimonides in late 20th c. U.S. Case Law. (Glenn 129): “..notion of legal acculturation and a unitary Judea American legal tradition.” . 

See also Broyde M. J.: A Jewish Tradition for  a Modern Society. In: Witte  J. Jr. et al. Religious Human Rights  in Global Perspective. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,  1996, 203. Litmus Test, (IHT 2013.2.4.  )

J. Auerbach: Rabbis and  Lawyer: The journey from Torah to Constitution. Indiana UP, Bloomington, 1990: “and for  ‘increasing (!) prominence of Jewish  law in U.S. law schools and legal scholarship.”

S. Levine: Emerging Applications of Jewish Law in American Legal Scholarship. Law and Rel. 43.” (Glenn 129. “Of course, it does all  this… so it might not work in a state considered secular.”  

See Glenn’s 4th chapter “A Talmudic legal tradition: the perfect author”” (99 ff. )

Smuley Boteach rabbi, founder of Jewish  Value Network stated: "sowely but surely, Jewish  values are sculpting and molding the mainstream culture." (Mira Sucharov: Values, Identity,  and Israel Advocacy. In: Foreign Policy Analysis ,7. 2011,365-)

[viii] Cf. Edward Saïd : America’s  Last Taboo. New Left Review. November 2000.

[ix]The  Zionist newsman Robert Kagan  and other so-called neoconservatives wrote an in September 2000. an open letter to president Bush (Project for the New American Century) denominating Israel as  „America’s best ally against international terrorism“ and requires to stationing American military in Near East. Kegan R.: America Made. A.A.Knopf, New York,  2012. Mearsheimer  J.J. and S. M. Walt: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.  Penguin, London, 2007. 206, 437[155], 258)

[x] John Mearsheimer op. cit. 128-32. James Petras: Bended Knees: Zionist Power in American Politics. Clarity press Christchurch NZ, 2012. J. P.: The Power of  Israel in the U.S. Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2006.

[xi] See also Alex Strick van Linschoten: An Enemy We Created“  (Mearsheimer 131). According to the conservative Russel Kirk: “what really animates the neoconservatives .. is the preservation of  Israel, that lies in back of everything.” 193, 416[99]. Goldberg J. J. ( Jewish Power: Inside the American Establishment. Reading, MA, 1997, 159) cites the truly traditional conservatives and says: “Neoconservatives are a ”sort of Jewish Trojan Horse invading the American right”. (See also Alam: 219, 250[53,54])

The pre-millenistic form of  the dispensionist theology of XIX. c. (Louis Way, Darby) is the Christian neoconservatives doctrinal reference. They believe that the Jews will convert at the return of Jesus, therefore the constitution of  Israel in Palestine is a first step. This current  influenced Belfour, even Wilson and perhaps Trumant too, whwn he recognized the state of Israel. The present American  Christian Zionists such as John Hugue movement the Christian United  for Israel or the  Christian Friends of Israel   are simply  „Junior Partners” of the Zionists (Mearsheimer 115, 132, 330, 398-99. Alam 129, 211, 152, 241[22].) Woodrow Wilson brought into the mainstream of American public life the Zionist newsman  Walter Lippmann and the judge Louis D. Brandies. (Kevin Baker: Woodrow Wilson, the professor in chief. IHT, Sept.21,13)

[xii] According to Alam (198) Chomsky  deny the existence  of a  Zionist collusion.

[xiii]Jewish World People” Jewish Observer of the Jewish Confederation of Ukraine, 6/25, March 2002/5762 Nisan. According to Alam’s terminology (207, 29): “global Jewish community.”.

[xiv]  Roger Cohen quotes the Israeli prime minister Netanyahu : “Israel as a Jewish State and  the homeland  for the Jewish People.” The Bafour Declaration as well as the UN decision 181, use the term "Jewish People".

A main problem with the definition of  Jewish people is that the Israeli rabbinate   defines the Jewishness in Orthodox  terms, while the American one in Reformist and Conservative one. (Israelis grow distant from American Jewry. IHT 18.11.1997). The definition of Jewishness results from the interpretation of halakha.

[xv] The Biblical references used are: The Deuteronomy 7:1-3: 24, Joshua 1: 4 and Genesis 15:18 in the Torah. This Canaan includes Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi-Arabia too.

[xvi] The Zionist national anthem, Hatikva  wrote by Naphtali Herz Imber in 1878 says: “yearning  of the Jewish Soul” to be “a free nation in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem” (IHT March 6, 2912,, 4).

C. Franck 48-50, 85. Alam 66, 58. David Robinson: Penguin Dictionary of Politics. London, 1993, 494-5.

[xvii] Adams Elliott:  Faith or Fear in a Christian America. New York, Simon, 1997, 181: “Jews… are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is a very nature  of  being Jewish to be part - except in Israel (!) – from the rest of the population.” [Mearsheimer 167])

« **************************************************************************                                               ***


             Connie  Bruck (“Friends of Israel, The New Yorker  cf  Roger Cohen: War of Choice in Gaza INYT Sept 9,14) quotes Brian Baird former Democratic congressman: “The difficult reality  is this:  in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independendetly  waelthy, you have  to raise  a lot of money.  And you  learn  pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side,  you can do that. Connie Bruck quotes also the congressman, John Yarmuth : “We  all took an oath  of office. And AIPAC in many instances, is asking  us to ignore it.”

LRB | Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006 |

John Mearsheimer and

      Stephen Walt:

      printable layout

      The Israel Lobby

      For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in

      1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its

      relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel

      and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has

      inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but

      that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in

      American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its

      own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the

      interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two

      countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral

      imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level

      of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

      Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely

      from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel

      Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy,

      but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national

      interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US

      interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are

      essentially identical.

      Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level

      of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest

      annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976,

      and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of

      well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion

      in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid

      budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is

      especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a

      per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

      Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel

      receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and

      can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military

      purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed

      to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence

      industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how

      the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money

      from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements

      on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3

      billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer

      weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives

      Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned

      a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

      Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since

      1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of

      Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other

      Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put

      Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue

      in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon

      administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and

      resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in

      the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy

      ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the

      negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each

      case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but

      the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American

      participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we

      functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s

      ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at

      improving Israel’s strategic situation.

      This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a

      vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US

      backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that

      Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy

      after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted

      humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It

      occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan)

      and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own

      client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet


      Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s

      relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2

      billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec

      oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For

      all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US

      interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel

      when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of

      oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

      The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a

      strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the

      anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile

      batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance

      against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel

      was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without

      triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.

      Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been

      justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups

      originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back

      these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean

      not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with

      the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all

      Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go

      after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally

      in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact,

      Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal

      with rogue states.

      ‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide

      array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten

      Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes

      against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is

      not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a

      response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza


      More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared

      terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a

      terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with

      Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only

      source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it

      makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that

      many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by

      Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians.

      Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally

      popular support and to attract recruits.

      As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire

      threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to

      Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously

      undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the

      blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming

      retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally

      remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go

      undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The

      relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with

      these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its

      neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change

      merely increases that desire.

      A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not

      behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests

      and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and

      to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel

      has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China,

      in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and

      growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General

      Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage

      operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of

      Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material

      in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in

      return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in

      2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry

      Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel

      is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to

      spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

      Israel’s strategic value isn’t the only issue. Its backers also argue that

      it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by

      enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past

      crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has

      been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection,

      none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for

      supporting Israel’s existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed

      objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for

      privileging it over the Palestinians.

      Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse

      is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had

      larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of

      Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories

      against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of

      this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the

      strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are

      far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the

      region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties

      with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet

      patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is

      hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police

      force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel. According to

      a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic

      Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has

      continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability

      and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the

      underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting

      Israel’s opponents.

      That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships

      cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies

      around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has

      overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when

      this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a

      number of dictatorships today.

      Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values.

      Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights

      irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded

      as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood

      kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are

      treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government

      commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’

      manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its

      refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full

      political rights.

      A third justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian

      West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for

      centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now

      believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The

      country’s creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long

      record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes

      against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.

      This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told

      Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

        If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is

        natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two

        thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been

        anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?

        They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why

        should they accept that?

      Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the

      Palestinians’ national ambitions. When she was prime minister, Golda Meir

      famously remarked that ‘there is no such thing as a Palestinian.’ Pressure

      from extremist violence and Palestinian population growth has forced

      subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from the Gaza Strip and consider

      other territorial compromises, but not even Yitzhak Rabin was willing to

      offer the Palestinians a viable state. Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous

      offer at Camp David would have given them only a disarmed set of

      Bantustans under de facto Israeli control. The tragic history of the

      Jewish people does not obligate the US to help Israel today no matter what

      it does.

      Israel’s backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at

      every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by

      contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground,

      Israel’s record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents.

      Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent

      towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments – which is

      hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own

      state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48

      involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and

      rapes by Jews, and Israel’s subsequent conduct has often been brutal,

      belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for

      example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab

      infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered

      hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars,

      while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from

      the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan


      During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops

      and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The

      Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900

      children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the

      first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or

      under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent,

      leading Ha’aretz to declare that ‘the IDF . . . is turning into a killing

      machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.’ The IDF fired

      one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for

      every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of

      whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli

      children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind

      that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from

      Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime

      minister, declared that ‘neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can

      disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.’

      The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn’t surprising. The

      Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions.

      As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he ‘would

      have joined a terrorist organisation’.

      So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s

      support for Israel, how are we to explain it?

      The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the

      Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and

      organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel

      direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified

      movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not

      disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the

      Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004

      survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were

      either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel.

      Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key

      organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs

      Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish

      Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud

      Party’s expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace

      process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make

      concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups – such as Jewish Voice

      for Peace – strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences,

      moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel.

      Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials,

      to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist

      from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say:

      “This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the

      Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong

      prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on

      Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the

      World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to

      President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb

      construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics said that

      ‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish

      Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies

      being promoted by the government of Israel.’

      Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich,

      advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a

      critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as

      ‘irresponsible’: ‘There is,’ his critics said, ‘absolutely no room in the

      Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related

      policies . . . of Israel.’ Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced

      that ‘the word “pressure” is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.

      Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to

      influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and

      best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their

      staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked

      second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the

      AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in

      March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place

      (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

      The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer,

      Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom

      DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of

      whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and

      support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be

      contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton;

      Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett,

      the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN

      ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast


      The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the

      policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and

      members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in

      elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate

      amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk

      of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate

      those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident

      that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.

      In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm

      lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is

      nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting

      to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort

      depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most

      part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what

      other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By

      contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are

      weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.

      The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant

      influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive

      branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker’s own views may be,

      the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the ‘smart’ choice. Second, it

      strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive

      light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of

      view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from

      getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is

      essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of

      US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy.

      A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress,

      where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is

      remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues.

      Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One

      reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey,

      who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to

      protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any

      congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators

      and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports

      Israel’s interests.

      Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional

      staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there

      are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who

      happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in

      terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position

      to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get

      an awful lot done just at the staff level.’

      AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in

      Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and

      congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who

      challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the

      lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure

      that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel

      political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can

      be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her

      political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and

      encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.

      There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one

      example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy

      from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed

      insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head

      of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America,

      from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians

      – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the


      AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas

      Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of

      Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need

      information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional

      Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More

      important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work

      on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors

      and marshal votes’.

