Zionism

From Jewish Messianism to Zionism

Arrêt-sur-Info interviews Youssef Hindi (1), author of Occident et Islam.


I read your book (Occident & Islam) with great interest. I like the fact that you are rigorous in the citation of your sources, which seem irrefutable. I think it is essential to highlight this when dealing with such a controversial issue. In particular, you quote the leading expert in Jewish mysticism, Gershom Scholem (1897-1982), founder of the chair of Kabbalah at the Hebrew University of Jersusalem.  […] Why did you want to make an in depth study of such a controversial subject?  

First of all, I wasn’t satisfied with the two main theories on the origins of Zionism. According to the first theory, Zionism was founded by Theodor Herzl and the World Zionist Congress. The alternative theory, which is lesser known and supported by several historians, including Shlomo Sand, claims that English protestants during the 17th century wanted to repatriate the Jews in the Holy Land, in order to hasten the return of Christ. I do not support this second theory either, as I was already aware that the idea of hastening the return of the messiah by means of political action was not originally a Christian idea but one which came from Jewish messianism. And so, in order to discover the true origin of Zionism, I knew that I would need to study Jewish messianism, in particular by going back to Kabbalah (the occult tradition of Judaism, said to be the “unwritten and secret law” given to Moses by God) which is the source of messianism, which I term “active messianism” in my book. Kabbalah was, therefore, the starting point for my research. I then began to study its origins, its purposes and its various concepts. My aim was to go back in history to identify the person who opened Pandora’s box.

In the book, you talk about “active messianism”. You say that your book aims to give us the keys for deciphering the modern world, and that going back in the past allows you to have a perspective which is highly relevant to today’s world. We are faced with geopolitical events and the chaos they cause in the Middle East. If we do not understand the underlying causes of events today, then it’s impossible to see what is really happening. This is why this book is important: it allows us to discover the origins of messianic Judaism and its consequences. You state that the origins of Kabbalah can be traced back to 1st century Palestine. During the 11th century, Kabbalah gradually spread across Europe. It then gathered momentum in 13th century Spain with Nachmanides (Moses ben Nahman) and Abraham Abulafia (Abraham ben Samuel Abulafia). You also explain that, in the beginning, Kabbalah was considered to be a dangerous heresy by the Jewish orthodoxy, but that it nonetheless gradually infiltrated Judaism.

Kabbalah is a mystical movement which dates from the 1st century. For over a thousand years, until the late Middle Ages, the Talmudists, the defenders of official Jewish orthodoxy, fought against Kabbalah. The Kabbalists mission was to ensure that Kabbalah formed an integral part of the Jewish orthodoxy. And they succeeded! As I explain in my book, almost all Kabbalist concepts have been integrated into the Jewish orthodoxy. At the end of the Middle Ages, a fusion took place between the orthodox Judaism of the Torah, the Talmud and Kabbalah. Kabbalah managed to reach the heart of the Jewish orthodoxy.

You retrace the steps of Solomon Molcho during the 16th century. Could you tell us something about this character and his importance in the development of Zionism?

Solomon Molcho (1500-1532) was a wandering rabbi and David Reubeni’s pupil. Under the influence of Reubeni, he attempted to convince the Pope to raise an army of Marrano Jews to attack the Ottoman Empire in Palestine and expel the Ottomans from the Holy Land, in order to recreate the Kingdom of Israel. His attempt failed because he was wanted by the Inquisition. But he was protected by Pope Clement VII and fled with Reubeni to meet one of the most powerful men in Europe, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.  Again, he proposed to attack the Ottoman Empire. This ends very badly, because Charles V had David Reubeni imprisoned in Spain and handed Solomon Molcho over to the Inquisition, which had him burnt at the stake. One of Molcho’s main goals was to influence Christians, to have them accept Jewish messianic views. In one of his treaties, he said that Christians should be the target of political actions with a messianic goal, in order to reconstruct the Kingdom of Israel. And he laid down one of the key stones for what later becomes Judeo-Christianity. He simply attempted to accomplish a messianic mission which predated him. This is what I explain in my book.

You explain that Jewish messianism gave birth to Protestant messianism. During the 16th century, Kabbalah gradually infiltrated the Christian world, as a result of efforts made by the rabbi Isaac Luria (Lurianic Kabbalah). During the 17th century, Kabbalah infiltrated the Muslim world because of Sabbatai Zevi (Sabbatean Kabbalah) and the Dönmeh. From the 15th century onwards, Christianity began to be destroyed from within by the Marranos (Spanish Jews who pretended to convert Christianity). Could you tell us about the Protestant restoration movement and then tell us a bit more about Jacob Frank, an infiltrator?

Yes, Jacob Frank had infiltrated Catholicism in the 18th century. He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sabbatai Zevi. We should note that Marranism concerned the Spanish Jews whom the Christians, following the Reconquista (the Alhambra Decree of 1492), had decided to expel from the country. The Marranos were the Jews who had pretended to convert to Christianity in order to stay in Spain. From then on, a culture of concealment developed. This was termed Marranism, but in fact this culture of concealment was already present in Jewish culture. False conversions have always been commonplace in the Jewish tradition, be it in the European world or in the age of Muhammad, during the 7th century, when rabbis pretended to convert to Islam.

As regards Kabbalah’s inflitration into the Christian world, this is explained in detail in a chapter of my latest book. This movement begins in the late 13th century, but successful attempts were made during the second half of the 15th century, when Kabbalist Jews started to teach Christians, the most well-known among them being Jean Pic de la Mirandole.  His master taught him Hebrew, Chaldee and initiated him in Kabbalah. Together they created a Christian version of Kabbalah, in order to subject the Christian world to Jewish ideas. In other words, they attempted to convince Christians, and even the Vatican, that Kabbalah can in fact explain Christian doctrines, such as the Holy Trinity. This Christian Kabbalah, which took root first in Italy and then in France, continued to develop in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries in England and Germany at the height of the Protestant age.

At the same time, during the 16th century, Isaac Luria, chief rabbi of Safed, intensified the messianic dimension of Kabbalah. He developed a theory of political action, which is much more proactive than that of Spanish Kabbalah. And it is Luria’s version of Kabbalah which spread across Europe. The Christian version of Kabbalah, the birth of Protestantism, and this wave of messianic Kabbalism developed by Luria all came together during the 17th century, which saw the birth of the millenarian Christian restoration movement. English Protestants spearheaded the project for the repatriation of the Jews in the Holy Land. The Restoration Movement had influential leaders during the 17th and 18th centuries. But it is only really during the 19th century that the Zionist project began to take shape. This Zionist project, then, needed centuries before finally coming to fruition because the necessary political, ideological and geopolitical conditions had to be met.

In your book, you also look at another chapter in history, namely the subversive  movements in Islam and their links to messianic Judaism. In particular, you look at Wahhabism during the 18th century and the 19th century Islamic Modernist movement, which gave rise to the Muslim Brotherhood. Could you elaborate on this point?

In the second half of the book, I begin my examination of the 17th century with Sabbatai Zevi, a Kabbalist rabbi who developed an antinomian theology, i.e. one which is against divine law and which reverses all values and is therefore, strictly speaking, Satanic. From 1666 onwards, he and his disciples pretend to convert to Islam. He urges his disciples, in other words hundreds of families, to infiltrate Islam and destroy it from within. To prove this, I provide all the evidence, including quotes from Gershom Scholem. The Dönmeh are the direct descendants of this Sabbatean movement. They are Turkish Jews who pretended to convert to Islam and were at the origin of the Young Turk reform movement. The 19th century saw the birth of Islamic Modernism, which was a purely Masonic initiative, as it was connected with all the networks linked to the Young Turk movement.

In Europe, the Frankists were members of Masonic networks. Indeed, European Frankists and Turkish Sabbateans remained in permanent contact until the end of the 19th century. In parallel, both movements achieved the same objective by using the same means: the destruction of Christian Europe and the Islamic East.

We could go further by including Wahhabism, which developed during the 18th century, but there is no solid proof of a link between Wahhabism and Sabbateanism. When we examine Wahhabism, however, we do find striking similarities not only between these two movements but also with Cromwell’s revolution in 17th century England. Wahhabism and the Islamic Modernism shaped the Muslim world from within and, via the disciples of Muhammad Abduh, both these movements ultimately merged to form the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hassan al-Banna. They are, therefore, two parallel schools of thought which function dialectically.

I should point out that the founding fathers of Islamic Modernism during the 19th century (Jamal al-Din Al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh) and many of their disciples were freemasons. Indeed, in Egypt during the 1870s, both Al-Afghani and Abduh, in liaison with their Masonic networks, attempted to stage a great revolution, known as the Urabi Revolution. The modernists adhered to the same subversive ideology (albeit diluted and tinged with progressivism) as the Sabbateans, the Young Turks, the French revolutionaries and the Frankists.

Could you clarify what Masonic lodges are?

We can answer this question from various angles. I take a unique approach by showing how the Masonic lodges, which in fact are networks, were used by the Sabbateans and the Frankists to subvert both Christian and Muslim world from within. In addition, as I explain in the book, there exists a whole variety of Masonic lodges: some are ideologically neutral, some quite clearly adhere to Satanism, while others are either theistic or Judeo-Christian.  What I wanted to show was how those Masonic lodges were used by the Sabbateans, the Frankists and, later on, by those in the Islamic Modernist movement in order to subvert both the Christian and the Muslim world.

