TERSANGKA PEMBOM BEIRUT TERTANGKAP
http://cahyono-adi.blogspot.com/2013/08/tersangka-pembom-beirut-tertangkap.html#more
Memenuhi harapan pemimpin Hizbollah untuk bisa menangkap para pelaku
pemboman kawasan Bir al-Abed - Ruwais, Beirut Selatan tgl 15 Agustus
lalu yang menewaskan 27 orang, aparat keamanan Lebanon berhasil
menangkap 3 orang yang diduga kuat memiliki keterkaitan dengan aksi
pemboman.
Dinas Keamanan Lebanon (General Security Agency) mengumumkan hari Selasa (20/8) bahwa pihaknya telah menangkap 2 orang berkebangsaan Lebanon dan seorang warga Palestina yang diduga kuat memiliki kaitan dengan serangan bom tgl 15 Agustus lalu. Ketiganya mendapatkan tuduhan "membentuk kelompok teroris dan melakukan tindakan-tindakan yang mengancam keamanan wilayah Lebanon".
"Mereka tengah merencanakan serangan dengan menggunakan mobil Audi yang berisi 250 kg bahan peledak," demikian pernyataan General Security.
Mobil yang diduga hendak digunakan dalam serangan teroris ditemukan di area Naameh, Beirut Selatan, hanya 2 hari setelah terjadinya serangan bom di kawasan Zahiyeh, antara Bir el-Abed dan Rweiss, Beirut Selatan. Area tersebut dan sebagian besar wilayah Beirut Selatan merupakan wilayah yang mayoritas dihuni oleh orang-orang Shiah pendukung Hizbollah.
Sebelumnya pada tgl 16 Agustus, pemerintah Lebanon mengumumkan telah berhasil mengidentifikasi satu jaringan teroris yang diduga tengah merencanakan serangan bom di Beirut Selatan.
Pada tgl 16 Agustus lalu pemimpin Hizbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah menuduh kelompok-kelompok takfiri dukungan Israel, Amerika dan inteligen negara-negara Teluk sebagai pihak yang bertanggungjawab atas atas serangan-serangan bom yang menewaskan puluhan pendukung Hizbollah, khususnya sejak Hizbollah melibatkan diri dalam perang di Syria. Nasrallah mengaku telah mengidentifikasi para pelaku dan siap menangkap mereka jika aparat keamanan tidak melakukan tindakan tegas.
PERAN INTELIGEN NEGARA-NEGARA TELUK
Di sisi lain pimpinan redaksi koran Lebanon Al-Akhbar, Ibrahim al-Amin, pada hari Jumat (16/8) menyebutkan, "aparat keamanan sebuah negara Teluk berdiri di belakang semua serangan bom di Lebanon akhir-akhir ini dan mentargetkan Syria dan kelompok "Perlawanan" dengan menyerang Hizbollah dengan serangan-serangan roket dan bom."
"Ada tiga kelompok yang bertanggungjaab dalam operasi ini, yaitu mereka yang meletakkan bom-bom berdaya ledak tinggi di jalanan Chtaura, Majdal Anjar, Hermel, kemudian mereka yang menembakkan roket-roket ke Beirut, dan mereka yang membuat bom-bom," tambah Amin dalam wawancara dengan Al-Manar TV.
"Anggota-anggota yang melakukan serangan roket sangat disayangkan adalah orang-orang Palestina, orang yang paling bertanggungjawab bernama Ahmad Taha yang diketahui kini berada di Arsal," kata Amin seraya menambahkan bahwa Ahmad Taha dikendalikan oleh salah satu kelompok Islam Palestina.
"Namun kelompok yang membom jalan raya Chtaura-Masnaa dan Chtaura-Zahle berbasis di Majdal Anjar. Inteligen militer Lebanon telah membuat daftar aktifitas mereka. Mereka terdiri dari orang-orang berkewarganegaraan Lebanon dan Syrian yang bertikai dengan tentara yang tengah memburu mereka," kata Amin lagi.
Lebih jauh ia mengatakan, "mereka yang meledakkan kawasan Dahiyeh dan Hermel kini tinggal di Arsal dan memiliki 3 aktor yang terlibat langsung maupun tidak langsung: seorang warga Palestina, seorang Syria dan seorang Saudi."