      The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government,

      has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards

      Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important

      consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main

      branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As

      one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office,

      ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around

      here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask

      me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’

      Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential

      elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive

      branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population,

      they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The

      Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates

      ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the

      money’. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are

      concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York

      and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to

      antagonise them.

      Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that

      critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter

      wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that

      Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the

      appointment. In this way any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become

      an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of Israeli

      policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy


      When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more ‘even-handed

      role’ in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him

      of selling Israel down the river and said his statement was

      ‘irresponsible’. Virtually all the top Democrats in the House signed a

      letter criticising Dean’s remarks, and the Chicago Jewish Star reported

      that ‘anonymous attackers . . . are clogging the email inboxes of Jewish

      leaders around the country, warning – without much evidence – that Dean

      would somehow be bad for Israel.’

      This worry was absurd; Dean is in fact quite hawkish on Israel: his

      campaign co-chair was a former AIPAC president, and Dean said his own

      views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than those

      of the more moderate Americans for Peace Now. He had merely suggested that

      to ‘bring the sides together’, Washington should act as an honest broker.

      This is hardly a radical idea, but the Lobby doesn’t tolerate


      During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely

      shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel

      organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of

      research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute

      for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving

      government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often

      visits the country. These men were among Clinton’s closest advisers at the

      Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo

      peace process and favoured the creation of a Palestinian state, they did

      so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel. The

      American delegation took its cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its

      negotiating positions with Israel in advance, and did not offer

      independent proposals. Not surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators

      complained that they were ‘negotiating with two Israeli teams – one

      displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag’.

      The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose

      ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as Elliot

      Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis (‘Scooter’) Libby, Richard

      Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials

      have consistently pushed for policies favoured by Israel and backed by

      organisations in the Lobby.

      The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead

      Americans to question the level of support they provide. Accordingly,

      pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the institutions that do

      most to shape popular opinion.

      The Lobby’s perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate among

      Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is ‘dominated by

      people who cannot imagine criticising Israel’. He lists 61 ‘columnists and

      commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and

      without qualification’. Conversely, he found just five pundits who

      consistently criticise Israeli actions or endorse Arab positions.

      Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy,

      but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side. It is hard to

      imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a

      piece like this one.

      ‘Shamir, Sharon, Bibi – whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by

      me,’ Robert Bartley once remarked. Not surprisingly, his newspaper, the

      Wall Street Journal, along with other prominent papers like the Chicago

      Sun-Times and the Washington Times, regularly runs editorials that

      strongly support Israel. Magazines like Commentary, the New Republic and

      the Weekly Standard defend Israel at every turn.

      Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times, which

      occasionally criticises Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the

      Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but is not even-handed. In his

      memoirs the paper’s former executive editor Max Frankel acknowledges the

      impact his own attitude had on his editorial decisions: ‘I was much more

      deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert . . . Fortified by my

      knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our

      Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognised, I

      wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.’

      News reports are more even-handed, in part because reporters strive to be

      objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the

      Occupied Territories without acknowledging Israel’s actions on the ground.

      To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises letter-writing

      campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets whose content it

      considers anti-Israel. One CNN executive has said that he sometimes gets

      6000 email messages in a single day complaining about a story. In May

      2003, the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in

      America (CAMERA) organised demonstrations outside National Public Radio

      stations in 33 cities; it also tried to persuade contributors to withhold

      support from NPR until its Middle East coverage becomes more sympathetic

      to Israel. Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1

      million in contributions as a result of these efforts. Further pressure on

      NPR has come from Israel’s friends in Congress, who have asked for an

      internal audit of its Middle East coverage as well as more oversight.

      The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important

      role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created

      its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP.

      Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide

      a ‘balanced and realistic’ perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded

      and run by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.

      The Lobby’s influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the past 25

      years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the

      American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for

      Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage

      Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy

      Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

      These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel.

      Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the

      Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a well-deserved

      reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings’s coverage is conducted

      through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by

      Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist. The

      centre’s director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. What was once a

      non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus.

      Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on

      university campuses. In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was

      underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger

      with Oslo’s collapse and Sharon’s access to power, becoming quite

      vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and

      employed massive force to subdue the second intifada.

      The Lobby moved immediately to ‘take back the campuses’. New groups sprang

      up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to US

      colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs

      and Hillel joined in, and a new group, the Israel on Campus Coalition, was

      formed to co-ordinate the many bodies that now sought to put Israel’s

      case. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its spending on programmes to

      monitor university activities and to train young advocates, in order to

      ‘vastly expand the number of students involved on campus . . . in the

      national pro-Israel effort’.

      The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September

      2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel

      neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted

      dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks or

      behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent

      attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction and

      Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites

      students to report ‘anti-Israel’ activity.

      Groups within the Lobby put pressure on particular academics and

      universities. Columbia has been a frequent target, no doubt because of the

      presence of the late Edward Said on its faculty. ‘One can be sure that any

      public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the pre-eminent

      literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails, letters and

      journalistic accounts that call on us to denounce Said and to either

      sanction or fire him,’ Jonathan Cole, its former provost, reported. When

      Columbia recruited the historian Rashid Khalidi from Chicago, the same

      thing happened. It was a problem Princeton also faced a few years later

      when it considered wooing Khalidi away from Columbia.

      A classic illustration of the effort to police academia occurred towards

      the end of 2004, when the David Project produced a film alleging that

      faculty members of Columbia’s Middle East Studies programme were

      anti-semitic and were intimidating Jewish students who stood up for

      Israel. Columbia was hauled over the coals, but a faculty committee which

      was assigned to investigate the charges found no evidence of anti-semitism

      and the only incident possibly worth noting was that one professor had

      ‘responded heatedly’ to a student’s question. The committee also

      discovered that the academics in question had themselves been the target

      of an overt campaign of intimidation.

      Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish

      groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor

      what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities

      judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding. Their

      efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an indication of the

      importance placed on controlling debate.

      A number of Jewish philanthropists have recently established Israel

      Studies programmes (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies

      programmes already in existence) so as to increase the number of

      Israel-friendly scholars on campus. In May 2003, NYU announced the

      establishment of the Taub Center for Israel Studies; similar programmes

      have been set up at Berkeley, Brandeis and Emory. Academic administrators

      emphasise their pedagogical value, but the truth is that they are intended

      in large part to promote Israel’s image. Fred Laffer, the head of the Taub

      Foundation, makes it clear that his foundation funded the NYU centre to

      help counter the ‘Arabic [sic] point of view’ that he thinks is prevalent

      in NYU’s Middle East programmes.

      No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one

      of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who

      criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have

      significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC

      celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite.

      Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the

      risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media

      refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts

      of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a

      very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be

      accused of.

      Europeans have been more willing than Americans to criticise Israeli

      policy, which some people attribute to a resurgence of anti-semitism in

      Europe. We are ‘getting to a point’, the US ambassador to the EU said in

      early 2004, ‘where it is as bad as it was in the 1930s’. Measuring

      anti-semitism is a complicated matter, but the weight of evidence points

      in the opposite direction. In the spring of 2004, when accusations of

      European anti-semitism filled the air in America, separate surveys of

      European public opinion conducted by the US-based Anti-Defamation League

      and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that it was

      in fact declining. In the 1930s, by contrast, anti-semitism was not only

      widespread among Europeans of all classes but considered quite acceptable.

      The Lobby and its friends often portray France as the most anti-semitic

      country in Europe. But in 2003, the head of the French Jewish community

      said that ‘France is not more anti-semitic than America.’ According to a

      recent article in Ha’aretz, the French police have reported that

      anti-semitic incidents declined by almost 50 per cent in 2005; and this

      even though France has the largest Muslim population of any European

      country. Finally, when a French Jew was murdered in Paris last month by a

      Muslim gang, tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets to

      condemn anti-semitism. Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin both

      attended the victim’s memorial service to show their solidarity.

      No one would deny that there is anti-semitism among European Muslims, some

      of it provoked by Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians and some of it

      straightforwardly racist. But this is a separate matter with little

      bearing on whether or not Europe today is like Europe in the 1930s. Nor

      would anyone deny that there are still some virulent autochthonous

      anti-semites in Europe (as there are in the United States) but their

      numbers are small and their views are rejected by the vast majority of


      Israel’s advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that

      there is a ‘new anti-semitism’, which they equate with criticism of

      Israel. In other words, criticise Israeli policy and you are by definition

      an anti-semite. When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to

      divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that it manufactures the

      bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief

      Rabbi complained that this would ‘have the most adverse repercussions on .

      . . Jewish-Christian relations in Britain’, while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the

      head of the Reform movement, said: ‘There is a clear problem of

      anti-Zionist – verging on anti-semitic – attitudes emerging in the

      grass-roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.’ But the Church

      was guilty merely of protesting against Israeli government policy.

      Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or

      questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western

      critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they question

      its behaviour towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis themselves. Nor is

      Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians

      elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted notions of

      human rights, to international law and to the principle of national

      self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp

      criticism on these grounds.

      In the autumn of 2001, and especially in the spring of 2002, the Bush

      administration tried to reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab world

      and undermine support for terrorist groups like al-Qaida by halting

      Israel’s expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating

      the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush had very significant means of

      persuasion at his disposal. He could have threatened to reduce economic

      and diplomatic support for Israel, and the American people would almost

      certainly have supported him. A May 2003 poll reported that more than 60

      per cent of Americans were willing to withhold aid if Israel resisted US

      pressure to settle the conflict, and that number rose to 70 per cent among

      the ‘politically active’. Indeed, 73 per cent said that the United States

      should not favour either side.

      Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington

      ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted Israel’s

      own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric began to mimic

      Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post headline summarised

      the situation: ‘Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy.’ The

      main reason for this switch was the Lobby.

      The story begins in late September 2001, when Bush began urging Sharon to

      show restraint in the Occupied Territories. He also pressed him to allow

      Israel’s foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to meet with Yasser Arafat, even

      though he (Bush) was highly critical of Arafat’s leadership. Bush even

      said publicly that he supported the creation of a Palestinian state.

      Alarmed, Sharon accused him of trying ‘to appease the Arabs at our

      expense’, warning that Israel ‘will not be Czechoslovakia’.

      Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain, and the

      White House press secretary called Sharon’s remarks ‘unacceptable’. Sharon

      offered a pro forma apology, but quickly joined forces with the Lobby to

      persuade the administration and the American people that the United States

      and Israel faced a common threat from terrorism. Israeli officials and

      Lobby representatives insisted that there was no real difference between

      Arafat and Osama bin Laden: the United States and Israel, they said,

      should isolate the Palestinians’ elected leader and have nothing to do

      with him.

      The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On 16 November, 89 senators sent

      Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but also

      demanding that the US not restrain Israel from retaliating against the

      Palestinians; the administration, they wrote, must state publicly that it

      stood behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the letter ‘stemmed’

      from a meeting two weeks before between ‘leaders of the American Jewish

      community and key senators’, adding that AIPAC was ‘particularly active in

      providing advice on the letter’.

      By late November, relations between Tel Aviv and Washington had improved

      considerably. This was thanks in part to the Lobby’s efforts, but also to

      America’s initial victory in Afghanistan, which reduced the perceived need

      for Arab support in dealing with al-Qaida. Sharon visited the White House

      in early December and had a friendly meeting with Bush.