And always indirectly, in an underhand fashion, never open and direct?

Yes, always indirectly. It’s a surreptitious subversion. I demonstrate this by using copious references.

I wanted to touch upon the ulema (Sunni theologians) and Al-Azhar University. You say they are opposed to the Wahhabi doctrine. Could you tell us more about them, in order to show that there are schools of thought in the Islamic world which attempt to fight against Wahhabism?

Al-Azhar is the University of Cairo, historically the centre of Sunni Islamic thought (for the modern era, in any case). This university, together with other universities elsewhere in the world, have always virulently opposed Wahhabism which originated in Najd, Saudi Arabia.

We shouldn’t forget that Muhammad Rashid Rida, a disciple of Muhammad Abduh, was financed during the 1920s by the Saudis, notably by the newspaper al-Manar. Together with his disciples, he attacked the ulema of al-Azhar, opponents of Wahhabism. Rashid Rida attacked the enemies of Wahhabism, defended the Wahhabi doctrine and portrayed Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as a great reformer!

At a conference, held in Grozny in June 2016, the world’s leading Sunni theologians, including the Grand Mufti of Egypt (Shawki Allam) and the Grand Mufti of Damascus (Abdul Fattah), decreed that Salafist Wahhabism was a non-Sunni doctrine, excluded from Sunnism (a clear reference to Wahhabi and Takfiri groups supported by Saudi Arabia).

Thank you for highlighting this vital point. Indeed, the press briefly made mention of this. To come back to your research on Jewish messianism and how it developed over the centuries, you detail the origins of political and atheist messianism, which was later to became Zionism during the 19th and 20th centuries. You refer to the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreements as well as the restructuring of the Middle East. Could you also tell us about the historian Henry Laurens (2) and the Greater Israel project? Could you then make a brief analysis of the current situation in relation to what is happening in Syria today? Could you describe the key players who mainly act outside of Israeli territory and who work to accomplish the messianic mission?

The Zionist project has undergone many changes, the most important of which took place during the 19th century. In the book, I demonstrate that Zionism is but one element of the global messianic project. During the 19th century, certain religious ideas and messianic projects took on an atheist, materialist and secular form. Zionism was one of these messianic ideas which became “secularised”, as it was portrayed as a project to create a Jewish homeland in order to protect the Jews from pogroms, etc. But this was mere propaganda. In truth, the aim was to accomplish the biblical mission. Indeed, from the early 20th century, Zionists, such as Theodor Herzl, defended the project to create an Israel defined by biblical borders, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. David Ben-Gurion stated this in writing in 1918, which was even before the creation of Israel.

In truth, therefore, this religious project, falsely portrayed as being atheist, was just a facade and a means of accomplishing a mission which, at the time, could not be openly couched in religious terms.

In the early phases of the execution of the Zionist project, in 1882 for instance, Edmond de Rothschild began buying land in Palestine. The Zionists then attempted to convince the Ottoman Sultan, the Kaiser and then the British to create a Jewish homeland. In the end, it was the British who took charge of this project. In 1916, before the end of the First World War, the British were losing against the Germans. The Zionists then proposed them a deal: they persuaded the Americans to join the British in the war against Germany, in exchange for which the British attacked the Ottoman Empire in Palestine in order to create a Jewish homeland. From the start, therefore, we can see that Jewish international finance influenced Western powers from within in order to have them endorse the Zionist project. This method was used throughout the 20th century. From 1948, the US politically and financially supported Israel.

By drawing on the work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, I demonstrate in the final part of the book how the pro-Israeli lobby pushed the US to destroy the Muslim world (Iraq, Syria) in order to pave the way for the creation of Greater Israel, planned long ago (4). I then quote the Oded Yinon plan, written in 1982. The neoconservative plan to restructure the Middle East, the “Greater Middle East Initiative” is nothing other than the execution of the Oded Yinon plan. Indeed, following September 11, the pro-Israel lobby pushed the US to carry out the destruction of the Arab states bordering Israel, in order to allow Israel to expand its territory in the future. This was the goal at the outset and it remains so today.

You also discuss the fact that messianism has reached fever pitch in Israel, as well as the connection between American neoconservatism and the current Israeli government and its links to Jewish religious leaders. Could you explain this, as those who are not experts in the field do not necessarily realise that there is a link between the two?

Jews form the nucleus of neoconservatives in the United States. They are in fact former Trotskyites who had shifted to the right. Their political mission is modelled on the Zionist project and that of the millenarian Protestants. And it is these American neoconservatives, the hardcore of which is Jewish, who collaborate with the pro-Israel lobby and work in the interests of Israel. Using a number of quotes, I demonstrate very clearly that these people do not work in the interests of the United States. Nor do they even work in the interests of American imperialism. They in fact strive to accomplish the Israeli mission. At the same time, I show that the current Israeli administration (dating from at least 2012) is, historically speaking, the most messianic government that Israel has ever known.

For instance, I cite Charles Enderlin. It’s not that I criticise him, but I don’t think he has understood the problem, because he believes that the phenomenon corresponds to the conquest of holy sites which began with the 1967 war. This is false. I explain that we are seeing a resurgence of Jewish messianism which gave birth to the Zionist project.  As I demonstrate in the book, primary causes shape outcomes, and do so even over many centuries. So we shouldn’t be surprised to see those who represent the biblical orthodoxy come to power in Israel because, in truth, they never lost control of the country!

David Ben-Gurion himself wrote that socialism was merely a means to accomplish the Zionist mission. All these political movements which appear to be atheist are just tools for the Israelis and the messianic Jews. This is why atheist Jews, secular Jews and religious Jews do not truly oppose each other. Regardless of whether they are atheist, secular or socialist, Jewish opinion converges at this stage of the messianic project. They disagree as to the means, but they all agree on the end goal.

In particular, you quote the Book of Joshua, often mentioned by Israeli political leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Could you explain the religious dimension to the construction of Israel?

In the final chapter, I show that the creation of the Jewish homeland – its method of conquest and its ultimate goal – is based on the Book of Joshua (the destruction of villages, expulsion or massacre of the inhabitants). Beyond this aspect, I make a comparison between stages of conquest in the Book of Joshua and the successive stages towards the creation of the Jewish homeland and Greater Israel. And this is very salutary…

You quote Ovadia Yosef (1920-2013), the controversial Israeli rabbi. Could you tell us more about him?

By discussing Ovadia Yosef, I wanted to highlight the underlying influence of religious leaders on Israeli policy. He is not an isolated case. There is also the chief rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) who lectured Netanyahu, urging him to take action to hasten the coming of the messiah. In 1967 and 1973, Ariel Sharon sought rabbi Schneerson’s advice on military issues, even though Sharon is not religious.

To come back to Ovadia Yosef, I explain that he was a key player in Israeli policymaking, because all Israeli leaders went to him for advice. The religious orthodoxy plays a key role in the making of Israeli geopolitical policy. This is why, throughout the history of Israel, we can see the application of both Jewish laws and the implementation of a programme based on the Old Testament.  As I demonstrate in the book, rabbis throughout history focused on using the bible to develop both a theology and a praxeology, and turned this into a political instrument as well as a geopolitical project.

Some of the statements made by Ovadia Yosef are so racist and abhorrent they chill the blood. Regarding the Palestinians, he declared that “It is forbidden to have pity on them. We must give them missiles with relish, annihilate them.” (2001 Passover sermon. Cf. Haaretz, April 12, 2001) […]

As I explain, he was not a lone eccentric. He is a chief rabbi who advised politicians. Even Israeli army generals sought his advice in the preparation of the war against Iran. He was a key figure in Israel and is certainly not the only one to hold these views.

In order to demonstrate that he was influential, you quote a member of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) who, during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza in 2014, called for the death of all Palestinian mothers ?  

Yes, you are referring to the ultra-nationalist Ayelet Shaked, who went on to become a minister. I also quote the Knesset’s vice-president, Moshe Feiglin, who proposes to expel the Palestinians from Gaza and drive them into the Sinai. As in the Book of Joshua, he quite calmly explains that Gaza’s infrastructure should be destroyed with full force. The resemblance to the following passage in the Book of Joshua (6:24) is striking: “And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein.” Feiglin mentions “no consideration for human shields” which basically means that those who refuse to leave Gaza should be wiped out in order to ethnically cleanse the entire city. We should remember that we are talking about the vice-president of the Knesset here!

Could you give us your analysis of the current situation in Syria and that of what happened in Iraq ?

The destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria is not directly linked to American vital interests, contrary to what the majority of geopolitical analysts say. Nor is it linked to any desire to control the oil reserves. As John Mearsheimer (3) and Stephen Walt demonstrate, if the Americans had wanted to seize control of the Iraqi oil fields, all they had to do was put pressure on Saddam Hussein, and he would have gladly accepted!

Indeed, during the 1990s, President Assad did nothing but reach out to Israel and the USA for the sake of peace. And each time the Americans wanted to come to an agreement with the Iranians or the Syrians the Israeli lobby systematically stepped in. Why? Because the Israeli lobby’s ultimate goal is the destruction of those countries. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have clearly demonstrated that it was in fact the Israeli lobby, not the oil lobby, which pushed the US to destroy Iraq. Indeed, Bernard-Henri Lévy, who participated in the destruction of Libya, declared before the CRIF (Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions) that he did as a Jew. It has to be understood, then, that he did this as an Israeli agent.