Menurut Amin, pembuatan bom yang menewaskan 27 orang di kawasan antara Bir al-Abed dan Ruwais dilakukan di kota Arsal.
Amin juga mengungkapkan bahwa pemboman di Bir al-Abed dan Ruwais dirancang selama beberapa hari sebelum tgl 7 Juli, dan pada tgl 8 Juli 3 orang pelaku ditetapkan untuk menjalankan aksi.
"Ketiganya bergerak dalam satu mobil dari Arsal ke kawasan pantai Beirut untuk mencuri sebuah mobil dan menjebaknya. Mereka mencuri sebuah mobil KIA setelah mengancam seorang pemuda dan pasangannya yang berada di dalam mobil. Selanjutnya mereka memindahkan tas-tas mereka ke dalam mobil tersebut."
"Mereka meletakkan mobil itu di area yang mengarah ke kawasan Dahiyeh pada tgl 9 Juli. Selanjutnya mereka berpindah dari jalan tol bandara ke kawasan luar kota dan meledakkan mobil itu di sana," tambah Amin.
Berdasarkan penyidikan aparat keamanan, bom mobil yang meledak di Bir al-Abed - Ruwais berkekuatan 100 kg bahan peledak. Ledakan itu menewaskan setidaknya 24 orang dan melukai 336 lainnya.
Dinas Keamanan Lebanon (General Security Agency) mengumumkan hari Selasa (20/8) bahwa pihaknya telah menangkap 2 orang berkebangsaan Lebanon dan seorang warga Palestina yang diduga kuat memiliki kaitan dengan serangan bom tgl 15 Agustus lalu. Ketiganya mendapatkan tuduhan "membentuk kelompok teroris dan melakukan tindakan-tindakan yang mengancam keamanan wilayah Lebanon".
"Mereka tengah merencanakan serangan dengan menggunakan mobil Audi yang berisi 250 kg bahan peledak," demikian pernyataan General Security.
Mobil yang diduga hendak digunakan dalam serangan teroris ditemukan di area Naameh, Beirut Selatan, hanya 2 hari setelah terjadinya serangan bom di kawasan Zahiyeh, antara Bir el-Abed dan Rweiss, Beirut Selatan. Area tersebut dan sebagian besar wilayah Beirut Selatan merupakan wilayah yang mayoritas dihuni oleh orang-orang Shiah pendukung Hizbollah.
Sebelumnya pada tgl 16 Agustus, pemerintah Lebanon mengumumkan telah berhasil mengidentifikasi satu jaringan teroris yang diduga tengah merencanakan serangan bom di Beirut Selatan.
Pada tgl 16 Agustus lalu pemimpin Hizbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah menuduh kelompok-kelompok takfiri dukungan Israel, Amerika dan inteligen negara-negara Teluk sebagai pihak yang bertanggungjawab atas atas serangan-serangan bom yang menewaskan puluhan pendukung Hizbollah, khususnya sejak Hizbollah melibatkan diri dalam perang di Syria. Nasrallah mengaku telah mengidentifikasi para pelaku dan siap menangkap mereka jika aparat keamanan tidak melakukan tindakan tegas.
PERAN INTELIGEN NEGARA-NEGARA TELUK
Di sisi lain pimpinan redaksi koran Lebanon Al-Akhbar, Ibrahim al-Amin, pada hari Jumat (16/8) menyebutkan, "aparat keamanan sebuah negara Teluk berdiri di belakang semua serangan bom di Lebanon akhir-akhir ini dan mentargetkan Syria dan kelompok "Perlawanan" dengan menyerang Hizbollah dengan serangan-serangan roket dan bom."
"Ada tiga kelompok yang bertanggungjaab dalam operasi ini, yaitu mereka yang meletakkan bom-bom berdaya ledak tinggi di jalanan Chtaura, Majdal Anjar, Hermel, kemudian mereka yang menembakkan roket-roket ke Beirut, dan mereka yang membuat bom-bom," tambah Amin dalam wawancara dengan Al-Manar TV.