      In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation

      Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major

      Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel’s actions would

      damage America’s image in the Islamic world and undermine the war on

      terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon ‘halt the incursions and begin

      withdrawal’. He underscored this message two days later, saying he wanted

      Israel to ‘withdraw without delay’. On 7 April, Condoleezza Rice, then

      Bush’s national security adviser, told reporters: ‘“Without delay” means

      without delay. It means now.’ That same day Colin Powell set out for the

      Middle East to persuade all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.

      Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the

      vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative

      pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell.

      They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction

      between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being

      pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick

      Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and

      DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House

      and warned Bush to back off.

      The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he

      told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary

      said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush

      repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive

      mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to

      his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such

      thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.

      Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it overrode

      the administration’s objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming

      support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House of

      Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held that the

      United States ‘stands in solidarity with Israel’ and that the two

      countries were, to quote the House resolution, ‘now engaged in a common

      struggle against terrorism’. The House version also condemned ‘the ongoing

      support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser Arafat’, who was portrayed

      as a central part of the terrorism problem. Both resolutions were drawn up

      with the help of the Lobby. A few days later, a bipartisan congressional

      delegation on a fact-finding mission to Israel stated that Sharon should

      resist US pressure to negotiate with Arafat. On 9 May, a House

      appropriations subcommittee met to consider giving Israel an extra $200

      million to fight terrorism. Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby

      backed it and Powell lost.

      In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United States

      and triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist on the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv,

      reported that Sharon’s aides ‘could not hide their satisfaction in view of

      Powell’s failure. Sharon saw the whites of President Bush’s eyes, they

      bragged, and the president blinked first.’ But it was Israel’s champions

      in the United States, not Sharon or Israel, that played the key role in

      defeating Bush.

      The situation has changed little since then. The Bush administration

      refused ever again to have dealings with Arafat. After his death, it

      embraced the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but has done little to

      help him. Sharon continued to develop his plan to impose a unilateral

      settlement on the Palestinians, based on ‘disengagement’ from Gaza coupled

      with continued expansion on the West Bank. By refusing to negotiate with

      Abbas and making it impossible for him to deliver tangible benefits to the

      Palestinian people, Sharon’s strategy contributed directly to Hamas’s

      electoral victory. With Hamas in power, however, Israel has another excuse

      not to negotiate. The US administration has supported Sharon’s actions

      (and those of his successor, Ehud Olmert). Bush has even endorsed

      unilateral Israeli annexations in the Occupied Territories, reversing the

      stated policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson.

      US officials have offered mild criticisms of a few Israeli actions, but

      have done little to help create a viable Palestinian state. Sharon has

      Bush ‘wrapped around his little finger’, the former national security

      adviser Brent Scowcroft said in October 2004. If Bush tries to distance

      the US from Israel, or even criticises Israeli actions in the Occupied

      Territories, he is certain to face the wrath of the Lobby and its

      supporters in Congress. Democratic presidential candidates understand that

      these are facts of life, which is the reason John Kerry went to great

      lengths to display unalloyed support for Israel in 2004, and why Hillary

      Clinton is doing the same thing today.

      Maintaining US support for Israel’s policies against the Palestinians is

      essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop

      there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional

      power. The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States

      have worked together to shape the administration’s policy towards Iraq,

      Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.

      Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the

      decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans

      believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct

      evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good

      part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow,

      a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board,

      the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to

      Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the

      United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’,

      Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002.

      ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it

      rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’

      On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for

      war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington

      Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military

      strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon,

      strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached

      ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given

      Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As

      one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full

      partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence

      regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’

      Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security

      Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to

      let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a

      must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and

      inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome

      easily inspections and inspectors.’

      At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that

      ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime

      minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street

      Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less

      than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for

      the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike

      against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the

      military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’

      As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to

      Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel

      was the only country in the world where both politicians and public

      favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel

      is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly

      and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so

      gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their

      rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s


      Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of

      neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s

      major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush

      attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s

      most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In

      statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the

      world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The

      editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully

      factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’

      Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade

      Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war

      started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide

      opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less

      supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62

      per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish

      influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence,

      especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.

      The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before

      Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two

      open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The

      signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA

      or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith,

      William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul

      Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to

      adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a

      war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate

      enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush

      administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived

      with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to

      reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war.

      At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz

      advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no

      evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden

      was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and chose to go

      after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a serious

      possibility and on 21 November the president charged military planners

      with developing concrete plans for an invasion.

      Other neo-conservatives were meanwhile at work in the corridors of power.

      We don’t have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard Lewis of

      Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important

      roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though

      neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter

      Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in

      the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had

      persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable.

      Outside the administration, neo-conservative pundits lost no time in

      making the case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on

      terrorism. Their efforts were designed partly to keep up the pressure on

      Bush, and partly to overcome opposition to the war inside and outside the

      government. On 20 September, a group of prominent neo-conservatives and

      their allies published another open letter: ‘Even if evidence does not

      link Iraq directly to the attack,’ it read, ‘any strategy aiming at the

      eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort

      to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.’ The letter also reminded

      Bush that ‘Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against

      international terrorism.’ In the 1 October issue of the Weekly Standard,

      Robert Kagan and William Kristol called for regime change in Iraq as soon

      as the Taliban was defeated. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in

      the Washington Post that after the US was done with Afghanistan, Syria

      should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq: ‘The war on terrorism will

      conclude in Baghdad,’ when we finish off ‘the most dangerous terrorist

      regime in the world’.

      This was the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to win

      support for an invasion of Iraq, a crucial part of which was the

      manipulation of intelligence in such a way as to make it seem as if Saddam

      posed an imminent threat. For example, Libby pressured CIA analysts to

      find evidence supporting the case for war and helped prepare Colin

      Powell’s now discredited briefing to the UN Security Council. Within the

      Pentagon, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was charged with

      finding links between al-Qaida and Iraq that the intelligence community

      had supposedly missed. Its two key members were David Wurmser, a hard-core

      neo-conservative, and Michael Maloof, a Lebanese-American with close ties

      to Perle. Another Pentagon group, the so-called Office of Special Plans,

      was given the task of uncovering evidence that could be used to sell the

      war. It was headed by Abram Shulsky, a neo-conservative with long-standing

      ties to Wolfowitz, and its ranks included recruits from pro-Israel think

      tanks. Both these organisations were created after 9/11 and reported

      directly to Douglas Feith.

      Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to

      Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the

      1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the

      Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser, he

      wrote the famous ‘Clean Break’ report in June 1996 for Netanyahu, who had

      just become prime minister. Among other things, it recommended that

      Netanyahu ‘focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an

      important Israeli strategic objective in its own right’. It also called

      for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did

      not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the

      Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist

      Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between

      their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests’.

      Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him

      as ‘the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the administration’, and

      selected him in 2002 as first among 50 notables who ‘have consciously

      pursued Jewish activism’. At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its

      Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong

      partnership between Israel and the United States; and the Jerusalem Post,

      describing him as ‘devoutly pro-Israel’, named him ‘Man of the Year’ in


      Finally, a brief word is in order about the neo-conservatives’ prewar

      support of Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the

      Iraqi National Congress. They backed Chalabi because he had established

      close ties with Jewish-American groups and had pledged to foster good

      relations with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what

      pro-Israel proponents of regime change wanted to hear. Matthew Berger laid

      out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish Journal: ‘The INC saw

      improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in Washington and

      Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For their part,

      the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better relations

      between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in replacing

      Saddam Hussein’s regime.’

      Given the neo-conservatives’ devotion to Israel, their obsession with

      Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn’t surprising

      that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli

      interests. Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee

      acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had

      conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the

      intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of

      those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James

      Moran – were condemned for raising the issue. Michael Kinsley wrote in

      late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . .

      . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance

      to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite.

      There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the

      decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less

      likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to

      be only the first step. A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal

      shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not

      Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has

      Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’

      Pro-Israel forces have long been interested in getting the US military

      more directly involved in the Middle East. But they had limited success

      during the Cold War, because America acted as an ‘off-shore balancer’ in

      the region. Most forces designated for the Middle East, like the Rapid

      Deployment Force, were kept ‘over the horizon’ and out of harm’s way. The

      idea was to play local powers off against each other – which is why the

      Reagan administration supported Saddam against revolutionary Iran during

      the Iran-Iraq War – in order to maintain a balance favourable to the US.

      This policy changed after the first Gulf War, when the Clinton

      administration adopted a strategy of ‘dual containment’. Substantial US

      forces would be stationed in the region in order to contain both Iran and

      Iraq, instead of one being used to check the other. The father of dual

      containment was none other than Martin Indyk, who first outlined the

      strategy in May 1993 at WINEP and then implemented it as director for Near

      East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.

      By the mid-1990s there was considerable dissatisfaction with dual

      containment, because it made the United States the mortal enemy of two

      countries that hated each other, and forced Washington to bear the burden

      of containing both. But it was a strategy the Lobby favoured and worked

      actively in Congress to preserve. Pressed by AIPAC and other pro-Israel

      forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing

      an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC and the others wanted more. The

      result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions

      on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop

      petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze’ev Schiff, the military

      correspondent of Ha’aretz, noted at the time, ‘Israel is but a tiny

      element in the big scheme, but one should not conclude that it cannot

      influence those within the Beltway.’

      By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual

      containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential.

      By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant democracy, they argued,

      the US would trigger a far-reaching process of change throughout the

      Middle East. The same line of thinking was evident in the ‘Clean Break’

      study the neo-conservatives wrote for Netanyahu. By 2002, when an invasion

      of Iraq was on the front-burner, regional transformation was an article of

      faith in neo-conservative circles.

      Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan

      Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that

      toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage. Aluf

      Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003):

      Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such

      as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the

      wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino

      effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other

      enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons

      of mass destruction.

      Once Baghdad fell in mid-April 2003, Sharon and his lieutenants began

      urging Washington to target Damascus. On 16 April, Sharon, interviewed in

      Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put ‘very heavy’

      pressure on Syria, while Shaul Mofaz, his defence minister, interviewed in

      Ma’ariv, said: ‘We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of

      demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done

      through the Americans.’ Ephraim Halevy told a WINEP audience that it was

      now important for the US to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post

      reported that Israel was ‘fuelling the campaign’ against Syria by feeding

      the US intelligence reports about the actions of Bashar Assad, the Syrian


      Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments. Wolfowitz declared

      that ‘there has got to be regime change in Syria,’ and Richard Perle told

      a journalist that ‘a short message, a two-worded message’ could be

      delivered to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: ‘You’re next.’ In

      early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria ‘should

      not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless,

      irresponsible and defiant behaviour could end up sharing his fate’. On 15

      April, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled

      ‘Next, Turn the Screws on Syria’, while the following day Zev Chafets

      wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled ‘Terror-Friendly

      Syria Needs a Change, Too’. Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in

      the New Republic on 21 April that Assad was a serious threat to America.

      Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel had reintroduced the Syria

      Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. It threatened

      sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its

      WMD and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and

      Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation

      was strongly endorsed by the Lobby – by AIPAC especially – and ‘framed’,

      according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, ‘by some of Israel’s best

      friends in Congress’. The Bush administration had little enthusiasm for

      it, but the anti-Syrian act passed overwhelmingly (398 to 4 in the House;

      89 to 4 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on 12 December 2003.