The main reason for the tension between Russia and America on the Syrian issue is the Israeli project. As I explain in the preface to my book, the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrians are not fighting against American imperialism but against the Israeli project, executed and endorsed by the Americans to their own detriment. American imperialists are not the friends of humanity, but, as Carl Shmitt put it, we should correctly identify the principal enemy.

Needless to say, American imperialism (and all that it entails) is one of the problems – if not the main problem – for the world today. But if the Americans were to return to the isolationist Monroe doctrine, as Trump would like to, the problem would be solved. Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of America’s greatest geostrategists, understood that basing American foreign policy on that of Israel’s jeopardised the future of the United States.

Both the destruction of Syria and perhaps even the future US-Russian war, which remains a possibility, both have the same root cause: the Israeli imperialist project. This should be born in mind.

How do you explain that so few people – in the West, at any rate – are aware of this ? And why do so few people speak out against it?

First of all, we cannot publically speak out against it in the West because both the media and the political system are tightly controlled. But if you were to go to the Middle East, for instance, you can openly give your opinion on this matter. The Western world, especially Europe and the US, has a politicised media system which prevents any form of free debate of this issue. It is not difficult to understand why. Just take any of the major TV channels or newspapers and then go to the top of the chain of command: here you often find Jewish, Israeli or even Protestant multimillionaires as well as arms dealers. We shouldn’t, therefore, be surprised that we do not have complete freedom of speech in the West.

If we now look at dissident circles, those who criticise American imperialism and even Zionism, we see another problem, which is methodological in nature. The work of geopolitical analysts often lacks historical depth, because they base their work on statistics and the study of energy resources, believing this to be the be all and end all of geopolitics. The religious, ideological and messianic dimension is totally ignored. This is why I wrote the book, in order to provide a new and different way to interpret modern history, an interpretation which appears to me to be more effective than geopolitics as it currently stands.

March 2017



Translated from French

Source: Arrêt sur Info

arretsurinfo.ch/du-messianisme-juif-au-sionisme-contemporain


(1) Youssef Hindi is a write and historian, specialising in the study of messianic eschatology. Born in Morocco, he emigrated to France at a very young age, which led him to develop his thinking on the necessary reconciliation between northern and southern Mediterranean countries. Since time immemorial, the destinies of these two worlds have been inextricably linked.

(2) Henry Laurens, historian, states that : “The Yishuv (Jewish community) was established as an absolute refusal to collaborate economically and socially with the Arab population. Jewish exclusionism, necessary for the construction of a Jewish homeland, meant that any interaction with the Arab sector was considered as being a failure which needed to be addressed. The historical ambiguity of Zionism as a nationalist and secular definition of this community, hitherto defined by religious criteria, transformed the Yishuv into a hybrid: a public group having the right to call itself a “people” but whose membership criteria are defined by religious affiliation”

(3)  http://arretsurinfo.ch/reprise-le-lobby-israelien/

(4) David Ben-Gurion stated in 1938: “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.”

 

Advertisements

SYRIA : Who’s pulling the strings?

SYRIA : Direct clash between Moscow and Washington. Who’s pulling the strings?

Jean Terrien, Rivarol


Following the American bombing of a humanitarian convoy in Syria (on the 20th September 2016) and five long hours of relentless bombardment of Syrian army positions by the US air-force, a violation of the cease-fire agreement signed on 9 September, Moscow is taking a harder line.

During a BBC interview, the Russian foreign affairs minister, Sergueï Lavrov, dropped diplomatic language and openly accused the US of protecting terrorists belonging to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly the Al-Nusra Front) when he pointed out that “The Americans have never attacked a single position belonging to the Al-Nusra Front”. (1)

This was confirmed by a commanding officer of the Al-Nusra Front in an interview granted to the German newspaper Stadt-Anzeiger : “Yes, the US support the opposition (in Syria), but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are still not satisfied with this support”. (2) What’s more, he revealed that the terrorist group had won battles thanks to American TOW anti-tank missiles which were “directly given” to his troops and added that “thanks to these missiles, the situation in several (Syrian) regions is under control”. Regarding heavy artillery, he explained that “our tanks and rocket-launchers came from Libya via Turkey”.

In order to prevent any future error being made by the American air-force, and thereby protect the Syrian army and Russian ground units, Russia has deployed its defensive missile systems (S300 and S400). Washington’s reaction was swift. Pentagon spokesman, Peter Cook, warned the Russians: “It must be clear for the Russians and all those operating in Syria that we take very seriously the safety our pilots”. In response, the spokesman for the Russian ministry of defence, Igor Konachenkov, stated: “we reiterate that the S-300 is uniquely for defence purposes and threatens nobody”. (3)

It should be made clear that the Russians decided to deploy their defensive systems following news that Washington was considering carrying out air-strikes against the Syrian army. Igor Konachenkov added in a press statement that “We have to be aware of the fact that the Russian systems will not have time to identify the precise trajectory of the missiles and their origin. And those who claim that invisible airplanes exist are heading for a big disappointment” (4)

We have perhaps come to a point of no return in this stand-off between America and Russia. A direct confrontation between the two great military powers in Syria could cause a world war. But one question, which has never been asked, remains: who would benefit from this possible world war? In order to identify the guilty party and the ultimate beneficiary of this coming world war, it is necessary to go back to the origins of the Syrian conflict and those who created it.

ARCHITECTS OF MIDDLE EASTERN DESTRUCTION

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Israeli leaders and the Israeli lobby in America jumped into action to use these attacks as a justification for a series of war against their Arab neighbours, a war which the Americans were to wage on their behalf. In statement which Netanyahou had published in the Chicago Sun-Times on the 7 January, we see very clearly that 9/11 was nothing other than a pretext for the reconstruction of the Middle East: “Should America overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaida network would fall apart on its own accord. The United States must now act in the same way for the other regimes of terror – Iran, Iraq, the dictatorship of Yasser Arafat, Syria and several others” (5)

In 2002, the very powerful pro-Israeli lobby group, AIPIC, held their annual conference, the theme of which was “America and Israel against Terrorism”. Discussions focused on the common threats to Israel and the US: the old and tired Yasser Arafat (who, poisoned, would die two years later), the former CIA employee Ossama bin Laden, the Taliban (armed and supported by the CIA via the Pakistani special forces), Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. (6)

In April 2002, the American neoconservative think-tank PNAC (Project for the New American Century) published a letter addressed to president Bush. This letter was signed by several Jewish figures (William Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz) and non-Jewish Zionists (William Bennet, R James Woosley) together with 28 other prominent neoconservatives figures: “Nobody should doubt that the United States and Israel have a common enemy. Our two countries are the target of what you have rightly called the ‘axis of evil’. As the secretary of state for defence, Donald Rumsfeld, pointed out, Iran, Iraq and Syria encourage a culture of political assassination and terrorist attacks against Israel, just as they have supported terrorist campaigns against the US. Mr President, you have declared war against international terrorism. Israel is fighting the same war”. (7)

Looking at the chronology of the statements, we can clearly see that the neoconservatives have in fact merely followed a plan which was drawn up well in advance by Israeli strategists, their American followers and by their agents of influence planted at the heart of the citadel of American power…

In the US, the promoters of this project to destroy Arab countries are the neoconservatives. But make no mistake: the roots of neoconservatism are essentially Jewish (8). The hard core of American neoconservatives is dominated by Jews, who occupy key posts in influential organisations, foundations and political institutions, such as:   Elliott Abrams, Keneth Adelman, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz. In journalism, we find David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Bret Stephens and Norman Podhoretz. Among the Jewish neoconservative university professors, we find Eliot Cohen, Aaron Fridberg, Ruth Wedgwood and the highly influential Bernard Lewis, a pro-Israeli Jewish historian (father of the “theory” of the clash of civilisations, popularised by his assistant, Samuel Huntington). Among the experts we have Max Boot, David Frum, Reuel Gerecht, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen (father of the “constructive chaos” doctrine), Joshua Maravchik, the ineffable Daniel Pipes, Danielle Pletka, Michael Rubin and Meyra Wurmser.

The Jewish neoconservative Max Boot stated very clearly that “support for Israel is one the key principles of neoconservatism”. (9) As renowned American professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt point out: “neoconservatism is a sub-set of the pro-Israeli movement. Jewish Americans are at the heart of the neoconservative movement, in the same way that they form the majority of the (pro-Israeli) lobby”. (10)

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

THE ORIGINS OF THE SYRIAN WAR

American strategic aims in Syria are based on the Israeli plan written in 1982 by Oded Yinon (11), who was an official at the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs.  This primarily targeted Iraq and made a plan to disintegrate the country before subjecting it to the same treatment as Syria. The Israelis, via the intermediary of the United States, have indeed followed the Oded Yinon plan to the letter. As soon as Baghdad fell, the Israeli leaders began to prepare for the future war against Syria, making accusations of a Syrian chemical weapons programme.

In April 2003, when Baghdad had just fallen, the Israelis started to push the United States to attack the Syrian regime. (12)

In an interview granted to the newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth on the 15 April 2003, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated that Bashar Al-Assad was “a dangerous man, incapable of sound judgement”. The Israelis had already said the same thing about Saddam Hussein who, according to them, had hidden “weapons of mass destruction” in Syria in collusion with Damascus just before the outbreak of the conflict. Is there really any need to explain why such an accusation is ludicrous?