"Anggota-anggota yang melakukan serangan roket sangat disayangkan adalah orang-orang Palestina, orang yang paling bertanggungjawab bernama Ahmad Taha yang diketahui kini berada di Arsal," kata Amin seraya menambahkan bahwa Ahmad Taha dikendalikan oleh salah satu kelompok Islam Palestina.
"Namun kelompok yang membom jalan raya Chtaura-Masnaa dan Chtaura-Zahle berbasis di Majdal Anjar. Inteligen militer Lebanon telah membuat daftar aktifitas mereka. Mereka terdiri dari orang-orang berkewarganegaraan Lebanon dan Syrian yang bertikai dengan tentara yang tengah memburu mereka," kata Amin lagi.
Lebih jauh ia mengatakan, "mereka yang meledakkan kawasan Dahiyeh dan Hermel kini tinggal di Arsal dan memiliki 3 aktor yang terlibat langsung maupun tidak langsung: seorang warga Palestina, seorang Syria dan seorang Saudi."
Menurut Amin, pembuatan bom yang menewaskan 27 orang di kawasan antara Bir al-Abed dan Ruwais dilakukan di kota Arsal.
Amin juga mengungkapkan bahwa pemboman di Bir al-Abed dan Ruwais dirancang selama beberapa hari sebelum tgl 7 Juli, dan pada tgl 8 Juli 3 orang pelaku ditetapkan untuk menjalankan aksi.
"Ketiganya bergerak dalam satu mobil dari Arsal ke kawasan pantai Beirut untuk mencuri sebuah mobil dan menjebaknya. Mereka mencuri sebuah mobil KIA setelah mengancam seorang pemuda dan pasangannya yang berada di dalam mobil. Selanjutnya mereka memindahkan tas-tas mereka ke dalam mobil tersebut."
"Mereka meletakkan mobil itu di area yang mengarah ke kawasan Dahiyeh pada tgl 9 Juli. Selanjutnya mereka berpindah dari jalan tol bandara ke kawasan luar kota dan meledakkan mobil itu di sana," tambah Amin.
Berdasarkan penyidikan aparat keamanan, bom mobil yang meledak di Bir al-Abed - Ruwais berkekuatan 100 kg bahan peledak. Ledakan itu menewaskan setidaknya 24 orang dan melukai 336 lainnya.
REF:
"Lebanon arrests three over bombing plan"; Press TV; 20 Agustus 2013
"Gulf Intelligence behind Beirut Explosions, Perpetrators Hide in Arsal"; ALMANAR.COM.LB; 17 Agustus 2013
Lebanon arrests three over bombing plan
Lebanese soldiers and policemen work on the scene of the car bomb explosion in the southern suburb of Beirut on August 16, 2013.
Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:14AM GMT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/20/319614/lebanon-arrests-three-over-bombing-plan/
Security
forces in Lebanon have arrested three men suspected of planning a
massive car bomb in southern Beirut, following the recent deadly bombing
that left 27 people dead.
The General Security agency said in a statement late on Monday that a Lebanese national and two Palestinians were detained, adding they were accused of "setting up a terrorist group and conducting activities that affect security on Lebanese territory."
"They were preparing to stage an attack using an Audi car containing 250 kg (550 pounds) of explosives," the statement also said.
The car was found in the Naameh area in southern part of the capital only two days after a car bomb rocked the Zahiyeh suburb, between Bir el-Abed and Rweiss neighborhoods, south of Beirut. The area is regarded as a bastion of Hezbollah resistance movement.
On August 16, the Lebanese government said that the army has identified a network of suspected people trying to carry out bombings in southern Beirut.
Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has blamed Israeli-backed Takfiri militant groups for the deadly blast.
Addressing thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the occasion of the end of the group's 33-day 2006 war with Israel in the southern village of Aita al-Shaab, Nasrallah said on August 16 that according to investigations carried out by the resistance movement, Takfiri groups are behind the recent deadly attacks in Lebanon.
He added that those carrying out the attacks were not Israeli spies, but stressed that it is clear that US and Israeli intelligence agencies have infiltrated into these Takfiri groups and are using them to achieve their own goals.