      The administration itself was still divided about the wisdom of targeting

      Syria. Although the neo-conservatives were eager to pick a fight with

      Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed to the idea. And

      even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasised that he would go slowly

      in implementing it. His ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian

      government had not only been providing important intelligence about

      al-Qaida since 9/11: it had also warned Washington about a planned

      terrorist attack in the Gulf and given CIA interrogators access to

      Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers.

      Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardise these valuable connections,

      and thereby undermine the larger war on terrorism.

      Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq

      war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat

      to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like

      a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third,

      putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to

      cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it

      made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on

      putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from

      Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there

      would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards

      Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest.

      Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is

      widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to

      acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country

      in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence.

      ‘Iraq is a problem . . . But you should understand, if you ask me, today

      Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,’ the defence minister, Binyamin

      Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.

      Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an

      interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the ‘centre of world terror’,

      and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush

      administration should put the strong arm on Iran ‘the day after’ it

      conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli

      ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The

      overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America

      ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude

      coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’

      The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime

      change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on

      Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson

      Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly

      pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with

      a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives

      made the case for going after Iran. ‘The liberation of Iraq was the first

      great battle for the future of the Middle East . . . But the next great

      battle – not, we hope, a military battle – will be for Iran,’ William

      Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May.

      The administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working

      overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear programme. But Washington has had

      little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As

      a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other

      articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against

      any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive

      action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing Congress to approve the

      Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand existing sanctions. Israeli

      officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue

      down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington’s

      attention on the issue.

      One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on

      policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran

      from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear

      ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live

      with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North

      Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must

      keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the

      US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would

      be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.

      It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US

      to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to

      shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown,

      Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most

      of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to

      transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an

      increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up

      protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome

      from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to

      Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to

      make peace with the Palestinians.

      Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the

      Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and

      Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US

      government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat’s death and

      the election of the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas would cause Washington to

      press vigorously and even-handedly for a peace agreement. In short, there

      are ample grounds for leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and

      adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader US interests. In

      particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel

      and the Palestinians would help advance the cause of democracy in the


      But that is not going to happen – not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies

      (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying

      world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel’s case today,

      and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities.

      Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign

      contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media

      outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.

      The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the

      terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European

      allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

      a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases

      the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to

      Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.

      Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria

      could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous

      effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility

      towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist

      them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where

      their help is badly needed.

      There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United

      States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the

      Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated

      against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to

      promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses

      other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear

      proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept

      Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a

      similar capability.

      Besides, the Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy

      for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts –

      or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of

      open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to

      conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire

      process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to

      make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts

      to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.

      Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to

      persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged

      Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria

      and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have

      saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists.

      Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has

      not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise

      a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like

      Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing

      to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would

      probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more


      There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful

      force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to

      hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time,

      but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid

      discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US

      interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those

      interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader

      regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the

      strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to

      a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the

      interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term

      interests as well.

      10 March


      An unedited version of this article is available at

      http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011, or at


      John Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at

      Chicago, and the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

      Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International

      Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. His most recent

      book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy.

             copyright © LRB Ltd, 1997-2006HOME | SUBSCRIBE | LOGIN | CONTACTS | SEARCH

* * *

L'OTAN et Israël : Instruments des guerres de l'Amérique au Moyen-Orient

 Article original en anglais, « NATO and Israel: Instruments of America's Wars in the Middle East », publié le 29 janvier 2008.

 Copyright Global Research/Mondialisation.

 Traduction Mireille Delamarre pour www.planetenonviolence.org

Le rôle de l'OTAN sur le Théâtre de Guerre au Moyen Orient

 L'Organisation du Traité Nord Atlantique (OTAN) est devenue un instrument pour soutenir les objectifs étrangers et sécuritaires anglo-américains et franco-allemands. Bien qu'il existe des différences internes au sein de l'OTAN, les intérêts des US, de l'UE et d'Israël – qui depuis 2005 est traité comme un membre de facto de l'OTAN – sont intimement liés dans l'alliance militaire atlantique.

 Deux zones au Moyen Orient ont été militarisées par des puissances étrangères : le Golfe Persique et le Levant.

 Pour cela, il y a eu deux phases distinctes de militarisation au Moyen Orient depuis la fin des années 70, la première étant distinctement anglo-américaine, et remontant à la guerre Irak-Iran et la suivante étant un effort unifié de l'OTAN impliquant la France et l'Allemagne comme acteurs clés.

 Bien que le processus de militarisation au Levant ait commencé après la Seconde Guerre Mondiale avec la création d'Israël, le rôle distinct de l'OTAN dans ce processus a pris forme depuis le lancement de la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme » en 2001.

 Paris et Berlin révèlent leurs fonctions dans la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme »

 L'UE menée par la France et l'Allemagne, a effectivement soutenu la politique étrangère anglo-américaine depuis le lancement de la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme ». La conséquence c'est l'expansion illimitée de l'OTAN au Moyen Orient et en Asie Centrale.

 Il est prévu qu'à la fois l'OTAN et Israël prennent des responsabilités majeures dans les conflits régionaux à venir avec l'Iran et la Syrie, s'ils devaient éclater. C'est évident quand on observe les positionnements des troupes de l'OTAN et des navires de guerre au Moyen Orient, Afghanistan, et aux frontières à la fois de l'Iran et de la Syrie.

 L'initiative de paix Arabe de 2002 : enfermer les Palestiniens à la Mecque et via une séparation entre Gaza la Cisjordanie

 En ce qui concerne la Palestine, la chaîne des évènements qui seront discutés mènera finalement à Annapolis. Ces évènements ont commencé avec l'initiative Arabe de 2002 qui a été proposée par l'Arabie Saoudite à Beyrouth pendant la conférence de la Ligue Arabe au Liban. La conférence d'Annapolis a seulement été une réponse extravagante à la proposition saoudienne prudemment élaborée, qui en fait a été fournie par Londres et Washington en 2002 aux Saoudiens comme faisant partie de leur feuille de route pour le Moyen Orient.

 Pour comprendre où la voie tracée à Annapolis conduit les Palestiniens et le Levant, on doit aussi comprendre ce qui s'est passé en Palestine depuis 2001. Pour aboutir à Annapolis on doit reconnaître ce qui s'est passé entre le Hamas et le Fatah, la tromperie calculée du rôle de l'Arabie Saoudite dans l'Accord de la Mecque, et les objectifs à long terme de l'Amérique et de ses alliés au Moyen Orient et sur le littoral Méditerranéen.

 D'abord, l'Amérique et l'UE ont réalisé que le Fatah ne représentait pas la volonté populaire de la nation palestinienne et que les autres partis politiques pourraient prendre le pouvoir d'entre les mains du Fatah. C'était un problème pour Israël, l'UE et l'Amérique car ils avaient besoin des dirigeants corrompus du Fatah pour appliquer leurs objectifs à long terme dans les territoires occupés palestiniens, l'Est Méditerranéen et le Moyen Orient.

 En 2005, le Département d'Etat US, la Maison Blanche, et Israël ont commencé à se préparer à la victoire du Hamas lors des élections générales palestiniennes. Alors une stratégie a été mise au point pour neutraliser non seulement le Hamas, mais toutes les formes légitimes de résistance palestinienne aux agendas étrangers qui ont maintenu en otage les palestiniens depuis la « Nakba. »

 Israël, l'Amérique, et leurs alliés, qui incluaient l'UE, avaient bien conscience que le Hamas ne serait jamais partie prenante de ce que Washington programmait pour les Palestiniens et le Moyen Orient. Simplement dit, le Hamas s'opposerait au projet du « Nouveau Moyen Orient » et ce qui devrait être l'une de ses conséquences au Levant, l'Union Méditerranéenne. Pendant tout ce temps, l'initiative de Paix Arabe de 2002 a été le portail pour la matérialisation à la fois du Nouveau Moyen Orient et de l'Union Méditerranéenne.

 Tandis que les Saoudiens ont joué leur part dans l'initiative de l'Amérique du « Nouveau Moyen Orient », le Fatah a été manipulé, pour ne pas employer d'autres mots, afin de combattre le Hamas de sorte qu'un accord serait requis entre le Hamas et le Fatah. Cela a été fait sachant que la première réaction du Hamas en tant que parti palestinien gouvernant, serait de maintenir l'intégrité de l'unité palestinienne. C'est là que l'Arabie Saoudite entre de nouveau en scène, à travers son rôle dans l'arrangement de l'Accord de la Mecque. L'Arabie Saoudite n'a pas reconnu diplomatiquement le Hamas avant l'accord de la Mecque.

 L'Accord de la Mecque était un traquenard pour prendre le Hamas au piège. La trêve entre le Hamas et le Fatah, et par la suite le gouvernement d'unité palestinien établi, n'a jamais été conçu pour durer, dés le jour ou le Hamas a été trompé pour signer l'Accord de la Mecque. L'Accord de la Mecque avait été conçu à l'avance pour légitimer ce qui allait se passer ensuite, une mini guerre civile palestinienne à Gaza.

 C'est après la signature de l'Accord de la Mecque que des éléments au sein du Fatah et dirigés par Mohammed Dahlan (supervisé par le lieutenant général US Keith Dayton) ont reçu l'ordre des US et d'Israël de renverser le gouvernement palestinien dirigé par le Hamas.

 Il existait probablement deux plans en réserve, l'un dans le cas d'une victoire possible du Fatah et l'autre plan en réserve (le plus probable des deux) dans le cas d'un échec du Fatah. Ce dernier plan était une préparation de deux gouvernements palestiniens parallèles, l'un à Gaza dirigé par le premier ministre Haniyeh et le Hamas, et l'autre en Cisjordanie contrôlé par Mahmoud Abbas et le Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas et ses associés ont également appelé à la création d'un parlement palestinien parallèle en Cisjordanie, sans substance et n'en ayant que le nom. (1)

 L'Accord de la Mecque autorisait effectivement le Fatah à diriger la Cisjordanie en deux coups. Puisque le gouvernement a été formé à la suite de l'Accord de la Mecque, un retrait du Fatah du gouvernement a été utilisé par le Fatah pour décrire le gouvernement dirigé par le Hamas comme illégitime. Ceci se passait alors qu'un regain de luttes à Gaza rendait de nouvelles élections palestiniennes non envisageables. Mahmoud Abbas a aussi été mis en position de pouvoir affirmer la légitimité de former sa propre administration en Cisjordanie, ce qui aurait été perçu mondialement comme ce que c'est vraiment, un régime illégal sans l'Accord. Ce n'est pas non plus une coïncidence si l'homme choisi pour diriger le gouvernement de Mahmoud Abbas le Dc Salam Fayyad, est un ancien employé de la Banque Mondiale.

 Le Hamas étant effectivement neutralisé, et coupé du pouvoir en Cisjordanie, la scène était dressée pour deux choses ; des propositions pour une force militaire internationale dans les territoires palestiniens et la Conférence d'Annapolis. (2)

 Le sommet de Paix d'Annapolis : annonce d'évènements encore à venir

 Selon Al Jazeera, avant la conférence d'Annapolis, des accords rédigés par Mahmoud Abbas et Israël appelés Accord de Principes, garantissaient que les palestiniens n'auront pas de force militaire quand il sera octroyé à la Cisjordanie une certaine forme d'auto détermination

 Les accords appellent également à l'intégration des économies du monde Arabe avec Israël, et le positionnement d'une force internationale, similaire à celle qu'il y a en Bosnie et au Kosovo, pour superviser l'application de ces accords dans les territoires Palestiniens. Cela devient aussi plus clair avec la révélation de cette information, pourquoi il fallait neutraliser le Hamas et légitimer Mahmoud Abbas.