Sharon called for the United States to put “great pressure” on Syria to force it to stop supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He also demanded that Lebanon: drive out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards from the Beqaa Valley; stop all cooperation with Iran; force Hezbollah to withdraw from its positions on the border with Israel; replace Hezbollah with the Lebanese army; and remove its short-range missiles targeting Israel. (13)

In other words, Sharon demanded that all barriers to Israeli expansion in the region be removed; he wanted the Levant served on a plate. Even an Israeli diplomat criticised Sharon’s excessive demands, inviting him to be more discreet regarding the relations between Damascus and Washington. (14)

Sharon was not an isolated case among the Israeli leaders. The minister of defence, Shaul Mofaz, declared on 14 April 2003 that: “We have a long list of demands regarding the Syrians, and it seems appropriate that they be communicated via the Americans” (15). Like Sharon, the minister of defence demanded that Syria break all links with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and that Hezbollah be disbanded.(16)

Two weeks later, Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraïm Halevy, came to Washington to push American leaders to take decisive action against Syria. He deployed the well-known Israeli argument; according to him, Syria had weapons of mass destruction and they were in the hands of Bashar al-Assad, who was described as being “irresponsible” and “arrogant”. (17)

For its part, Syria – whether it be under Hafez (1930-2000) or under Bashar al-Assad, throughout the 90s and from the year 2000 onwards – has sought peace with both the Israelis and the Americans. But the Israelis – who, as usual accepted to enter negotiations in order to better deceive – systematically derailed negotiations or simply did not comply with the agreements made. For instance, in December 2003, Assad proposed a peace deal and Haaretz’s military correspondent, Ze’ev Schiff, made the following comment: “The most surprising thing about the Syrian president’s proposal to resume peace talks with Israel is the Israeli leaders response…Prime minister Ariel Sharon has remained silent. Not a single word has passed his lips… We in the press have always held up hopes that such an offer would be made” (18)

This policy of mistrust towards Syria, promoted by the Israelis in the United States, did not please the American administration. The CIA and the State Department, in particular, stressed that the policy of confronting Syria was a strategic error. But Israel and the pro-Israel lobby convinced the American government to follow them down this road. (19) They used the same argument that they had previously used for Iraq, namely that Syria was not only a severe threat to Israel but also to the United States (20). It could well be asked in what sense Syria could possibly be a threat to the United States? No lie is too big for the Israeli leaders. By destabilising the region and beyond, these falsehoods have serious consequences.

Following the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Israelis declared that Syria was, at the very least, just as dangerous as Iraq. The Israeli strategists, Yossi Alpher, giving the Israeli point of view on Syria, explained that “Syria had a great ability to do harm, much more so than Iraq”. In April 2003, the Washington Post reported that Sharon and Mofaz strove to fuel the anti-Assad campaign by swamping the United States with secret reports on the misdeeds of president Bashar al-Assad (21) and the concealment of his Iraqi weapons (22).  Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States began their anti-Syrian campaign as early as 1996. (23) The current situation is merely the direct consequence of this.

For those who believe that attempts to overthrow the Syrian government began in 2011 following the supposed “massacres” of Syrian civilians by Assad, here’s something that will make them think again. In April 2003, eight years before the Arab Spring, Paul Wolfowitz, a Jewish neoconservative, declared that “regime change in Syria is essential”. Speaking to a journalist, Richard Perle, also a Jewish neoconservative, said that “we will be able send a short message, five words long, to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: now it is your turn”. (24)

In the light of these facts, and given Israel’s constant aggression towards Syria together with its open support of terrorists, it is obvious that the potential war between the United States and Russia will ultimately be to the exclusive benefit of Israel. Its goal is to have its insane project completed by the United States, which is supposed to destroy the Syrian army and drive Russia out of the region, in order to finally clear the way for Greater Israel, which will stretch to the Euphrates. In other words, Greater Israel will be built on the corpse of the Syrian nation. When the great global catastrophe happens, we shouldn’t forget who the true culprits are.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Jean Terrien

Source: Rivarol, n°3253, 13/10/2016

http://www.rivarol.com/Rivarol.html


REFERENCES

  1. Lavrov : Les Etats-Unis protègent un groupe jihadiste en Syrie : <http://aa.com.tr/fr/monde/lavrov-les-etats-unis-prot%C3%A8gent-un-groupe-jihadiste-en-syrie-/655943>.
  2. Russia Today, 27/09/2016.
  3. 20 minutes, Syrie : L’armée russe déploie des systèmes de défense antiaérienne S-300, 05/10/2016.
  4. Sputnik News, Moscou annonce ses intentions d’abattre tout missile menaçant en Syrie, 06/10/2016.
  5. Benjamin Netanyahou, “Three Pinciple Keys to Defeat Terrorism”, Chicago Sun-Times, 7 January 2002.
  6. Dana Hearn, AIPAC Policy Conference, 21-22 April 2002, Journal of Palestine Studies 31, n° 4, summer, 2002, pp. 66-79.
  7. Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat, and the World on Terrorism, Project for the New American Century, 3 avril 2002, www.newamericancentury.Org/bushletter-040302.htm
  8. Murray Friedman explains that neoconservatism is a Jewish invention in: The Neoconservative Revolution : Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. See also the article written by Gal Beckerman in Forward, “The Neoconservative Persuasion”, 6 janvier 2006.
  9. Max Boot, “What the Heck is a Neocon ?”, Wall Street Journal, 30 December 2002.
  10. Walt and Mearsheimer, La politique étrangère américaine et le lobby pro-israélien, 2007, La Découverte.
  11. Oded Yinon’s “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, 1982. New French translation, Le Plan sioniste pour le Moyen-Orient, Sigest, Paris, 2015.
  12. Seymour Hersh, The Syrian Bet, art. cit. ; Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S. Pressure Syria on Militant, Washington Post, 17 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Jerusalem Urges Bush ; Next Hezbollah, Forward, 11 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Sharon Aide Makes the Case for U.S. Action against Syria, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Marc Perelman, Behind Warnings to Damascus : Reassessment of Younger Assad, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to keep on Syria, Calls Assad “dangerous”, Haaretz, 15 avril 2003.
  13. Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to Keep Heat on Syria. See also Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S., article quoted in Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  14. Herb Keinon, “Sharon Criticized for Public Declaration on Syria-U.S. Tension”, Jerusalem Post, 16 avril 2003.
  15. Ori Nir, “Sharon Aide Makes the Case”. See also DeYoung, “U.S. Toughens Warning”, quoted in Molly Moore, “Sharon Asks U.S.”
  16. Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  17. Forward, quoted par Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  18. Ze’ev Schiff, “The Peace Threat from Damascus”, Haaretz, 8 december 2003. See the details of Syrian peace offers in Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., chap. 9.
  19. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
  20. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
  21. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
  22. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300. See note 51, p. 475.
  23. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
  24. Wolfowitz quoted in Nathan Guttman, “Some Senior U.S. Figures Say Syria Has Crossed the Red Line”, Haaretz, 14 avril 2004 ; Perle quoted in Michael Flynn, “The War Hawks : The Right Flexes Muscle with New U.S. Agenda”, Chicago Tribune, 13 avril 2003.

Terrorism

Terrorism – A Geopolitical Perspective

Who will tell you about the origins of the different forms of terrorism ? Who will explain the geopolitical role of this destructive logic in the confrontation between the two opposing blocks in the world? So far, sociologists and other experts have not been able to usefully categorise the different types of terrorism, according to their geostrategic role, and place them in a historical perspective.

By Youssef Hindi

Source: Arrêt Sur Info


The Clash of Civilisations – A Messianic Strategy 

Some people know, superficially at any rate, Samuel Huntington’s pseudo theory which has been greatly promoted by the media. The “clash of civilisations” divides the world according to religion and civilisation and presents the diversity of cultures as the root cause of geopolitical conflict. It therefore implies that only cultural and political unification will eliminate all conflict.  This is in line with Francis Fukayama’s idea of “the end of history”, which is constantly proven wrong by reality

.

Few know that this so-called theory was taken from Bernard Lewis who, in 1957, developed his clash of civilisations concept. According to this, the Christian world and the Muslim world are, by their very nature, destined to confront each other until the end of “history” or rather until both of these civilisations destroy each other in an eschatological war which will be to the benefit of a third party

My latest historical research (1), which identifies the origins of Zionism and this clash of civilisations strategy, shows that what Lewis had put forward as theoretical conflict between the most important religions in the world is in fact a messianic strategy, which was developed during the Middle Ages as part of the project to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel. This project gave birth to political Zionism in its atheist form at the end of the 19th century.

Bernard Lewis – who holds Israeli, Britsh and Amerian passports – is not just an historian. He also a strategist who has worked at the heart of both the British and American state, and has done so ultimately for the benefit of Israel. He is, moreover, one of those influential stateless people who are members of, or allies to, the powerful American pro-Israel lobby, which pushed the American administration to destroy Iraq (2) to the benefit of Israeli expansionism. Lewis will go down in history as having given a scientific facade, a theoretical disguise, to this messianic strategy. History will recognise that Huntington brought this strategy to the masses in order to justify global chaos, which is not a natural state of affairs, but is encouraged by powerful forces (3).

Terrorism has not always been international. Nor has it always had that shade which certain ideologues close to Zionist and neo-conservative circles describe as “green-fascism”+. Neither has terrorism always benefited from Hollywood-style media promotion on a global scale.

What we describe as being terrorism, sometimes wrongly, can take a large number of forms and have many definitions.