SAB/HN
Bombs Blast Across Lebanon on Friday
Violence from the conflict in Syria continues to spill over into Lebanon with explosive consequences.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/bombs-blast-across-lebanon-on-friday-2/62235/
A car burns outside
one of two mosques hit by explosions in Lebanon’s northern city of
Tripoli, August 23, 2013. (Photo: Reuters/Omar Ibrahi) Early Friday morning the Israeli air force bombed what they labeled a “terror site” in Naameh, an area between Beirut and Sidon.
According to media reports, the attack targeted a site of the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), a
group that has supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Israel said the attack was “in response to a barrage of four rockets
launched at northern Israel yesterday.” The PFLP denied responsibility
for the attack on Israel on Thursday.
The New York Times notes that Capt. Eytan Buchman, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces,
declined to comment on the nature of the facility that was targeted, or why israel [sic] hit a different geographic area than the one from which the rocket was launched.
Neither the rockets fired from Lebanon nor Israel’s bombing resulted in injuries, according to media reports.
Meanwhile, in the northern, largely Sunni city of Tripoli, Reuters reports that at least 42 people were killed and hundreds wounded when bombs went off at two mosques following Friday prayers. The Times reports that no one has taken responsibility for the bombs at this point. Reuters adds:
A recent resurgence of sectarian violence in Lebanon has been stoked by the conflagration in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad is fighting a largely Sunni-led rebellion. Both Hezbollah and radical Sunni groups in Lebanon have sent fighters over the border to support opposing sides in Syria.
Zeina Khodr of Al Jazeera reports
that it is a “volatile time for the country,” and said that Tripoli “is
a place which has witnessed clashes between supporters of the Syrian
government and opponents of the Syrian government [and] Lebanese
factions exchanging fire on many occasions over the past year.”
Between 700,000 and one million Syrian refugees have fled to Lebanon, a country a little more than two decades out from its own civil war. Ben Hubbard reported this week in the Times:
Always looming in the background for older Lebanese are memories of the country’s own civil war, which raged on and off between 1975 and 1990, destroying communities and deeply scarring the society. “There is a general neurosis in the country because this reminds us of a period of the Lebanese civil war when every car was a potential bomb,” said Bassel Salloukh, associate professor of political science at the Lebanese American University. “This has a lot of psychological costs and impacts.”
About 276 images found for "lebanon car bombs"
_____________________
THE PSYCHOPATHIC ISRAELIS STRATEGY
FOR CONQUEST OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
FOR CONQUEST OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/isreal-ME-strategy.htm
In 1982, while advance preparations were being completed for the
invasion of Lebanon and the massacre of Palestinians in the camps around
Beirut, Sidon and Tyre, a remarkable document was published in Kivunim
(Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World
Zionist Organization. Its author, Oded Yinon, was formerly attached to
the Foreign Ministry and reflects high-level thinking in the Israeli
military and intelligence establishment.
The article, "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980's," outlines a
timetable for Israel to become the imperial regional power based upon
the dissolution of the Arab states. In discussing the vulnerability of
the corrupt regimes of the Middle East, Yinon inadvertently exposes the
full measure of their betrayal of the needs of the population and their
inability to defend themselves or their people against imperial
subjugation.
Divide and Rule
Yinon revives the idea of former Labor Foreign Minister Abba Eban
that the Arab East is a "mosaic" of ethnic divergence. The form of rule,
therefore, appropriate to the region is the Millet system of the
Ottoman Empire, wherein administrative rule was based upon local
functionaries presiding over discrete ethnic communities.
"This world with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal
crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in
Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal
successfully with its fundamental problems."[157]
Yinon contends that the Arab nation is a fragile shell waiting to be
shattered into multiple fragments. Israel must follow through with the
policies it has pursued since the inception of Zionism, seeking to
purchase local agents among factions and communal groups who will assert
themselves against other such communities at Israel's behest.
This will always be feasible, argues Yinon, because:
"The Moslem Arab world is built like a temporary house of cards,
put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the 1920's), without
the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into
account. It was arbitrarily divided into nineteen states, all made of
combinations of minorities and ethnic groups which are hostile to one
another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social
destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging." [158]
[Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million today, live in
Africa, primarily in Egypt (45 million).] The "new" strategy of the
eighties is the old imperial dictum of divide and rule, which depends
for its success upon the securing of corrupt satraps to do the bidding
of an aspiring imperial order.