 C'est là ou la France et la création de l'Union Méditerranéenne re-rentre en scène. Pendant des années, bien avant la « guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme » Paris avait appelé au déploiement d'un contingent de soldats soit de l'UE soit de l'OTAN au Liban et dans les territoires occupés palestiniens. Les gens au Moyen Orient doivent ouvrir les yeux sur ce qui a été planifié pour leurs terres.

 Le 19 février 2004, Dominique de Villepin a déclaré qu'une fois que les israéliens auront quitté la bande de Gaza, des troupes étrangères pourraient être envoyées là bas et une conférence internationale pourrait légitimer leur présence comme faisant partie de la deuxième phase de la feuille de route israélo palestinienne et comme faisant partie d'une initiative pour « Le Plus Grand Moyen Orient » ou le « Nouveau Moyen Orient ». (3) Cette déclaration a été faite avant que le Hamas arrive au gouvernement et avant l'Accord de Principes de Mahmoud Abbas. Cependant cela a suivi l'initiative Arabe proposée par les Saoudiens.

 Considérant les choses sous cet aspect, c'est clair que les évènements qui se passent au Moyen Orient font partie d'une feuille de route militaire avant la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme ».

 Cela nous amène aux propositions de Nicolas Sarkozy pour une Union Méditerranéenne. L'intégration économique de l'économie israélienne avec les économies du Monde Arabe développerait le réseau de relations mondiales qui sont étroitement tissés par les agents mondiaux du Consensus de Washington. L'initiative de paix Arabe proposée par les Saoudiens, l'Accord de Principes, et Annapolis sont toutes des étapes de la création d'une intégration économique Monde Arabe Israël, via le projet pour le « Nouveau Moyen Orient » et l'intégration de tout le pourtour Méditerranéen dans l'Union Européenne via l'Union Méditerranéenne. La présence de troupes à la fois de l'OTAN et de pays de l'UE au Liban fait aussi partie de cet objectif.

 Déjà vu au Liban : Internationalisation de la Bande de Gaza par l'OTAN ?

 Il y a suffisamment de preuves que la guerre israélienne de 2006 contre le Liban a été planifiée par Israël, les US et l'OTAN. (4)

 Après son déploiement à l'intérieur du Liban en 2006 sous la bannière de l'UNIFIL, il était aussi prévu que l'OTAN entre dans la Bande de Gaza à un moment donné dans le futur proche. Coïncidant avec la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban, Israël devait également lancer une importante campagne contre les Palestiniens dans la Bande de Gaza. Les responsables israéliens disaient qu'après les combats entre l'armée israélienne et les palestiniens, l'OTAN serait désignée pour rentrer dans la Bande de Gaza. La Bande de Gaza était vue comme la nouvelle destination pour les « opérations de maintien de la paix » de l'OTAN par Avigdor Lieberman, l'ancien ministre des affaires stratégiques israélien (à la tête du parti d'extrême droite sioniste Israël Beitenou ndlt). Avigdor Lieberman était aussi le vice premier ministre d'Israël à cette époque.

 Avigdor Lieberman a même insisté, en présence de Condoleezza Rice, et de responsables US, qu'une opération militaire contre les Palestiniens dans la Bande de Gaza était « inévitable » et que « les résultats d'une telle action devraient être l'entrée de 30 000 forces (soldats) de l'OTAN pour se déployer à Gaza » pour empêcher plus de concentration armée (palestinienne). (5) Amir Peretz, alors qu'il occupait le poste de ministre de la défense israélien, a aussi déclaré en mars 2007, que l'armée israélienne avait l'autorisation de mener de nouvelles opérations militaires dans la Bande de Gaza. (6)

 Les combats prédits par les responsables israéliens et les commandants militaires ont eu lieu, mais, pas en premier entre les israéliens et les palestiniens. Les affrontements ont eu lieu entre les Palestiniens dans Gaza et puis les Israéliens ont commencé leurs opérations. Les Israéliens ont simplement fait sous traiter leur sale boulot par des collaborateurs palestiniens dans Gaza, tels que Mohammed Dahlan. Même les Israéliens ont appelé à l'internationalisation de la situation à Gaza, comme la situation au Liban. Mahmoud Abbas, le dirigeant du Fatah, s'est compromis en suivant le script US, israélien à la lettre.

 Israël : De Facto un Bras Armé de l'OTAN

 « L'objectif diplomatique et sécuritaire d'Israël…doit être clair : rejoindre l'OTAN et entrer dans l'Union Européenne. » Avigdor Lieberman, (ex ndlt) ministre des affaires stratégiques d'Israël.

Israël a établi un accord de coopération militaire de haut niveau avec l'OTAN. Avigdor Lieberman a déclaré qu'Israël est destiné à devenir un avant poste de l'UE et un membre effectif de l'OTAN. (7) L'ancien ministre israélien a aussi dirigé les contacts israéliens de haut niveau avec l'OTAN et le dossier de guerre contre l'Iran. Il a été impliqué avec les US et l'OTAN en ce qui concerne les préparations coordonnées contre la Syrie et l'Iran.

 Depuis la création de l'état juif, Israël a été perçu comme un avant poste de ce que l'on appelle « l'Occident » et de ses intérêts au Moyen Orient et dans le Monde Arabe. Israël est un membre actif de l' »Operation Active Endeavour in the Eastern Mediterranean” (Opération Effort Actif dans l'Est Méditerranéen) de l'OTAN. Bien qu'Israël ne soit pas un membre de l'OTAN, Israël ensemble avec la Turquie, constitue l'épine dorsale de la force de l'OTAN au Moyen Orient. La Turquie et Israël sont tous deux destinés dans le futur à jouer un rôle militaire de premier plan dans la région Méditerranéenne.

 A la fin de 2007, Israël a commencé à affirmer qu'il avait reçu le « feu vert » des US, de l'UE, et de leur corps militaire mutuel, l'OTAN, pour lancer une attaque contre l'Iran. Cela provoquerait l'embrasement du Moyen Orient. L'armée israélienne s'est entraînée en continu et leurs supérieurs ont dit aux soldats israéliens de se préparer pour une « guerre totale ».

 Créer des Barrières dans les territoires de Palestine : avancées calculées pour le futur ?

 La Bande de Gaza a été comparée par beaucoup en Palestine et Israël à un vaste centre de détention ou prison. Les mouvements y sont restreints, les droits à la mobilité violés, et toute la zone est entourée de barrières et barbelés. Des morceaux sont également toujours occupées par l'armée israélienne et utilisés comme zones tampon.

 La Cisjordanie est une immense zone comparée à la Bande de Gaza. Celle-ci est aussi en taille uneraction de celle de la Cisjordanie. Elle fait environ 360 km2 au total et partage avec Israël une frontière de 51 km. La Cisjordanie d'un autre côté à une superficie totale officielle de 5.949 Km2. C'est beaucoup plus facile pour l'armée israélienne de contrôler et fermer hermétiquement la plus petite frontière de Gaza que celle de la Cisjordanie. Du point de vue du nombre de soldats israéliens et ressources humaines israéliennes, c'est la même chose. Des deux zones, c'est donc Gaza qui est la plus facile à boucler hermétiquement et à gérer.

 En Cisjordanie, ce sera le Fatah avec l'aide des armées étrangères qui sera utilisé pour contenir les combattants palestiniens au cas ou une guerre plus étendue éclaterait au Moyen Orient. Le projet d'internationaliser la situation dans la Bande de Gaza et la Cisjordanie avec la présence de troupes étrangères de l'OTAN et de pays Arabes, peut aussi être vu comme faisant partie de l'effort pour créer une barrière militaire pour protéger Israël.

 Gabi Ashkenazi, un général israélien, d'origine mixte bulgare et syrienne, avec une expérience de terrain au Liban où il y a supervisé la SLA, South Lebanon Army (Armée du Sud Liban) a succédé à Daniel Halutz à la tête de l'armée israélienne. Ashkénazi a été chargé de construire la barrière qu'on appelle communément le « Mur de l'Apartheid », entre la Cisjordanie et Israël. Bien qu'il ne soit pas terminé, le mur de l'Apartheid, en cas de guerre régionale, servirait à empêcher les combattants palestiniens à passer de Cisjordanie en Israël pour combattre les forces israéliennes.

 Créer des barrières supplémentaires entre le Liban et Israël

 L'UNIFIL post 2006 qui s'est déployée au Sud Liban après le bombardement du Liban n'est pas la même que l'UNIFIL pré 2006. C'est une entité plus robuste et prête au combat, et elle aussi peut être utilisée pour protéger Israël contre les Libanais en cas de guerre régionale lancée par Israël.

 Un autre point important, c'est le largage de 3 millions (voire plus) par l'armée israélienne de bombes à fragmentations, fournies par les US, dans le Sud Liban pendant la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban. Ce qui s'est révélé comme extrêmement sinistre c'est la précipitation israélienne pour saturer le Sud Liban de ces bombes à fragmentation alors que les attaques israéliennes contre le Liban tiraient à leur fin. La géographie du Sud Liban en donne une explication partielle ; c'est la région du Liban qui a des frontières avec Israël.

 Ce largage massif des bombes à fragmentation au Sud Liban était une action délibérée pour créer une autre barrière israélienne contre des potentiels combattants lors d'une future guerre au Moyen Orient. Ces bombes à fragmentation sont en fait devenues des mines terriennes qui empêcheraient des vagues de combattants libanais de pénétrer en Israël en cas de guerre contre l'Iran, la Syrie, les Palestiniens, et le Liban.

 Scénario de guerre régionale : préparations israéliennes pour une tempête de représailles par missiles

 Le projet pour un « Nouveau Moyen Orient » coûtera très cher, et le prix en sera une guerre. La militarisation de la Bande de Gaza comporte plusieurs volets et est liée aux préparatifs d'un conflit plus large au Moyen Orient. Le déploiement de troupes étrangères dans la Bande de Gaza et la Cisjordanie, comme au Liban, et l'emmurement de la Cisjordanie servent aussi les mêmes objectifs pour contenir les Palestiniens si une guerre éclatait au Moyen Orient entre Israël, l'Amérique, et l'OTAN d'un côté, et la Syrie, l'Iran et leurs alliés de l'autre.

 Le raisonnement qui fonde cette analyse c'est qu'une guerre contre l'Iran et la Syrie réduirait et affaiblirait l'armée israélienne : les forces israéliennes seraient exposées aux missiles balistiques de l'Iran et les différents groupes de résistance palestiniens en ont bien conscience. Si une guerre régionale éclate entre Israël et l'Iran et la Syrie, les Palestiniens pourraient se voir élever en tant que combattants pratiquement à égalité avec les Israéliens dans les territoires occupés palestiniens. La dynamique du conflit entre Israéliens et Palestiniens serait immédiatement transformée.

 Des divisions entre les Libanais et les Palestiniens feraient obstacle à l'efficacité d'un effort combiné militaire contre Israël dans le cas d'une guerre plus étendue. La situation est la même que celle en Irak : plus les irakiens sont divisés, plus faible est leur effort de guerre contre les US et leurs alliés occupant l'Irak. En dehors de la Palestine, la Nakba a été répétée en Irak. Il n'y a pas d'erreur là-dessus, les occupations de la Palestine et de l'Irak sont de même nature, et ont les mêmes architectes. Bilad Al-Sham, l'Irak, et leurs peuples souffrent de la même source.