We can draw a parellel between the terror linked to the expansion of the Cromwell regime in the 17th century with that of Wahhabism in the Arab peninsula in the 18th century. We can also make a comparison with the French revolution of 1789, which preceded the social-anarcho revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.

These revolutions, which were accompanied by territorial conquest, all had one point in common : mass extermination as a means of achieving ideological domination. The goal was to construct modern institutions on the ruins of the traditional society.

The socialist ideology behind these historical catastrophes also gave birth to the Haganah, created in the early 1920s, which in turn led to the creation of the Irgun. These Jewish homeland (Yishuv) terrorist organisations, which formed the basis of what was to become the IDF, were created to support and expand the Jewish settlements in Palestine.

Wahhabi Terrorism, Zionist Terrorism and False Flag Attacks

It is necessary to distinguish two types of terrorism, the analysis of which will allow us to see geopolitics from a different perspective:

  • Wahhabi terrorism, directed by America, whose aim is territorial conquest and the disintegration of nations.
  • Zionist terrorism which aims to divide and provoke.

Although the British created a Jewish homeland for the Zionists at the end of the First World War, the Irgun led a violent campaign against the British in order to drive them out of Palestine (4).

This culminated with the bombing of the British administrative headquarters in the Hotel King David on the 22 July 1946. An important detail : the Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs for the occasion so that the Palestinians would be blamed for the attackThis is an excellent example of a “false flag” attack.

The Israelis carried out several disguised attacks of this sort in order to drag their allies into armed conflicts:

  • In 1954, Israeli agents attempted to blow up several American buildings in Egypt in order to turn the Americans against the Egyptians.
  • In 1967, the Americans avoided intervening in the Six-Day War as the Soviet Union was an ally to Syria and Egypt. The Israelis attempted to draw the Americans into the war by attacking their reconnaissance ship, the USS Liberty. The Israelis attempted to pass this off as an attack by the Egyptians, in the same way as they had done in 1954.

The same pattern can be found with the 9/11 attacks which led the United States into a permanent war with one part of the Muslim world, in accordance with the clash of civilisations strategy and the Israeli project to redraw the boundaries of the Muslim world (5). The World Trade Centre attacks were viewed with suspicion by various analysts, scientists and politicians.

Certain facts lead me to believe that we are dealing with the same strategy as that deployed in 1946, 1954 and 1967.

Among the stack of evidence highlighting the implication, albeit indirect, of the Israeli secret services in these spectacular attacks, we have the fact that five Israelis were arrested by the New York police: they were caught rejoicing while taking photos of each other in front of the burning towers.  The police had discovered documents in their possession which proved that they knew the exact time and location of the attacks. It turned out that they were Mossad agents. Their names: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

Some thirty other Israeli agents, who went undercover as art students in America, lived close to 15 of the supposed hijackers (6).

An article in the New York Times, published on the 18 February 2009, revealed that Ali al-Jarrah, who was a cousin of Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker of flight UA93, had been a Mossad spy for 25 years and had infiltrated the Palestinian resistance movement in 1983.

Moreover, the US Army School for Advance Military Studies published a report, quoted in a Washington Times article *, which stated that Mossad “has the capability to target US forces and make it look like an Arab/Palestinian act”.

What’s more, journalists working for Le Monde revealed on February 2015 that a Mossad agent in Panama, Shimon Yalin Yelinik, had confessed to having funded the 9/11 terrorists.

Benjamin Netanyahou, the current Israeli Prime Minister, gladly admitted that the terrorist attacks benefitted Israel. The Israeli newspaper Maariv quoted Netanyahou, who declared the 9/11 attacks had been “good for Israel” and added: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. These events have swung American public opinion in our favour”

When interviewed by a French journalist for I-Télé on the 7 August 2014, Netanyahou implied, somewhat menacingly, that terrorists would attack France if it did not support Israel in its policy with regard to the Palestinians.

We do not have solid proof to hand of Mossad involvement in the terrorist attacks against France, carried out in 2012 and 2015. Nevertheless, Georges Malbrunot, journalist for Le Figaro, stated in a Tweet 17 days after the November attacks that: “A military official confides that the DGSI (the French secret service) refused Israeli assistance in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks” and adds that “Mossad took advantage of the honeymoon between Sarkozy and Israel to reinforce its presence in France”. He concludes with the DGSI’s own words:

“Mossad already has an active presence on French soil and we must not reinforce it”

This confirms the statement of the former French minister for foreign affairs, Roland Dumas. In his book, Coups et Blessures, he delared that:

“The Israelis do what they like in France and manipulate the French intelligence service, the DST, in any way which suits them … The Jewish lobby, as Mitterrand used to call it, was extremely active”.

This Zionist form of terrorism combines perfectly with the nihilistic Wahhabi form of terrorism, a product of two ideologies which appear foreign to one another. From an historical and geopolitical point of view, they merge within the framework of the clash of civilisations strategy.

What is extraordinary is the fact that Wahhabism and Zionism, as incarned by a nation state, appeared at the same time and were both backed by the British armed forces.

The British, who supported at arms’ length the accomplishment of the Zionist project in the aftermath of the First World War, also encouraged Saudi-Wahhabi expansionism in the Arab peninsula in the early 1920s.

In 1945, the Americans took over from the British in their support for Saudi Arabia, in the same way as they did for the state of Israel, and contributed to the spread of the Wahhabi doctrine across the world (7).

Wahabbi terrorism was, right from the very start, a geostrategic weapon used by the British and Americans against their enemies. As mentioned previously, this form of terrorism is used by the Anglo-Saxons as a corrosive to fragment target nations.

Indeed, in the late 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was at the time National Security Advisor to President Carter, masterminded the coordination of the CIA with the Pakistani and Saudi intelligence services in order to finance future terrorists, including Bin Laden, in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan.

In the late 1990s, this strategy was again deployed in Chechnya in order to trigger the collapse of the Russian Federation. It was then used in Iraq (in 2003) and again in Libya, in Syria and in Yemen. And, perhaps, it will again be used in Algeria.

This fact was finally admitted by the New York Times on the 23 January 2016:

“US relies heavily on Saudi money to support Syrian Rebels” **

Geopolitical Conclusion – America versus Russia in the Struggle to Control Eurasia

Let’s put this into a geostrategic perspective. The key issue in the geopolitics of opposing continental blocks is the control of Eurasia, the centre of which is the Middle East.

The Atlanticist policy, whose strategy for the year 2000 onwards was developed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997, consists of penetrating deeply into Eurasia by making Europe one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored Eurasian structure of security and cooperation (8).

This strategy aims to destroy, or at least weaken, Russia by pushing for Ukrainian independence. This would change the very geostrategic nature of Russia: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire (9)”.

Russia is the main target. It is having to cope with a double strategy, as explained in article published in 2015 (10). First, there is the Brzezinski strategy, which serves American imperial interests. Secondly, there is the more covert Zionist strategy, epitomised by Henry Kissinger. This consists of disconnecting Russia from its allies in the Middle East, in particular Iran and Syria.

So far, Putin’s Russia has withstood the Kissinger strategy. On 11 May 2014, Kissinger declared that “we should not isolate Russia and it’s in everybody’s interests that it be maintained in the international system.”

As far back as 2008, he reached out to Russia, claiming that the United States should seek agreement with Russia, while describing Iran as being a danger for the region, in accordance with the Israeli geopolitical doctrine. This sent a clear message to the Russians : you will remain in the international system provided that you abandon your Middle Eastern allies in favour of Israel. But this geopolitical deal is a trap, the ultimate goal being to weaken Russia.

The conclusion is obvious: the stabilisation and the continued existence of the Middle East, the Maghreb and Europe depend on the formation of a mutually beneficial strategic axis, stretching from Brest to Vladivostock, running through Rabat and Alger. This would lead to Brezinski’s worst nightmare: the loosening of transatlantic ties which would bring an end to America’s primacy in Eurasia.

+Islamic extremism. Green is the colour of the cloth used to cover coffins in Islamic funerals.
*See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/sep/10/20010910-025319-6906r/
**See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

References:

(1) Youssef Hindi, Occident et islam – Sources et genèse messianiques du sionisme, éd. Sigest, 2015.

(2) Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 2008

(3) Youssef Hindi op. cit.

(4) Henry Laurens, L’Orient arabe, Arabisme et islamisme de 1798 à 1945, éd. Armand Colin, 1993, p. 353.

(5) Oded Yinon’s “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982, Special Document N° 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8).

(6) Youssef Hindi, op. cit.

(7) Hamadi Redissi, Le pacte de Nadjd, ou comment l’islam sectaire est devenu l’islam, 2007, éd. Seuil.

(8) Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997.

(9) Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit.

(10) Youssef Hindi, La Russie, l’Europe et l’Orient, Revue Europe & Orient, N° 21, 2015.


Translated from French

Could Algeria be the Next Target?

It really is bad news. Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL), the sinister theorist of the “Arab Spring” who has destroyed Libya, Syria and Yemen, now intends to apply his horrific model to Algeria.

How exactly? By using the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (MAK). Its call for a demonstration in Paris has just been relayed by BHL.

The latest edition of his magazine “La Règle du Jeu” includes a long article on the celebration of the Berber Spring, but not in a way that commemorates this event. BHL is a war-monger, so he is by nature incapable of promoting peace. His destructive instinct naturally leads him to support movements and sects whose aim is to provoke insurrection in their countries. And this is precisely what he is attempting to do in Algeria via the MAK by publishing in his magazine an announcement made by their “provisional government” calling for a demonstration in Paris.