"In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups
and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average
yearly income of $300. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling
to pieces; there is no centralized power, but only five de-facto
sovereign authorities." [159]
Dissolving Lebanon
Lebanon was the model, prepared for its role by the Israelis for
thirty years, as the Sharett diaries revealed. It is the expansionist
compulsion set forth by Herzl and Ben Gurion even as it is the logical
extension of the Sharett diaries. The dissolution of Lebanon was
proposed in 1919, planned in 1936, launched in 1954 and realized in
1982.
"Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a
precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the
Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The subsequent
dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique
areas, as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in
the long run. The dissolution of the military power of these states
serves as the primary short-term target."[160]
Fragmenting Syria
"Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious
structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that
there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in
the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern
neighbor and the Druze who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan
[the Golan Heights was occupied by Israel in 1967], and certainly in
the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the
guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that
aim is already within our reach today."[161]
Each Arab state is examined with a view to assessing how it may be
disassembled. Wherever minority religious groupings are present in the
army, Yinon sees opportunity. Syria is singled out in this respect.
"The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer
corps, the Iraqi army Shi'ite with Sunni commanders. This has great
significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to
retain the loyalty of the army for a long time."[162]
Yinon proceeds to examine how the "civil war," which had been inflicted
on Lebanon by means of financing Major Sa'ad Haddad in the Lebanese
South and the Gemayels' Phalange around Beirut, may be extended to
Syria.
"Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the
strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking
place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi'ite Alawi ruling
minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the
domestic trouble."[163]
The Assault on Iran
The revolutionary insurgency against the Shah of Iran - one of the
principal clients of American imperialism, imposed by a C.I.A. coup in
1953 - appeared to open the road to revolution throughout the Middle
East. Not only did Israel and its U.S. patron fear the appeal to Shi'ite
Muslims throughout the region - who tended to be among the poor and
disadvantaged - but the challenge to U.S. domination struck a chord
amongst the masses in each ethnic group and nation.
This was the background to the unleashing of an attack by Iraq on
Iran's southern province, Khuzistan, where the oil production and
refineries were located. Like Yinon, Israeli and U.S. planners
calculated that since Iran's oil rich province was populated by Iran's
Arab minority, the province could be detached from Iran relatively
easily. An attack by Iraq was expected to be met by sympathy from the
Arab minority of Khuzistan. Iran is a nation consisting of ethnic
groupings: 15 million Persians (Farsi), 12 million Turks, 6 million
Arabs, 3 million Kurds, Baluchi, Turkmeni and smaller nationalities.
"Almost half of Iran's population is comprised of a
Persian-speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish
group. Turkey's population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority
(some 50%) and two large minorities, 12 million Shi'ite Alawis and 6
million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million Shi'ites who
constitute one-third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15
million Shi'ites who endanger the existence of that state."[164]
The assumption was that Iran, too, could be fragmented, severing the
oil producing provinces through invasion. Khomeini had continued the
Shah's policies of oppressing national minorities and the repression
visited upon the Arab minority by Khomeini's provincial governor,
Admiral Madani, encouraged the C.I.A. and Israeli Mossad to push the
Iraqi regime to invade.
As with the other regimes of the Arab East, rhetoric aside, the
military oligarchies and monarchies in power are available to the
highest bidder. But the oil workers in Abadan and Ahwaz, the refining
cities of Iran's Khuzistan province, were highly politicized. They had
been the backbone of the National Front when Mossadegh nationalized the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Corporation in 1952, and the Communist Party of Iran
(Tudeh) had a strong presence among the oil workers. It was the general
strike led by the oil workers which was decisive in the Iranian
revolution which overthrew the Shah in 1979.
Iraq's invasion backfired. The Arab minority saw it as an attack
on the revolution itself. U.S. and Israeli policy now turned to arming
both sides, drawing out the war as long as possible, while preventing an
Iranian victory.
Yinon is clear about the strategy. "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."[165]
The United States and the Saudi monarchy (which also supports Syria
with a $10 billion subsidy) have coordinated an arms blockade of Iran
and the massive supply of arms to Iraq. The Egyptian and Jordanian
regimes lead the way in support for Iraq. Meanwhile the Soviet Union and
the United States each arm Iraq, as the Soviet bureaucratic leadership
seeks to use its influence on the Arab regimes to position itself to
make sphere of influence arrangements with U.S. rulers - at the expense
of the Arab masses who continue to live in poverty.