 Existe-t-il un lien entre les discussions sur un état Palestinien et la Guerre ?

 « La guerre que nous (Israël) menons au Moyen Orient ce n'est pas seulement la guerre de l'état d'Israël… et nous (Israël) sommes sur les lignes de front. » Avigdor Lieberman, (ex) ministre des affaires stratégiques.

 Suite à l'assassinat d'Hariri, la France et l'Allemagne sont devenues plus actives dans la valse diplomatique au Moyen Orient. Les ressources franco allemandes sont totalement activées et alignées sur les intérêts anglo américains sur le front diplomatique. Avant de se rendre en Egypte pour une visite d'état, la chancelière Angela Merkel a déclaré que l'Allemagne et l'UE redémarreraient le processus de paix arabo israélien. (8) Des diplomates franco allemands et l'UE ont aussi harmonisés leurs efforts avec l'Arabie Saoudite pour ce qui est de calmer les Palestiniens. (9)

 On peut dresser de nombreux parallèles entre la marche vers la guerre de 2002 et 2003, en relation avec l'Irak et l'actuelle marche vers la guerre contre la Syrie et l'Iran. L'un de ses parallèles c'était l'initiative de la Maison Blanche pour ranimer le « processus de paix arabo israélien » ainsi nommé, et aider à l'établissement d'un état palestinien indépendant avant l'invasion anglo américaine de l'Irak.

 Il y a un lien étroit entre les guerres américaines au Moyen Orient et les ouvertures faites en direction des Arabes pour la création d'un état palestinien. Les Accords d'Oslo ont également été liés à la défaite de l'Irak en 1991 lors de la Guerre du Golfe. Est-ce pour cela que George W. Bush a plus parlé de la menace de l'Iran que de paix lors de sa tournée présidentielle au Moyen Orient et sa visite en Israël ?

 L'une des explications pour les déclarations US concernant l'état pour les Palestiniens, une façade, c'était de s'assurer qu'aucun des gouvernements clients dans le Monde Arabe serait renversé par des révoltes de populations arabes et remplacé. La Question Palestinienne et le soutien aux palestiniens sont un problème qui peut faire gagner ou perdre les cœurs et les esprits dans le Monde Arabe et avec beaucoup de populations musulmanes. L'idée c'est tant qu'il y a un silence temporaire sur le front palestinien, des nouveaux fronts peuvent être ouverts sans créer une révolte de masse au Moyen Orient et ailleurs.

 Consultation de guerre OTAN-Israel aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN à Bruxelles

 Une trame consistante se construit impliquant l'OTAN, l'Est Méditerranéen, et la « Guerre Mondiale Contre le Terrorisme ». Fin juin 2007, Avigdor Lieberman et des responsables israéliens ont eu des rencontres de haut niveau avec des responsables de l'OTAN aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN à Bruxelles. (10) Le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN, Alessandro Minuto Rizzo d'Italie, et une délégation israélienne conduite par Avigdor Lieberman ont discuté le déploiement anticipé d'unités et forces de l'OTAN dans la Bande de Gaza (11)

 Le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN et le côté israélien ont aussi discuté du déploiement d'une force internationale à Gaza pour maintenir l'ordre et empêcher les Palestiniens de s'armer. (12) Les rencontres ont aussi porté sur l'Iran et la question des défenses aériennes d'Israël, et l'approfondissement de la coopération des services secrets entre l'OTAN et Israël. (13) Avigdor Lieberman est rentré en Israël après ses rencontres en Europe Occidentale, en affirmant à la radio de l'armée d'Israël que les US, l'UE, et l'OTAN avaient donné le « feu vert » à Israël pour initier une guerre au Moyen Orient en lançant une attaque contre l'Iran à une date non révélée. (14)

 En 2004 l'OTAN a donné à Israël le « feu vert » pour commencer une guerre contre l'Iran à une date non révélée.

 « L'Iran est un pays compliqué et il ne semble pas qu'Israël ait le pouvoir de le contrer (défier). » Javier Solana responsable de la politique étrangère et de la sécurité pour l'UE et ancien secrétaire général de l'OTAN (Der Tagesspiegel)

 Après son retour de voyage en Europe de l'Ouest et suite aux entretiens qu'il y avait eu aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN, l'ancien ministre israélien des affaires stratégiques, Avigdor Lieberman, a dit début juillet 2007 qu'il avait reçu l'accord tacite de l'UE, les US et l'OTAN pour initier une attaque militaire israélienne contre l'Iran. « Si nous commençons des opérations militaires seul contre l'Iran, alors l'Europe et les US nous soutiendrons » a dit Avigdor Lieberman à la radio de l'armée israélienne dans un message à destination des soldats, suite à son voyage et à ses rencontres avec des responsables de l'UE, José Maria Aznar d'Espagne, et le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN.

 Avigdor Lieberman a aussi affirmé qu'à cause des guerres en Afghanistan et en Irak, les US, la Grande Bretagne et leurs alliés européens étaient dans l'impossibilité d'initier une guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés, mais étaient d'accord pour autoriser Israël à attaquer l'Iran.

 Avigdor Lieberman a aussi affirmé que les US et l'OTAN interviendraient au côté d'Israël une fois que la guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés aurait démarré. Le message transmis à Lieberman par l'OTAN et les responsables de l'UE c'était qu'Israël devait «empêcher lui-même la menace » ce qui veut dire qu'Israël doit lancer une guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés régionaux. (15)

 Israël sera protégé par l'OTAN dans un scénario de guerre contre l'Iran et la Syrie

 « La meilleure façon de fournir à Israël ce supplément de sécurité c'est d'actualiser sa relation avec le bras armé collectif de l'Occident : l'OTAN. Que cette actualisation de la relation culmine avec Israël devenant membre de l'OTAN ou simplement une garantie d'une relation stratégique et opérationnelle (défense) bien plus étroite, cela peut être discuté. Après tout, une garantie classique sécuritaire exige des frontières reconnues pour être défendues, quelque chose qu'Israël n'a pas aujourd'hui. Arranger une actualisation de la relation Israel-OTAN nécessitera une diplomatie prudente et une planification. » Ronald D. Asmus, directeur exécutif du German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center à Bruxelles (21 Février 2006) »

 Israël ne peut pas défier l'Iran militairement. Le Téhéran militaire est au-dessus des capacités d'Israël, malgré l'illusion de la puissance d'Israël. Tel Aviv ne lancera pas une guerre contre l'Iran si les US et l'OTAN ne sont pas partenaires dans l'opération militaire.

 Dans un tel scénario, les US, la Grande Bretagne, et l'OTAN rallieront immédiatement, ou presque immédiatement Israël, comme l'a déclaré Avigdor Lieberman.

 C'est un arrangement prémédité. Les dirigeants de l'OTAN diront à leurs citoyens qu'Israël a été obligé d'attaquer l'Iran par peur et à cause de « son droit d'exister ». Puis ils resserreront les rangs autour d'Israël. Il faut également déclaré que quand le « droit d'exister » d'un organisme vivant s'impose au dépend du droit d'exister de tout ce qui se trouve autour, alors cela devient une menace comme le cancer.

 En mars 2006, on a rapporté en Grande Bretagne que des responsables de l'OTAN avaient sous entendu qu'ils joueraient un rôle dans une attaque US-Israel contre l'Iran.

 Sarah Baxter et Uzi Mahnaimi ont rapporté que le général en chef Axel Tüttelmann, le commandant de l'AWAC (Airborne Early Warning and Control Force – Force Aérienne d'Alerte Précoce et de Contrôle) de l'OTAN a affirmé aux responsables israéliens que l'OTAN serait impliquée dans une future campagne contre les Iraniens. (16)

 « Les commentaires du Général en chef Tüttelmann ont révélé que l'alliance militaire (l'OTAN) pourrait joué un rôle de soutien si l'Amérique (et Israël) lance des attaques aériennes. » Le rapport a aussi révélé que le général en chef avait présenté aux Israéliens une démonstration de l'avion de surveillance d'alerte précoce de l'AWAC. (17) Les démonstrations des avions de surveillance de l'OTAN suggérent l'existence de préparations conjointes Israel-OTAN de guerre.

 L'analyste en études stratégiques Patrick Cronin de l' International Institute for Strategic Studies (Institut International d'Etudes Stratégiques) a dit au Guardian (GB) en 2007, que si Israël insistait pour frapper l'Iran, les US devraient mener« une action décisive », insinuant par là que l'Amérique entrerait dans la guerre initiée par Israël, au côté d'Israël. (18)

 Israël travaille à créer une atmosphère et un environnement stratégiques : mais pour qui ?

 Napoléon Bonaparte une fois a dit : « on ne doit pas laisser les incidents internationaux façonner la politique étrangère, la politique étrangère doit façonner les incidents ». Quelque soit ce qui est affirmé et dit sur ce personnage historique, c'était un génie militaire et un grand homme d'état. Au cours de sa vie, l'officier Corse s'est élevé lui-même au grade de général et est devenu l'Empereur de France, roi d'Italie, protecteur de la Confédération du Rhin, et Médiateur de la Confédération Helvétique (Suisse). Ses campagnes l'ont mené des pyramides d'Egypte et ses collines de la Péninsule Ibérique jusqu'aux plaines de Pologne et les bords de fleuve à Moscou. C'était un homme de tête qui connaissait très bien la profondeur des relations internationales et la politique des incidents.

 Si Napoléon était encore en vie, il n'aurait pas été surpris des évènements qui secouent l'environnement mondial, spécialement au Moyen Orient. Aujourd'hui, la politique étrangère façonne encore les incidents internationaux. Israël a été une entité combattant et luttant pour sculpter et façonner son environnement stratégique.

 Si les US ou la Grande Bretagne devaient prendre l'initiative de lancer une guerre, leurs dirigeants politiques devraient faire face à une violente opposition de l'opinion publique qui pourrait menacer l'establishment anglo américain et même créer une instabilité nationale. Mais si Israël lançait une guerre la situation serait différente.

 Si Israël devait lancer une guerre au prétexte de se défendre d'une menace croissante iranienne, les US et l'OTAN interviendraient pour « protéger Israël » des représailles iraniennes sans avoir l'air d'avoir commencer une guerre internationale illégale.

 Le blâme serait porté sur les israéliens pour la guerre plutôt que sur l'administration US et son indéfectible allié britannique. Les dirigeants politiques occidentaux avanceraient comme argument que c'est le devoir national de protéger Israël quelque soit les violations israéliennes du droit international.

 Armageddon nucléaire au Moyen Orient : Israël ciblerait le Monde Arabe et l'Iran avec ses armes nucléaires ?

 Selon ce qu'écrit Norman Podhoretz, l'un des pseudo intellectuel derrière la politique étrangère de l'administration Bush Jr, dans l'édition de février 2008 du Commentary Magazine, « la seule alternative qui semblait pour moi plausible même de loin c'est qu'il ( George.W. Bush) pourrait sous traiter le boulot (pour commencer une guerre contre l'Iran) aux Israéliens. »

 Non seulement Podhoretz a-t-il appelé à ce que Tel Aviv attaque l'Iran pour les US, il a aussi affirmé qu'une guerre nucléaire au Moyen Orient entre les Israéliens et les Iraniens est inévitable, sauf si l'Iran est bombardé. Ceci malgré le fait que le programme d'énergie nucléaire iranien a été certifié comme étant pacifique par l'AIEA. Sur la base du travail d'Anthony Cordesman, Podhoretz a aussi mis en avant l'idée qu'Israël devra éliminer ses voisins arabes, tels que l'Egypte, et la Syrie (même si comme l'Egypte ils sont alliés d'Israël, et ont signé un accord de paix avec lui.)