BHL has written an article, entitled “The Kabyles : An Unrecognised Population in Algeria”, in which he calls for people to support the demonstration in favour of “the autonomy of Kabylie”. He writes “the Kabyles are campaigning for the recognition of their rights in Algeria and for a secular society” and stresses that “some Kabyle friends have asked us to publish the call by the provisional government of Kabylie for a demonstration in Paris this Sunday, 17 April. We are all the more happy to do this because the aims of the demonstration, as specified in a short document sent to us, appear legitimate to us”

Such concern for humanity ! There are grounds for being wary of this dangerous liaison between the MAK and BHL because he has powerful contacts in the French government and elsewhere. Ferhat Mehenni’s MAK is “a good client” which will allow him to get closer to Algeria, a country which he still hopes to see join the ranks of those countries brought to heel in the same way as Libya.

BHL’s support for MAK is definitely bad news for both Kabylie and Algeria. He is not motivated by the ideals of Ferhat Mehenni’s group. He is motivated by Zionist ideology and by racism against Muslims in general. A quick look at the editorial board of his magazine will soon convince anybody of the sinister aims of “the man in the white shirt”… stained with blood.

On his editorial board, we find all the Zionists in the French media such as Armin Arefi, Hélène Brenkman, Eric Dahan, David Gakunzi, Raphaël Haddad, Patrick Klugman, Patrick Mimouni, and Yann Moix, to name but a few. BHL, who was invited as a VIP to Algeria during the 90s to support the government in its fight against terrorism, now comes to support a separatist movement which is opposed to the Algerian government…

By totally disregarding his contradictions, this warlord can cry crocodile tears for “the Kabyles, a people without a nation, just like the Kurds, who oppose what they call Algerian colonialism.”

In his magazine, he publishes MAK’s notice calling “French Kabyles and all Kabyles” to march and demonstrate in homage “to the Kabyle civilians killed during the Berber Spring of 1980″ and “the 128 Kabyles killed during the Black Spring in 2001”.

This testifies to his obsessive desire to provoke civil unrest in Algeria. But not just in Kabylie. BHL also has compassion for the “Mozabite political prisoners who have been locked in Algerian jails for nine months and whose fate has been met with total indifference the world over”.  While examining BHL’s support for MAK, one cannot help but conclude that vigilance is more than ever necessary in order to defeat his determined attempts to destabilize the country.


Translated from French

The original author was Rafik Benasseur

Source: Algérie 1.com

http://www.algerie1.com/zoom/bhl-mak-liaison-dangereuse/

Zionism and the Clash of Civilisations

Interview with Youssef Hindi, author of  “The West and Islam”, an extraordinary work on the origins of Zionism and the nebulous neo-conservative theory of the so-called “clash of civilisations”

Using reliable sources to support his arguments, Youssef Hindi, a Frano-Morrocan historian, traces the roots of Zionism back to the messianic projects developed during the 13th century by rabbis and Kabbalists.


Aux origines moyenâgeuses et fumeuses du sionisme

In your book, you advance a new theory regarding Zionism. Could you briefly explain it to us?

The main theory of my book is as follows. Contrary to popular belief, Zionism is not an atheist ideology; nor was it created by the English Puritan movement during the 17th century as certain historians, such as Shlomo Sand, believe.

Zionism was from the very beginning a messianic project, created by rabbis during the Middle Ages. This project was developed and consolidated throughout the centuries to the point where it took on an atheist form, in a similar fashion to a number of modern ideologies dating from the 19th century.

This is not the only argument I put forward in this book. This messianic ideology which gave rise to Zionism also led to the strategy of the “clash of civilisations” and the creation of the myth of Judeo-Christianity, which dates from the early 16th century.

That these projects were born during the Middle Ages is one thing. But how do you explain the fact that they have managed to survive over the centuries? What’s more, how did these religious ideas come to take on an atheist appearance? Is this not a contradiction in terms?

Throughout the book, I illustrate the following key point which is not immediately obvious when one reads the book for the first time: the fact that ideas in history are updated. History is driven and animated by ideologies and ideas which are created, transformed and then spread. These ideas are born in people’s minds; they then guide people as well as the groups to which they belong: history is made by the groups led by these ideas.

Moreover, I construct my arguments very carefully, step by step, using a range of reliable sources. I highlight the coherence of the project, over seven centuries old, by carefully showing the links between the series of important, and often unknown, events which decisively changed the course of history.

Jewish messianism went through a period of transition between the end of the 17th century and the 18th century with the Sabbatean-Frankist movement. This messianic movement, which was both apocalyptic and antinomic (opposing God and natural law), was created by the false messiahs Sabbataï Tsevi (falsely converted to Islam) and Jacob Frank (falsely converted to Catholicism). It led the way to an atheist form of messianism which then gave a non-religious appearance to the vast messianic project. It was from this movement that the utopian libertarian and socialist revolutions of 19th and 20th centuries were born. During the same period, Zionism in its non-religious form appeared in Central Europe, which is exactly where the atheist revolutionary movements multiplied.

So what about the “clash of civilisations” theory ? You say that it is linked to messianism and Zionism. By attempting to link everything to this messianism, are you not speculating?

The “clash of civilisations” is by no means a theory: it is a strategy. My research shows that Solomon Molcho, who was a Kabbalist, developed this strategy in accordance with the rabbinic and eschatological interpretations of the Bible. During the 16th century, he attempted to push first the Catholic Church and then the Holy Roman Empire into a war against the Ottoman Empire, the idea being to drive out the Turks from Palestine, thereby allowing the reconstruction the Kingdom of Israel.

This is precisely what the British did at the end of the First World War. They dismantled the Ottoman Empire and created the Jewish homeland in Palestine (1919-20) following the promise they had made to the Zionists in the Balfour Declaration (1917).

Molcho’s project took four centuries to come to fruition, but it was finally accomplished. This is one of form evidence that I use as a means of showing the durability of the Zionist project and the intrinsic link that exists between Zionism and the “clash of civilisations” strategy, the latter being a prerequisite to the achievement of the Zionist project (see article on the Oded Yinon plan https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/youssef-hindi-war-in-yemen/).

In 1957, Bernard Lewis*, who influenced Samuel Huntington†, removed the religious element from this messianic strategy by giving it a scientific appearance, in order to set it up as theory. As a worthy heir to Molcho, Lewis decrees that the (post) Christian world and the Islamic world are, by their very nature, destined to confront each other in a war. It was Bernard Lewis who, from the year 2000 onwards, strove to convince Vice-President Dick Cheney that the US should invade Iraq.

This “clash of civilisations”, conjured up from nowhere, basically conceals what I term “a global ideological conflict” between the Old Testament world (covering the Anglo-Saxon thalassocracy, its former Catholic vassals on the European continent, the Wahhabi oil monarchies and Israel) and the rest of the world.

* Bernard Lewis is a Jewish historian who holds British, American and Israeli passports.
† Samuel Huntington, author of “The Clash of Cvilisations and Remaking of World Order”

Article Translated from French

Youssef Hindi was interviewed by Gilles Munier, author of the “Black Gold Spies” (see https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/spies-of-the-black-gold/).

Occident et Islam“, is published by Editions Sigest, http://editions.sigest.net/

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2015/10/aux-origines-moyenageuses-et-fumeuses-du-sionisme.html


See also: Youssef Hindi discusses his book with Jean-Michel Vernochet (we have provided English subtitles).

Assad – Portrayed as Tyrant to Serve Western Interests

Interview with Fahad Al Masry, member of the Syrian opposition and coordinator of the Syrian National Salvation Front

Fahad al-Masri

 

The US and Russia have intensified their military efforts in Syria with the help of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG). Do you think an end to the crisis is now near?

You must remember that during the ISSG meeting, held last May in Paris, there were many disagreements, caused by the difference in Russian and American policies. This also led to the creation of two different groups: one supported the US and Russia, while the other supported Europe, led by Germany and France (and also included Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar). They created a European, Arab and Muslim coalition; the dozen or so Arab and European countries which formed the Group of Friends of the Syrian People continues to declare its support for the opposition.

This situation is due to Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy which left Russia free to intervene in the conflict, while sidelining Turkey and the Gulf countries. This split within the support group can be clearly seen because, during the Paris meeting, there was tension between the Europeans (France and Germany) and the other countries.

There are a number of unresolved issues, even if all parties claim that the target date for political transition is a real goal. The Vienna talks aimed to strengthen relations between the partner countries and to rebuild alliances which had became too narrowly focused during the Paris meeting.  Russia, an ally of Bashar al-Assad, reported in early May on active negotiations aimed at bringing an end to the conflict in Aleppo.

Moscow, however, had warned that it did not intend to put pressure on Damascas to stop carrying out air strikes on the city, even though that’s what had Washington’s demanded. All these alliances and disagreements make the Syrian issue very complicated. An alliance, or several alliances even, within the same support group does not necessarily help attempts to find a resolution to the crisis. The post-Geneva period is only just beginning, and the hope is that we do not go down the road of a Geneva V, Geneva VI…etc

The United States does not see a future for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it is one of their priorities: remove him from power. What’s your opinion on this matter?

As Lakhdar Brahimi once put it, Bashar al-Assad is finished. This declaration can be justified given that Bashar al-Assad had supported the Iranian and Russian attacks on civilians demanding freedom and respect.

