Hillary Clinton’s Uncanny Fulfillment of Israel’s Yinon Plan for a Middle East Riven with Conflict

Wikileaks has released what may be the most underreported story of the year in a year full of them, Hillary Clinton’s uncanny fulfillment of Oded Yinon‘s plan for the Middle East according to Israel 30 years ago. This was summed up in Yinon’s « A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. » Yinon, an influential right-wing Israeli strategist, envisioned a Middle East riven with conflict between Arab tribes and religious denominations, unable to oppose Israeli ambitions for regional dominance. Yinon wrote:

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel…Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.

When former presidential candidate General Wes Clark shockingly proclaimed in 2011 that he had seen a memo emanating from the Bush defense department which revealed that the invasion of Iraq was only the beginning of a much more extensive program of « regime change » across the Middle East, one could not help but recall Yinon’s desire to provoke « inter-Arab confrontation. » Recalling a conversation with a Pentagon staffer before the invasion of Iraq, Clark told an audience:

I said, « Are we still going to war with Iraq? » And he said, « Oh, it’s worse than that. » He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, « I just got this down from upstairs » — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — « today. » And he said, « This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran. »

In a recently released email from the Clinton Archives, which run from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014 while she was Secretary of State, Clinton wrote from the standpoint of not US interests, but Israeli. She said:

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

The unabashedly hawkish exchange, which seems to telegraph the intent to overcome obstacles to « common view » which would justify an attack on Iran, shows that Hillary is of a like mind with Yinon, who held that toppling stable Arab regimes and uncorking fratricidal civil wars, which may go on for decades, is in Israel’s interest.

With the world freshly shocked at an image seen in Syria and Libya every day, wounded children, it might help to remember the most exuberant advocate, as Secretary of State, for the military actions which unloosed the horrors seen today in these war zones. The photo of the boy is but one fairly tame example. The true carnage is unpublishable.

In a piece at Huffington Post, « Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath, »Harvard’s Professor Jeffrey Sachs writes:

Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” to back the CIA-led insurgency.

Sachs is outraged at Hillary’s portraying herself as a « negotiator » who helped conclude ceasefires, writing:

This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

As for Libya, not only was Hillary the Obama administration’s most ardent supporter of military action to overthrow Gaddafi. It now comes out that the entire pretense for NATO intervention – stopping a massacre of civilians by Gaddafi, was pure fiction. Human Rights Watch, as reported in the Boston Globe:

released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Charles Kubic at the National Interest writes in « Hillary’s Huge Libyan Disaster »:

Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent “bloodshed in Benghazi” at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Ongoing casualties of the Libyan Civil War are now in the hundreds of thousands, with just the latest UN report... 

Palestinians: Israel is One Big Settlement

by Bassam Tawil  •  February 26, 2018

    Let us be clear about this: When Palestinians -- and some of their supporters in the international community, including Europe -- say that they want an end to the "occupation," they mean they want to see an end to Israel's existence, full stop.

They do not want to throw the Jews out of their homes in the settlements; rather, they want Jews to be expelled from the whole country.

    The conflict, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, did not begin in 1967, when east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip came under Israeli control.

In the eyes of the Palestinians, all Jews are "settlers" and "colonialists."

All the land, they argue, stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, is Muslim-owned land, and no Muslim is entitled to give up any part of it to a non-Muslim.

For the Palestinians, accepting Israel's "right to exist" with Jews is seen as an act of treason.


    What is really bothering the Palestinians is that Israel, with Jews, exists, period.


The Palestinians want all of Jerusalem.

They want all of "Palestine."

They want Israel removed from the planet.

It is time to listen carefully to what the Palestinians are saying -- in Arabic -- to understand that the conflict is not about Jerusalem and not about settlements.

So is it America's or Israel's fault that middle eastern Muslims are slaughtering each other and raping Yazidi women? It can be so hard to keep up with all the excuses. Did Israel pay for the flights of all those Aussie Muslims who traveled over there to join in the rape and pillage?

So those Aussie Muslims who traveled to Syria to take part in the raping and pillaging are not responsible for their own actions?

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 6:53pm:


Both, with others.  The State of Israel ought not be in Arabia.  That it does (and that the US supplies Israel with weaponry) is the root cause of all these woes.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 8:32pm:


You introduced the word 'unnatural.'  I did not use it.  I'm not playing your smart arse game Effendi.  It is a waste of time  as everyone of your exchanges with Gandalf establishes. 

Quote:


Not one.  You?

Quote:


Correct.  On this issue I am single minded.  It is the existence of the artificially State of Israel in Arabia (and the US propping that up with massive weaponry and military support) which is the root cause of all this strife.

Stuffed if I know why it even exists as a Nation other than to be a Jewish haven, but if it must, it ought not have been plonked where it is.

Can I make that any clearer, Effendi?

It is as far as I am concerned.  It is surrounded by Arabs and water.

Setanta wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:


Again, I don't care about that stuff.  A Jewish State surrounded by Arabs....what do you expect?  Peace in our times?

Setanta wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:


Yes as far as per my basic point, and as far as I am concerned.  The State of Israel was artificially created late 1940s and plonked right into the Land of Arabs.