 Selon les propres termes de Podhoretz : « dans l'horrible scénario que décrit Cordesman, des dizaines de millions mourraient effectivement, mais Israël- malgré que sa population civile serait décimée et malgré la destruction de ses principales villes – survivrait même si seulement à peine comme une société fonctionnant. Ce ne serait pas le cas de l'Iran, ni de ses (voisins) arabes les plus importants, particulièrement l'Egypte et la Syrie car Cordesman pense qu'Israël devrait aussi les viser pour « s'assurer qu'aucune autre puissance peut capitaliser sur une attaque contre l'Iran. » De plus, Israël pourrait être amené par désespoir à s'en prendre aux puits de pétrole, raffineries et ports dans le Golfe Persique. »

 Osirik/Osiriq déjà vu : Une attaque israélienne contre l'Iran en gestation ?

 On doit noter que Pervez Musharraf a commencé un tour d'Europe en même temps que les tours présidentiels du président américain et de Nicolas Sarkozy au Moyen Orient, et la démission d'Avigdor Lieberman du cabinet israélien. (19). Le but du voyage de Musharraf c'est de se coordonner avec l'UE, et l'OTAN à Bruxelles, de même que de visiter la France, la Grande Bretagne et la Suisse. (20) Le voyage de Musharraf a lieu au moment ou le Pakistan traverse une crise politique de division et à la vieille d'appels d'Israël pour une guerre contre l'Iran.

 Le secrétaire général de l'OTAN, Jakob (Jaap) de Hoop Sheffer a aussi rendu visite aux Emirats Arabes Unis peu de temps après les déplacements de G.W.Bush et Nicolas Sarkozy ; de Hoop Sheffer a dit à ses hôtes d'Abu Dhabi que l'OTAN travaillerait dans le Golfe Persique pour contenir l'Iran. (21) Le secrétaire général de l'OTAN a aussi défini l'Iran comme une menace commune à la fois pour le GCC et pour les membres de l'OTAN. Ses voyages et déclarations sont dans la ligne des plans anglo-américains et franco-allemands au Moyen Orient pour affronter l'Iran. Alors qu'il était aux Emirats, le secrétaire général de l'OTAN a également laisser entendre que l'OTAN serait impliqué dans un conflit arabo-israélien, qui, comme on l'a noté, est en préparation depuis plusieurs années.(22)

 Des déclarations alarmantes ont fait état de tentatives menaçantes de Tel Aviv pour attaquer l'Iran, tentatives menées depuis 2004 et devenues plus fortes. Lors de la conférence 2008 d'Herzliya, une conférence annuelle israélienne sur la sécurité nationale, John Bolton a encouragé Tel Aviv à bombarder l'Iran tandis qu'il mentionnait l'attaque aérienne israélienne de septembre 2007 contre la Syrie comme précédent pour une autre attaque. (23) Ironiquement, Ehurd Barak a commencé à affirmer fi n janvier 2008 que l'Iran est dans les étapes finales de fabrication de têtes nucléaires, tandis que le gouvernement israélien annonçait le succès de ses missiles porteurs de têtes nucléaires (24).

 Paris a aussi suggéré qu'Israël commencera une guerre avec l'Iran; dans une interview au Nouvel Observateur, Nicolas Sarkozy a déclaré que la possibilité qu'Israël commence une guerre contre l'Iran était bien plus grande qu'une attaque américaine contre l'Iran. (25) Le Secrétaire National à la Sécurité, Michael Chertoff, a aussi confirmé que les US ne lancerait aucune attaque contre l'Iran dans une interview à RIA Novosti (26)

 L'Iran et la Syrie ont déclaré qu'ils sont prêts à se protéger et lanceraient des représailles en cas d'agression israélienne. (27) Partout au Moyen Orient les forces qui résistent au contrôle étranger sont en état d'alerte contre toute forme d'hostilité israélienne. « Si Israël lance une nouvelle guerre contre le Liban, nous leur promettons une guerre qui changera la face de toute la région » le secrétaire général du Hezbollah Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah a-t-il ainsi prévenu Tel Aviv, en anticipation d'une nouvelle agression israélienne au Moyen Orient pendant une cérémonie publique à Beyrouth. (28)

 Israël :un instrument de la politique étrangère US au Moyen Orient

 Tel Aviv a fourni des preuves aux affirmations de ses opposants qu'il est un outil des projets coloniaux au Moyen Orient. La majorité des Israéliens eux-mêmes sont manipulés par un système complexe incluant la désinformation par les médias, susciter la peur, et un conditionnement psychologique de longue date. Le sang israélien est utilisé pour opprimer, tuer, s'approprier, et alimenter les machines des empires économiques. Le Mercantilisme est toujours très vivant, mais sa forme a muté.

 Israël, par le biais de ses responsables et de ses dirigeants gouvernementaux, est utilisé pour maintenir la tension au Moyen Orient. Israël est un instrument qui justifie l'intervention anglo américaine et franco allemande. Pourquoi les US se sont –t-ils mis en colère contre Israël parce que Tel Aviv ne mettait pas en danger ses propres intérêts en attaquant la Syrie pendant la guerre d'Israël contre le Liban en 2006 en refusant d'affronter la colère de l'Iran et de la Syrie dans une guerre régionale étendue ? (29)

 Malgré les demandes et opinions d'une majorité de la population israélienne, Ehud Olmert, un homme qui est connu pour sa corruption alors qu'il était maire de Jérusalem Ouest, est toujours au poste de premier ministre. Tout comme la volonté démocratique du peuple américain a été ignorée en ce qui concerne l'Irak, la volonté démocratique des Israéliens a été ignorée pour ce qui est de faire partir Ehud Olmert. Comme dans bien d'autres endroits, les intérêts de la population d'Israël n'ont aucune importance pour les échelons supérieurs du pouvoir. Les dirigeants israéliens ne servent pas les intérêts des Israéliens, ils sont au service du i(« Consensus de Washington ».]i

 La coalition d'Ehud Olmert peut durer suffisamment longtemps pour commencer une guerre régionale. La carrière politique du premier ministre Ehud Olmert est pratiquement terminée et il n'a rien à perdre en démarrant une autre guerre. Avigdor Lieberman, l'homme qui a conduit les consultations de haut niveau avec l'OTAN de la part de Tel Aviv, a quitté le cabinet israélien pendant la visite de G.W.Bush en Israël lors du voyage présidentiel récent de ce dernier au Moyen Orient. Lieberman a déclaré que son départ était à cause des « pourparlers de paix » avec les palestiniens, mais en réalité il a pris la décision à cause de la Commission Winograd et comme tactique pour maintenir le parti Travailliste d'Israël dans le gouvernement de coalition d'Ehud Olmert. C'est une tactique pour donner suffisamment de vie et de temps au gouvernement d'Ehud Olmert pour lancer une guerre régionale en essayant d'attaquer l'Iran.

 Même les ennemis d'Israël sont d'accord pour reconnaître que Tel Aviv est un proxy des intérêts étrangers anglo-américains. Le Contre Amiral Ali Shamkhani, ministre de la défense d'Iran en 2004, a prévenu le gouvernement US qu'en cas d'attaque par Israël, les représailles militaires iraniennes seraient dirigées à la fois contre les US et lsrael. On admet sur ce point que si Tel Aviv lançait une guerre, il devrait recevoir le feu vert des US avant de commencer les attaques. (30) La Maison Blanche a aussi été complètement impliquée dans tous les tests de missiles israéliens et les préparations de guerre israéliennes ont impliqué une coordination israélo américaine via de tels institutions comme le Israeli-U.S. Joint Political Military Group- Groupe Conjoint Politico Militaire Israelo-US. (31)

 Suite à la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban, le vice secrétaire général du Hezbollah Sheikh Naim Qassam (Kassam) a déclaré dans une interview à la TV Al Manar : « qui a commencé la guerre ? Israël. Il se trouve qu'Israël n'a pas répondu de façon proportionnée, mais plutôt pour exécuter des décisions pré planifiées américaines. L'agression a été planifiée d'avance. » (32) Sheikh Naim Qassam a de plus accusé « Israël de fonctionner comme le bras armé des Etats-Unis ». Sheikh Naim Qassam a expliqué que «tout le monde a toujours dit qu'Israël tire les ficelles de l'Amérique, mais actuellement il se trouve que c'est l'Amérique qui dirige Israël. Israël est devenu un bras armé de l'Amérique » (33)


 [1] Khaled Abu Toameh, PLO to form separate W. Bank parliament, The Jerusalem Post, January 14, 2008.

[2] Emine Kart, Ankara cool towards Palestine troops, Today's Zaman, July 3, 2007.

[3] Dominique René de Villepin, Déclarations de Dominique de Villepin à propos du Grand Moyen-Orient, interview with Pierre Rousselin, Le Figaro, February 19, 2004.

[4] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Premeditated Nature of the War on Lebanon: A Stage of the Broader Middle East Military Roadmap, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), September 10, 2007.

[5] Israeli action in Gaza ‘inevitable,' Al Jazeera, January 14, 2007.

[6] Tom Spender, Israel ‘planning Gaza invasion,' Al Jazeera, April 4, 2007.

[7] Avigdor Lieberman: Israel should press to join NATO, EU, Haaretz, January 1, 2007.

[8] Germany to help renew Mideast peace efforts: Chancellor, Xinhua News Agency, December 10, 2006.

[9] Angela Merkel sets off to Middle East, Associated Press, March 31, 2007.

[10] Ronny Sofer, Lieberman wants NATO troops in Gaza, Yedioth Ahronoth, June 28, 2007.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] NATO: The US and Europe can not suspend Iran's nuclear program, Azeri Press Agency (APA), July 11, 2007.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Sarah Baxter and Uzi Mahnaimi, NATO may help US strikes on Iran, The Times (U.K.), March 5, 2006.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran, The Guardian (U.K.), July 16, 2007.

[19] Pakistan President arrives in Belgium for Europe tour, The Times of India, January 2008.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Indel Ersan, NATO chief urges cooperation with Gulf over Iran, ed. Andrew Roche, Reuters, January 24, 2008.

[22] Jamal Al-Majaida, NATO chief discusses alliance's role in Gulf, Khaleej Times, January 27, 2008.

[23] Yuval Azoulay and Barak Ravid, Bolton: ‘Near zero chace' Pres. Bush will strike Iran, Haaretz, January 24, 2008; Israeli Transportation Minister, Shaul Mofaz, also indicated at the Herzilya Conference that the years 2008 and 2009 will also see the last diplomatic efforts against Tehran before an implied military option (attack) against the Iranians. The Israeli Transportation Minister also made similar threats before saying that sanctions had till the end of 2007 to work against Iran until the military option would be prepaired. This prior threat was made as he led the Israeli delegation of the Israeli-U.S. Joint Political Military Group, which focuses on Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. Shaul Mofaz was also the former commander of the Israeli military, a former Israeli defence minister, and hereto is one of the individuals in charge of the Iran file in Tel Aviv.

[24] Iran may be working on nuclear warheads: Israeli Defence Minister, The Times of India, January 26, 2008; Israel suspects Iranians already working on nuclear warhead, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 16, 2008; Lally Weymouth, A Conversation With Ehud Barak, The Washington Post, January 26, 2008, p.A17.