History will remember that Obama was the worst American president ever because his policy pushed Syria and the entire region into endless conflict. From the beginning, Washington severly criticised Assad’s policy. But while Assad was free to transgress all limits, the US did nothing but interfere in our internal affairs rather than finding a solution to both the conflict and Bashar al-Assad.

The image of Bashar as a tyrant merely served the interests of certain world powers who aim to destroy our country and destabilise the entire region to serve interests beyond our own. Syria is not the only target. This strategy of destruction targets other countries, too, in particular the countries in Northern Africa, such as Algeria.

Do you think that recapturing Rakka from ISIL could have an impact on other towns in the country?

The liberation of Rakka is important and, without a doubt, constitutes a defeat for ISIL. The international media distracted us with “the destruction of archaeological sites” in order to conceal an international illegal trade in archaeological treasures, supported by both the Syrian and Iranian government.  By destroying a country’s memory, you destroy its future. The other problem in Rakka is that the US had brought Kurdish militia forces into Syria to help liberate the city. We can now expect a civilian massacre.

Translated from French

The original author was Faten Hayed

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/05/interview-de-fahad-al-masri-opposant-syrien-et-coordinateur-du-groupe-salut-national-en-syrie.html

 

How should we deal with the Islamic State?

nationalThe terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November opened the eyes of those who still refused to see the following fact: France is engaged in an internal and external war against the Islamic State. But one question remains: what should we do?

The Paris terrorist attacks demonstrated that France is now inextricably tangled in the geopolitical crisis triggered by the Islamic State group. What’s more, the fact that there is large Muslim population in our country means that internal stability and our very institutions are directly targeted by this new form of international terrorism.

The Islamic State may well be a proto-state, but it governs a territory. And it commands terrorists outside of its borders: some of the terrorists came from Syria, as confirmed by a report written by the Swiss Prosecutor General’s Office, recently published in the press.

Its considerable financial means come from local racketeering, the sale of oil, and the smuggling of art works. Its stock of weapons – from Iraq – is equal to that of neighbouring states and the danger is that one day it could obtain chemical weapons. The aim of the Islamic State is to create a Middle Eastern “caliphate” which will then be expanded to include every Muslim country.

Of course, its troops have recently suffered defeats on the ground, notably against Kurdish and Iraqi troops. But it clearly continues with a double strategy. An offensive strategy of territorial expansion, which is currently focused on Libya and which, ultimately, will target Saudi Arabia, which is currently fragile and remains ambiguous vis-à-vis the Islamic State.

There is also a defensive strategy aimed at preventing any foreign intervention on its territory. This first took the form of an asymmetric war, which was at the origin of the Islamic State, lead by former Sunni Muslim Iraqi soldiers who led a revolt following the American and British occupation of the country. This was a victory for them as they had thwarted American plans for Iraq, with almost every single American soldier leaving the country before it regained stability.

A terrorism that takes on many forms

This asymmetric war then took on the form of international terrorism. The attack on a Madrid train station (in Atocha – 190 people killed) in 2004 triggered the electoral defeat of the conservative President Aznar and led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. As for the Paris attacks on the 13th November, they isolated France within the EU, many members of which believed that Paris would have been better advised not carry out air-strikes on Islamic State positions.

This is precisely the desired aim: pressurise Paris into abandoning military intervention. Added to this is the fact the Islamic State can only profit from Europe’s state of shock faced with the mass influx of refugees and the radicalisation of certain young Muslims who will leave the country to join the ranks of the Islamic State terrorists.

This form of terrorism is therefore multifaceted: in its indigenous form, it finds its human resources in our suburbs; in its international form, the Islamic State uses terrorism to blur the national boundaries by terrorising the local population, using rigourous logic and theological arguments to discredit the opposition and, through repeated attacks and repression, gaining the support of certain populations.

What can we do ?

Faced with the Islamic State, two priorities must guide French efforts : domestic security and the stabilisation of not only the Middle East but also North Africa and the Sahel. For the whole of the Sunni Muslim world is at stake, and we must take this together as a whole. The situation has become so bad that the option of non-intervention advocated by some (which was probably the best option for Iraq in 2003 and which, without any doubt, would have been the best option for Libya in 2011) is now an inadequate response to the threat posed by the Islamic State.

We must, therefore, concentrate our forces and divide those of our adversary. From the French point of view, the most urgent priority is to find allies. We need to acknowledge that our strategic interests coincide with those of Russia and Egypt but are at odds with those of Saudi Arabia and Turkey and are different from those of the United States, which still believes that its main opponents in the region are Russia and Iran.

In the Sahel region of Africa, France cannot disregard cooperation with Algeria, even if relations are complicated. The risk is to repeat the same sort of mistake made during the Cold War by making the war against the Islamic State the focal point of relations. There are local opposition movements that can be exploited, whether it be between Sunni groups or regarding the Kurds. The situation needs to be assessed in a strictly objective fashion.

Action abroad and action at home

The fact that this conflict takes on a form hitherto unseen means that there must be a precise coordination between action taken abroad and action taken at home.

Abroad, we must concentrate on the main enemy – and it is not Bashar Al-Assad! – and divide any other enemies.

First: target the vulnerable resources of the Islamic State (the transportation of oil, the sale of stolen art works, international financial transactions).

Secondly: rely on the support of Shia units in the region in order to drive back Islamic State on the ground, as the Kurds will refuse to intervene beyond the limits of their territory. In addition, the Kurds further complicate Western relations with Turkey, a Sunni power which is becoming increasingly “Ottoman”.

At home, a draconian but precise anti-terrorist policy is vital: this policy must prevent any Muslim solidarity with the terrorists, while taking into account both the foreign and domestic aspects of the strategy.

For the moment, Paris can work on two specific problems: stop the systematic opposition to Assad (we have already discretely began to do this) and look again at the Tuareg issue which existed before the problem of Islamic extremism in Mali.

A balanced policy

Looking ahead, how could the situation develop ? We know that the United States and its allies, in particular Saudi Arabia, are determined to create a Sunni state in the Middle East. On the other side, Iran (Russia’s ally) and Iraq together with the different Shia groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, intend to form a Shia confederation, geographically smaller in size than that of its rivals. Indeed, Iranian plans are regional in nature, whereas the Sunni project stretches from the Atlantic to Central Asia.

Aiming for a balance between these two key groups is in the interest of France even if, as is likely, the borders inherited from the First World War and the end of the Ottoman Empire will not survive the crisis. Moreover, with the help of Russia and Egypt, the second strand of this differentiated strategy should aim at allowing religious minorities – notably Christians, the Druzes and the Alawites – to stay along the Mediterranean coast, within range of aircraft carriers, in states such as Lebanon and Syria, and both countries should be encouraged to ensure that they come to no harm.

As for the United States, they will continue to guarantee Israeli security in the last resort. But as long as Jerusalem does not accept a state solution to the Palestinian issue, any attempt at reconstruction or stabilisation of the Middle East will fail sooner or later.

Regarding the growing threat to Libya by the Islamic State group, the solution is the same as that for the Sahel region: cooperate with Egypt and the North African countries whose leaders are directly threatened by the Islamic extremists.

The road will be long and difficult. It will demand a constant review of the organisation of the security services and armed forces, by finally admitting the much contested notion that security and defence are inextricably linked.

Translated from French

The original author was Georges-Henri Soutou, Professor of Contemporary History at Sorbonne University, Paris.

Source: LAFAUTEAROUSSEAU

http://lafautearousseau.hautetfort.com/archive/2015/12/27/que-faire-face-a-l-etat-islamique-5736324.html

See also: Interview with the author (source TV Libertés)

English subtitles available

Does the FBI create terrorists?

Source : Le Point http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/le-fbi-fabrique-t-il-des-terroristes-21-10-2015-1975418_24.php


Are all means justified in the fight against terrorism?

This is a question for all democratic countries. Especially the US where, to hunt jihadi apprentices in America, the FBI uses a growing army of undercover operatives, who are accused of sometimes pushing impressionable minds to commit terrorist attacks.

Working under cover and benefitting from legal immunity, these infilitrators can even go so far as to designate a target or provide weapons in order to better deceive terrorist suspects. According to human rights organizations, this amounts to “creating the terrorist” on the pretext of combating terrorism.

This situation is inevitable, according to Mubin Shaikh, a former Canadian undercover agent and author of Undercover Jihadi. He justifies this sort of action by saying:

“We need the suspects to be convinced that you are on their side. You must play the game, do what they tell you. Otherwise, the whole operation is compromised.”

According to him, making suggestions is all part of the “game”. He recalls a conversation he once had with an alleged extremist. “In December we may organize a training camp. Would you like to come along and train a few guys? He understood perfectly well, but refused: ‘No, brother, I’m here to study religion’. From this, I concluded that he was not the type of peson we were looking for, as he did not bite the bait. But, if I say exactly the same thing to someone who says ‘yes’, then it’s not entrapment, he is simply caught.”

Set-ups

According to agreed figures, the FBI has at least 15,000 underground informants, who are often generously paid and involved in a wide range of investigations, from pedophile rings to the drugs trade. But identifying ISIS supporters, the number of which has increased “spectacularly”, is now the focus of all efforts. James Comey, FBI chief, stated on 8 October that:

“This summer, we have tracked dozens and dozens of people, over the whole of the United States. We have disrupted the plans of many terrorists.”

The only thing is that, in some cases, infiltrators apply pressure to encourage suspects to commit terrorist acts that they might not otherwise have committed.