You can call them Islamists if you want.  I call them 'Arabs.'  Same same for the purposes of my point...and I will never waver from it.  Get over it, and suck it up buttercup.

One of my long term mates...a retired Copper....is a Christian Lebanese, and he loves his nick name...the 'Black Arab.'

Stupid and useless pedantry.  I doubt there is anyone here who does not get my point.

The State of Israel was artificially created and plonked into the Land of Arabs.  Simple as that.  Deal with it.  Get over it and move on.  What was the expression? 

Was it this one ~ Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

Yes, that's the one.

You use your word, I'll use mine, and nothing will change that.

Get over it, move on and:

Quote:

The Syrian conflict exemplifies this with Syria split into warring fiefdoms like Afghanistan.

It's out of Israel's playbook.

https://www.mondialisation.ca/hillary-clintons-uncanny-fulfillment-of-israels-yi...

Call it whatever you like Effendi.

As far as I am concerned Arabia is for Arabs and the State of Israel has no credible place there other than to be the root cause of all the travails of that region and into the rest of the World.

Putting the State of Israel there was a disaster as is obvious by the outcome.

As for me being 'here' when Abu was here.  I have to assume you are referring to Abu Rashid who was last here on the 19th January, 2009.

I registered here on the 9th October, 2007 and had absolutely zero interest in matters Islamic/Arabic then.

My current interest has been the result of your inability to deal with the safe and sane and clear logic of Gandalf.

Feel free to use your terminology....I'll use mine, and that is that.  Get over it, move on etc.

I'm not going to change my terminology, which makes the metaphoric point. 

Simple as that.

Well...go and find some consensus then.  I will continue using the expressions 'Arabia,' and 'Land of Arabs' for as long as I like, and I doubt there is anyone here who is not 100% aware of the point I am making.

You have heard this expression...yes?

Quote:


Get over it, and move on.  I say that everyone here knows what I am saying just like you and Effendi do.

I've made my point. 



/end.

Call it whatever you like Effendi.

As far as I am concerned Arabia is for Arabs and the State of Israel has no credible place there other than to be the root cause of all the travails of that region and into the rest of the World.

Putting the State of Israel there was a disaster as is obvious by the outcome.

As for me being 'here' when Abu was here.  I have to assume you are referring to Abu Rashid who was last here on the 19th January, 2009.

I registered here on the 9th October, 2007 and had absolutely zero interest in matters Islamic/Arabic then.

My current interest has been the result of your inability to deal with the safe and sane and clear logic of Gandalf.

I have put several links and quotes here Aussie. It is an entire thread dedicated to it. I'm surprised you missed it, seeing as you have posted in the thread so many times, as recently as late February this year.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968

I've seen Gandalf use the 'mindless collective' and the treacherous Jews argument

Quite right - you saw me using them without me ever mentioning them. Clever eh?

mindless collective of treacherous Jews

What do you think of this one Aussie?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 10:27am:


Wunaway now.

mindless collective of treacherous Jews

mindless collective of treacherous Jews

mindless collective of treacherous Jews

"mindless collective of treacherous Jews"

You constantly bang on about it, so show us all

polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2016 at 5:52pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2016 at 8:22pm:


freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2016 at 9:30pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on May 24^th, 2016 at 10:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2018 at 12:26pm:


That ought be obvious!  It will provide the context in which it appeared for the FIRST time in a POST OF HIS. 

Are you denying that, for ages, he has been complaining long, loud and often that you are either misquoting him, or misrepresenting what he said, or of putting 'words into his mouth?'

3

2

1

Feel free to use your terminology....I'll use mine, and that is that.  Get over it, move on etc.

I'm not going to change my terminology, which makes the metaphoric point. 

Simple as that.

You could have said that pages ago.

I don't know enough about the alleged incident to comment.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 23^rd, 2016 at 5:29pm:


Its scheming K - we call them scheming jews.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2016 at 6:22pm:


Quite right - you saw me using them without me ever mentioning them. Clever eh?

Every reference to "tribe" made by Gandalf below just happens to be a tribe of Jews.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 10:27am:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:


Gandalf is one of the good Muslims.

The phrase "treacherous jew argument" has obvious racist connotations. FD was obviously well aware of this when he put these words into my mouth.

I went to great lengths to point out their treachery had nothing to do with them being jews. FD deliberately set out to play the race card by using the term "treacherous jew", which he knows perfectly well is a notorious phrase heavily laden with racist overtones. But their treachery is a matter of simple historical fact - they conspired with the people who were attempting to annihilate Medina, in secret, in direct violation of the treaty they signed with Muhammad. But pointing that out is wacist innit.

The best FD can argue is that their treachery was justified, but treachery it was.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 10:28pm:


No.  No 'wunaway.'  I never do that, as you ought know by now.

Show me where he first used this entire phrase.

Aussie you said you never wunaway. Does retreating into self imposed ignorance on a topic you always feel compelled to comment on count?

But if I quote what he says, you'll refuse to have an opinion?

What's the difference between wunaway and me no read?