[25] Sarkozy: France worried by Iran-Israel tension, Associated Press, December 12, 2007.

[26] U.S. will not attack Iran, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), January 25, 2008.

[27] Bush trying to foment discord in Mideast, Tehran Times, January 28, 2008, p.A1+; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, America's “Divide and Rule” Strategies in the Middle East, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), January 17, 2008; Nir Magal, Syrian VP: We'll retaliate for Israeli aggression, Yedioth Ahronoth, September 8, 2007.

[28] Hezbollah chief scoffs at Israel at rare public appearance, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 19, 2008.

[29] Yitzhak Benhorin, Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria, Yedioth Aharonot, December 16, 2006.

[30] Anthon La Guardia, Iran wars Israel on pre-emptive strike, The Telegraph (U.K.), August 19, 2004.

[31] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Israel's Nuclear Missile Threat against Iran, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), January 19, 2008; Hilary Leila Krieger, Mofaz warns sanction on Iran must bite by year's end, The Jerusalem Post, June 7, 2007.

[32] Hanan Awarekeh, Kassem: If Israel attacks, we'll show them surprise, Al-Manar, July 12, 2007.

[33] Ibid.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya est un auteur indépendant basé à Ottawa et spécialisé dans les affaires du Moyen-Orient. Il est chercheur associé au Centre de recherches sur la mondialisation.

 Articles de Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya publiés par Mondialisation.ca  


Investigations in human science could be divided into the following spheres:

0.Categoriology and Practical Epistemology

Foundation of the universality of knowledge; universals of civilizations; prolegomenous questions in research; scientific methods of criticism (metalanguage of science, conceptual and terminological analysis).

1. Science of Collective Human Facts

Descriptive demography; data banks of cohorts, aggregates; inferences.

2. Egology: Behavioral and Psychological Self Studies as a Private Science

Patterns of external spatio-temporal behavior; categories for handling of introspective data and of self-decision; "equations" with normative and behavioral terms for complex personal decision-making.

3. Social Communication Science

Human social entities and processes as interaction networks and structures.

4. Human Ecosciences

Economics and ecology; systematic interaction of human social entities with the whole non-human sphere.

5. Societal Decision Making and Engineering

Operationalization of the system of public objectives; usable knowledge (applied science, trial and error) for societal and physical planning; complex (interactive) models.


Sciences have their internal dynamics, since in most instances a new question is implied in the response given to a previous one. The history of science shows, however, that the selection of issues that receive priority, and to which are allocated material as well as intellectual means, does not necessarily proceed according to the inner logic of the science in question, but is largely determined by extrinsic factors, such as: authoritarianism, personality cult, position of power, political opportuneness that makes certain subjects fashionable (e.g., the energy crisis following the Middle East war in 1974). INU considers research priorities independently of these considerations and intends to counterbalance these tendencies with its limited means.

The determination of research priorities is an opportunity to return to essentials. As a matter of fact, recently the over-abundance of means generated a plethora of dubious, ephemeral, and theoretically unreflected data (esp. polls, survey and interview data) that obstruct outlook and encumber clear perspectives. In order to prevent further wasting of human and material resources, INU doesn't contribute to the proliferation of pseudo-scientific publications that serve personal promotion or vanity unnecessarily overloading our information systems. To this end INU often publishes research results anonymously and determines research priorities only according to its own criteria.

In general terms, INU considers it imperative for the development of the human sciences today that assumptions inherent in the concepts used be revisited and made explicit before generating new data. In the light of this conceptual control, data should be reevaluated, unreliable or invalid data discarded from data banks (however costly their production proved to be), and other data should be reinterpreted in this perspective.

The subsequent list of priority research topics doesn't claim to be exhaustive but represents an invitation to reflection. At the same time INU has neither the intention nor the means to carry out research on all these questions on its own, but rather submits them as suggestions to fellow researchers.

1. Issues of the epistemology and sociology of scientific knowledge (esp. human sciences).

What are the requirements for a publication to be called a "communication in human sciences"?

How can it make its content controllable in order to detach scientific knowledge from journalism at least as clearly as a publication in physical science does?

Anatomization: syntactic rules, terms (defined technical and non-technical terms: e.g., verbs), direct (experimental) or indirect (inferential) falsifiability.

Which format facilitates (or hinders) the scientific control of the publication's content?

Pragmatics of scientific communication process; texts and hypertexts, transparency (formal versus natural language) and exclusion of distracting extrascientific argumentation (such as terms with affective connotation, stylistic prowess, unproductive professional ritual and mannerism, plain authoritarian arguments).

By which procedure can scientific criticism (book reviews, etc.) fulfill its control function?

Development of scientific methodology for criticism (metalanguage of practical epistemology, criticism of actual book review praxis of scientific periodicals).

Threshold of scientific communication: the entry of a title in a special bibliography. Elements and construction of a scientific title. Methods for automatic selection and abstracting. Thesaurus construction.

2. Issues in studies of the making of a world civilization.

(See Current main project.)

How does a civilization define itself by its universals?

How should coexisting civilizations be enumerated as geopolitical blocks? How can current geographical and political labeling prejudge the enumeration of actually coherent blocks?

How is the spatio-temporal variety of living civilizations being reduced to a mainly temporal succession of civilizations, (from "aires" to "ères") a globalistic doctrine of econo-centered development?

How does the different approach to international social policy and humanitarian action delineate and classify subsidiarily coexisting civilizations?

Degrees of solidarities... Universalist-altruistic versus particularist...Solidarity by shared script(ure), ancestral affiliation (race-preservation) and/or shared collaboration for livelihood (collective self-preservation).

Are true universals of a world civilization in the making or just one-sidedly Western values and categories diffused by global communication?

Coexisting and dominant civilizations. (Criteria for their enumeration and mapping... Classifications... Ideo-pictographic... Alphabetic scripts... Oral...Categorial and conceptual arrangement of their thoughts.)

Civilizational interactions. Descriptive assessment of the world's communication networks and flows with their dominant positions (Nodes of diffusion...The unique position of American-English... Broadcasting telemedia versus reciprocal processes... Existing systems, tendencies, policies...)

The universal character of specific scientific knowledge (Conditions... Characteristics... Proofs through its predictive power and replicability in application.)

Underlying assumptions of concepts and theories. (Universals of general models.. in systems theory.)

Which kinds of approach to problem-solving did different civilizations develop?

Their assessment from this viewpoint...Relative effectiveness of scientific problem-solving...Inadequacy of end-means dichotomy models... Non-analytical, action-oriented, interactive and other problem-solving procedures... Immediacy of goal achievement... Satisfaction...
Behavior of other mammalia in life situations.

3. Issues of objective sociology.

How can social behavior be studied exclusively by correlations between external (physical) variables?

Macro- and micro-population systems, geographical distribution, movements.

Spatio-temporal substrata of communication networks and structures. Face-to-face communication and telecommunication systems. Transformation by transportation. (Telecommunication- transportation tradeoff.)

Natural and architectural space variables. Sociological experimentation in built (artificial) space systems.

Probability of encounter as an urbanity index.

4. Issues in the study of the transposition of ecological phenomena into economic terms (the economics of primary resources).

How are natural (non-processed) goods priced?

Pricing of rare, non-renewable resources... Absolute ground rent...Differential ground rent... Urban land.. Artificial rarity and speculation... Oil prices expressed in the price of gold...

5. Issues of forecasting human actions.

How is the predictive power of a body of knowledge a criterion for its scientificalness?

Individual behavior...Social events...

Extrapolations and models..Limits in time and scope...Supervention as insufficient proof. (Incidental occurrence...Futurological sophism: repercussion of published predictions on future events and thus unverifiability of the epistemological value of past predictions. Self-fulfilling prophecy.) Modern augury: deliberate use of ideological effects ("Historical necessity", Cassandran alarmism, doomsday catastrophism...)

Is value-free forecasting possible and how could it be realized?

The exhaustive listing of alternative policy options...Tacitly accepted taboos and disregard of some possible scenarios. (E.g., Evaluation of the OECD's forecastings... Model adequacies. Dichotomic reasoning and suboptimal policy decisions: either unemployment or inflation...either unemployment or technological stagnation...)

6. Issues of policy evaluation.

What is the relation between categories of personal value judgment, those of collective choice, and those of external observation?

Value judgments objectivized in rhetorical policy justification. Goal-setting and decision-making...

How to compare ideal-types of societal systems?

Distributive and competitive systems...Archaic and technological progress-oriented...Other bipolarities...

How to measure the discrepancy between the rhetorics of ideal-type and the functioning of real-type systems?

Societal policy as a general, value order setting model...Political competence distribution among decision-making centers...

Societal efficiency and economics...

Efficient overall use of resources... (Discrepancy in growths of stock, shares, production and employment...) Production, distribution and conservation... with spec. emphasis on processes besides national accounts (Informal and quaternary sector...)

7. Issues of suicidology.

What is revealed by suicide?

The measure of eudemonia by its negative, the manifest negation of the value of life... Objective description. (Demographic... Of personal history... Life-cycles... Health... Life-long contacts... Social frequentations... Other activities.)

How can a counselor enter into the private science of self? How can he revise categories of self-image and enumerate alternatives?

Life problems... Perceiving... Analyzing... Solving...

(5 active civilizations and the 3 elements of social cohesion)

We are more and more in a Global Age.

It is well-known: our time's (a) instantaneous telecommunication, (b) worldwide (jet air) mass transportation and (c) increasing world trade globalize the social connectedness or coherence.

The social cohesion itself is structured by (a) social heritage preserved by various Scriptures, (b) parenthood for race-preservation and (c) collaborative (eco-)resource management for self-preservation.

Global Age and its rhetoric of "globalism" doesn't bring spontaneously universal civilization but rather the ambition for global hegemony of (1) the so-called "West", which does not recognize the necessity of civilizational cooperation based on reciprocal interdependence.

This corresponds to the tenet that the Western ideology, the economism, attributes to the model, which will and should be imitated by all. The vitality of the existing civilizations having other cardinal institutions and other core values than the Western ones such as (2) the Chinese and peri-Chinese (Japanese, Korean), (3) the Hindu, (4) the Muslim (originating in the Arabic Scripture of the Koran) and (5) the Brazilian (Afro-Euro-Indian) - American - alloy is denied, archaized and ostracized.

In short, we approach the exposed scope of the problem by identifying the active civilizations of our age as actors by their coherence and actual cohesion, as well as their specific relations and interactions. If we conjecture the existence of the enumerated actors, we do not privilege the relation between the West and Non-West but study all 10 competitive and cooperative relations between them. Finally, we overcome the Western-centered viewpoint also by asking the representative intellectuals of each civilization considered not only to discuss its own but in parallel all the 5 civilizations with its 10 relations. (See also G. Ankerl: Variation of the Concept According to Different Civilizations in Democracy and Tolerance UNESCO, Paris, 1995, pp. 59-78.)

 In 2000 we published the results of the first phase of the project (see INU Press) and work on the second one: A World civilization by Federation of civilization-states.



[Commentary by G. Ankerl, professor of sociology]

In my book on the peaceful coexistence of geopolitical spheres (Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese and Western) and in my papers published also in Hungarian, furthermore, in my article published in Magyar Nemzet on 10 April 2010 under the heading "What Can the West Do in the Interest of Reconciliation With the Arab-Muslim Sphere?" I expounded the independent nature of the Arab-Muslim cultural community. The flared-up popular movements raise the question of how they can be interpreted in a long-term and global perspective.

We can pick out two aspects in the objective description of