On the 10 April, the FBI announced the arrest of a man, John Booker, who was on the verge of carrying out a suicide attack using a car bomb against a Kansas military base. But according to the investigation report, seen by AFP, Booker was subject to FBI manipulation for six months. It was the undercover agents who helped the jihadi apprentice to make his martyrdom video. They provided a list of the necessary components to make his bomb. Finally, they constructed the device – which in fact was disactivated – and gave it to the suspect along with the car.

In a July 2014 report, the human rights NGO Human Rights Watch accused the FBI of “creating terrorists’ by targeting vulnerable people in its operations. This is the focus of a documentary “(T) ERROR”, which appeared this year at the Sundance festival. Murtaza Hussain co-directed a very informative investigation released in late June on the “Fort Dix Five”, a group of Albanian men involved in planning an attack against a military base in New Jersey. Four were sentenced to life imprisonment, including three brothers.

Before their arrest in 2007, they had been placed under surveillance eighteen months after a holiday video showing them shooting at targets in nature – a popular hobby in the United States – shouting “Allah is the greatest”. They had previously shown no inclination for terrorism. In footage secretly filmed by the FBI, the undercover agent quite clearly pushes the Albanians to stage a terrorist attack, despite their reluctance. The agent rebukes the brothers:

“You live according to the Koran, yet you do not fight for Muslims! Make your minds up!”

Strategic necessity

Murtaza Hussain concludes that the use of infiltrators “is a necessary strategy, but one that we should use in moderation and only for proven plots”.

He regrets that “there is a now a real sense of paranoia, especially in the Muslim community. They can no longer discuss or engage in political campaigns without fear that someone in their entourage is an informant.”

The FBI officially admits that the use of informants “may include an element of deceit, interference in private lives or cooperation with people whose seriousness and motivations are dubious.”

But to justify its actions, the FBI points out that the judiciary acknowledged that this method was”legal and often vital to the success” of an investigation. In addition, the FBI assures that the use of informants “is subject to careful assessment and close supervision in order to ensure that rights of people under investigation are not violated.”

Many think that some “radicalized” Americans are basically young misfits, for whom the internet offers a way of feeling that they exist. This is the case of a young Jewish boy living with his parents in Florida, Ryne Joshua Goldberg, who had created a second life by pretending to live in Australia and inundated social network sites messages advocating jihad. He was caught by the FBI, to whom he sent information on how to make a bomb. Arrested last month, this boy of twenty may spend the next twenty years in prison.

Another example is Ali Amin, a skinny teenager from Virginia, who was sentenced in late August to eleven years in prison for having supported ISIS on his Twitter account, which numbered some 4000 subscribers. For the former undercover agent Mubin Shaikh, this “skinny, weakling” is a “tragic case.”

“This kid went from ‘zero’ to ‘hero’, thanks to 140 characters (a message on Twitter). Suddenly, he becomes important, people consult him for a religious opinion …”

On the other hand, he continues, “when such guys connect to the internet to spread the ideology of ISIS, attempt to indoctrinate and recruit people, are we not forced to take action?”

Yes, but how far and how?


Article Translated from French

 

Borders of Blood in the Middle East

A passage from Pierre Hillard’s book, The Irresistible March towards the New World Order (La marche irrésistible du nouvel ordre mondial)


The tensions and violence that have shaken the Middle East since the Israeli military intervention in Lebanon on the 12 July 2006, are merely the visible part of an enormous political, economic, religious and philosophical world programme.

The American occupation of Iraq in March 2005 launched a revolutionary project whose aim is to re-shape a vast geographical zone stretching from Morocco to Pakistan: the Greater Middle East. This name conceals a profound geographical reconfiguration which lies in store for these Muslim countries.

There are many theories and much speculation regarding the interntions of American and Israeli leaders. There are, however, some early indications permitting a solid interpretation of the current strategy. This is the focus of the following maps, calling for a geographical reconfiguration of the Middle East.

These maps (“BEFORE” – the situation in 2006 – and “AFTER” – situation following the reconfiguration) appeared in an article, published in an American military review (Armed Forces Journal) in June 2006, written by a retired lieutenant-colonel, Ralph Peters. From 1976, he quickly climbed the ranks in a mechanised infantry division and then, in 1980, went on to continue his career in military intelligence.

Author of a number of works on military strategy and international relations, Ralph Peters retired from the US army in 1999. But he remains in close contact with the US military as he is a member of the AFJ’s editorial board. This publication is just a small part of an empire in the American military press. Founded in 1863, this monthly review is aimed at American officers and deals with a wide range of subjects such as: military technology, logistics, strategy, military doctrine or tactics. In fact, the AFJ is controlled by a parent company whose publications are structured around three structures:

1) The Military Times Media Group which publishes : Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times et Marine Times.

2) The Defense News Media Group, an international group of defence reviews which publishes: Defense News, Armed Forces Journal (AFJ), Training and Simulation Journal, and C4ISR (intelligence, surveillance et reconnaissance).

3) The Federal Times, weekly newspaper dealing with new technology and financial issues.

Since the 1 August 1997, the Army Times Publishing Company has been a subsidiary of an even more powerful group, Gannett. Established in 1906 by Frank Gannett, this press and media empire publishes some 90 daily newspapers, the most famous of which are USA Today and USA Weekend, and controls 22 TV channels. Its activities also extend to the UK, where 17 dailies are under its control. The group generates colossal revenue, estimated at 7.6 billion dollars in 2005.

This introduction allows a better understanding of the environment in which the AFJ operates and of the importance of Ralph Peters work. Indeed, his proposals and calls for a radical change of Middle Eastern borders are clearly not just one man’s idle thoughts.

Numerous studies, calling for a review of national borders in the Middle East, have been launched within American military bodies and in various think-tanks.

As the map marked “AFTER” shows, the changes made to the borders are the result of a deliberate and careful analysis, the publication of which in a prestigious military review is no coincidence. The aim is also to gauge reactions, particularly those of the region’s Muslims. *

We must not regard this document, however, as being final. In fact it is a first draft, likely to be subject to various changes, which some term “adjustment variables”. In reality, the true interest of these documents is to demonstrate that the military, by no longer hesitating to make this fact officially known, is totally committed to a geographical area.

At the same time, this operation must be undertaken in accordance with Israel for whom this shake-up will have direct and immediate implications. Ralph Peters describes himself as an “old friend” of this country (New York Post, 22 July 2006).

* The aim of such a publication is to spark debate among the communities concerned. Inevitably, there will be supporters and opponents of such a reconfiguration. Opposition movements will emerge from the political parties and from the communities of Muslim countries. It will then be possible to put pressure on a particular ethnic or political group in order to encourage demands, which can only be met by the implementation of ethnic and regional policies. In fact, the disintegration of Middle Eastern nations mirrors that of European nations.


Translated from French

The original author was Pierre Hillard, former Professor of International Relations at ESCE, Paris, and author of numerous works on internationalism and the European Union.

Source: Cercle des Volontaires

http://www.cercledesvolontaires.fr/2013/11/29/le-n-y-times-propose-de-remodeler-le-moyen-orient-accreditant-les-travaux-de-pierre-hillard-joe-lecorbeau-com/

 

 

Abnormal levels of trading just before the 9/11 attacks

Rarely seen, unusual levels of activity could suggest insider trading.

Six years after the attacks on the World Trade Centre, this is the disturbing conclusion of a recent study by Marc Chesney and Loriano Manchini, both professors at the University of Zurich.

The authors – one a derivatives specialist, the other an expert in econometrics – have worked on options, used to speculate on a fall in share price of the 20 major American companies, notably in the aeronautical industry and in the financial sector.

Their research compares transactions made between the 6 and the 10th of September 2001 with average recorded volumes over a long period (a decade for most companies).

The two researchers have, in addition, calculated the probability that several options in the same sector were subject to significant trading within several days.

“We tried to see if the recorded transactions of certain shares just before the attacks were typical. But we show that for certain companies such as American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup, Marsh & McLehnan, such transactions are statistically extremely rare, especially when compared to the volume of transactions observed for other companies such as Coca-Cola or Hewlett-Packard” explains Marc Chesney, former professor at HEC and the author of “Money laundering and the financing of terrorism” (published by Ellipses).

“For instance, 1,535 sales option contracts with a maturity date of October 2001, at a price of 30 dollars, had been traded for American Airlines on the 10th September, compared to a daily average of about 24 contracts over the previous three weeks. The fact that the market was in decline at the time is not sufficient to explain these surprising volumes.”

Huge gains

The authors also studied the returns for sales-options for an investor having bought options between the 6th and the 10th September.They state:

“For certain shares, the gains were enormous. For example, for investors having bought sales options in Citigroup with a maturity date of October 2001 could have gained more than 15 million dollars”

 

By comparing the data of trading volumes to that of returns, the authors conclude that “the probability of insider trading is high for American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup et JP Morgan. This is not legal proof but the result of statistical research which demonstrates signs of irregularity.”

While it is true that this research is not the first report on the possibility of insider-trading linked to the attacks, it is disturbing news for the regulating bodies. Since September 2001, the SEC and other similar authorities, have taken an interest in unusual share trading before the attacks.

Article translated from French

The original author was Marina Alcaraz

Source: Les Echos

http://www.lesechos.fr/11/09/2007/LesEchos/20001-166-ECH_11-septembre-2001—des-volumes-inhabituels-sur-les-options-peu-avant-l-attentat.htm#SxsjF3Epfmfwm6LA.99