Targeting Iraq
Yinon makes explicit Israeli motives in arming Khomeini while the
United States arms Iraq: "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. An Iraqi-Iranian war
will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is
able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us."[166]
Advanced preparations are in place as the Zionists plan the
fragmentation of Iraq in civil war. "The seeds of inner conflict and
civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of
Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi'ites in Iraq view as
their natural leader."[167]
In discussing the weaknesses of Arab society under the present regimes,
Yinon, inadvertently, underlines the extent to which the population is
left out of the equation of power and decision making, the
unrepresentative nature of the Arab regimes, their consequent
vulnerability and the futility of their attempts to protect themselves
from Zionist expansion by dependence on U.S. power and influence. When
all is said and done, they are all being measured for the same fate.
What is at issue is not if, but when:
"Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors,
although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority, Sunni.
Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an
elite of twenty percent holds the power. In addition, there is a large
Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the
ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would
be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria."[168]
The plan to dissolve the Iraqi state is not algebraic. Israel has
marked out the number of statelets, where they are to be located and
over whom they are to preside.
"In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines
as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states
will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and
Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish
north."[169]
Israel seeks to take full advantage of the impact of poverty and the
consequent instability of the regimes which must control an alienated
population. In this regard the desire of the Zionists to destabilize the
Arab regimes and fragment their countries, while not unwelcome to the
United States, is met by Pentagon caution as to timing and
implementation. There is the constant danger that the wars and
manipulated internal divisions required by Zionism and U.S. imperialism
to control the region may unleash a popular uprising, as in Iran - and
now within the West Bank and Gaza.
The specter of revolutionary change haunts both Israeli and
American rulers. It is a prospect, as well, which underlines the
critical importance of a revolutionary leadership which will see the
struggle through to the end. The P.L.O.'s attempts, for example, to
solicit support from the oppressive regimes of the region instead of
appealing directly to their suffering populations have led the P.L.O.
from one blind alley to another .
The default in leadership is commensurate with the opportunities
lost. Describing the oppression meted out by Arab regimes to their own
national minorities, Yinon observes: "When this picture is added to the
economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of
cards, unable to withstand its severe problems."[170]
Every country analyzed reveals, essentially, the same set of
conditions." All the Arab states east of Israel are torn apart, broken
up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb
(North Africa)."[171]
Double-Crossing Mubarak
The cynicism with which the Zionists discuss the fiction of their
concern for "security" is nowhere more transparent than in Yinon's
assessment of Egypt. The emergence of Sadat after Israel's seizure of
the Sinai, West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights in 1967 presented the
United States with the opportunity to prevent the most populous Arab
state from remaining an obstacle to Israeli expansion and American
control. The removal of Egypt from opposition was a devastating blow,
not merely to the Palestinian people but to the entire Arab population.
The return of Egypt to a degree of dependency on imperialism unknown in the days of Farouk was deeply unpopular among Egyptians.
The United States has provided Egypt with nearly $3 billion in
aid, loans and disguised subsidy - second only to Israel itself - which
underlines the role of the Mubarak government. Yet living standards
plummet.
By legitimizing the Israeli colonial state, Sadat betrayed not
only the Palestinian people but left the Arab East prey to the designs
set forth by Oded Yinon.
What emerges clearly from his strategic analysis is that for the
Zionist movement everything is on a timetable, each area marked for
conquest or re-conquest and perceived as a target of opportunity,
awaiting only the proper relation of forces and the cover of war.
"Egypt, in its present domestic political picture is already a
corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing
Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct
geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen
Eighties on its Western front."[172]
Sadat's return of Egypt to its neo-colonial status under Farouk was
rewarded by the recovery of the Sinai. In Israeli eyes, however, not for
long.
"Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to
regain control over Sinai as a strategic economic and energy reserve for
the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem
due to its internal conflicts, and it could be driven back to the
post-1967 war situation in no more than one day."[173] Yinon now proceeds to apply the same scalpel to Egypt with which he has already sliced up Lebanon, Syria and Iraq:
"Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If
Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant
states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join
the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic
state in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very
localized power and without a centralized government is the key to a
historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement
but which seems inevitable in the long run."[174] Camp David, then, was a tactical ploy preparatory to the dissolution of Egypt and of the Sudan:
"Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today
is built upon four groups hostile to each other: an Arab Moslem Sunni
minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and
Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large
minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some seven
million of them. They will want a state of their own, something like a
'second' Christian Lebanon in Egypt."[175]
It was in Egypt that Gamal Abdel Nasser had overthrown King
Farouk and galvanized the Arab world with his vision of Arab unity. But
it was a unity based not on revolutionary struggle throughout the region
but on an illusory federation between oligarchical regimes.
Tomorrow the Saudis
If Nasser's Egypt finished up, in Israel's vision, "torn apart" like a
second Lebanon, Saudi Arabia will be far more vulnerable, for the
Monarchy's days are considered numbered.
"The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for
dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is
inevitable, especially in Saudi Arabia.
"All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a
delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the
Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the
Shi'ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the United Arab
Emirates, Shi'ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in
power."[176] Nor is there much doubt that as goes Arabia so goes the Gulf:
"The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist
[sic] South Yemen there is a sizable Shi'ite minority. In Saudi Arabia
half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi
minority holds power."[177]
Depopulating Palestine
Yinon reserves his most relentless assessment for the Palestinians
themselves. He is emphatic in acknowledging that the Palestinian people
have never relinquished their desire and will to be sovereign in their
country. It is all of Palestine over which Zionism must rule.
"Within Israel the distinction between the areas of '67 and the
territories beyond them, those of '48, has always been meaningless for
Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us."[178]
Not only must Palestinians be driven out of the West Bank and Gaza, but
from the Galilee and pre-1967 Israel. They are to be scattered as they
were in 1948.
"Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic
aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any
borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for
national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain
areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the
Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in
which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country
demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most
central aim today."[179]
[Today, the Palestinians within Israeli territorial control - those in
the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the pre-1967 territorial colonization -
number approximately 2.5 million. There are approximately 5.4 million
Palestinians today. More than half of the Palestinian people are
dispersed and scattered in a Diaspora across the world. A significant
number are in the countries of the Arab East, where they are also
subjected to every form of persecution and discrimination: 37.8% in
Syria, Jordan and Lebanon; and 17.5% in other Arab states.] The question
posed is how to achieve the expulsion of the Palestinian people under
Israeli control, particularly as Israel's entire regional strategy
depends upon it: '.Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first
on the realization of this internal strategic objective."[180]
Jordan: The Short Run
The method by which this is to be accomplished requires a delicate
operation, which begins to explain Zionist and American stress on
Jordanian representation of the Palestinians.
"Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short
run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in
the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule
of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the
short run. [emphasis added].There is no chance that Jordan will continue
to exist in its present structure for a long time and Israel's policy,
both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of
Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the
Palestinian majority."[181]
A desert land with small resources, largely dependent on Saudi money
and both U.S. and Israeli military protection, Jordan's Hashemite
Monarchy is scarcely sovereign at all. Its rule over the Palestinian
majority who inhabit camps even as they make up its civil service, is
Draconian. Palestinians have no right to political expression and when
deported from the West Bank and Gaza by Israel, they are summoned daily
by Jordanian police who harass and abuse them.
The removal of the Hashemite regime is to be accompanied by what
Jabotinsky, citing Hitler in 1940, euphemistically had called
"population transfer." "Changing the regime east of the river will also
cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely
populated with Arabs west of the Jordan [River]. Whether in war or under
conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic
demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on
both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to
accelerate this process in the nearest future.
The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any
compromise or division of the territories for ... it is not possible to
go on living in this country in the present situation without separating
the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of
the river."[182]
Oded Yinon's program follows the time-honored imperial pattern of
"divide and rule." Lebanon, for example, was first targeted in 1919. The
cover of war has been a prerequisite for the consummation of these
schemes, whether in the short or long term. Neo-colonialism remains the
preferred method of imperial rule because occupations spread imperialism
thin, as Che Guevara knew.
The Zionists, in particular, with their relatively small
population and their total dependence on U.S. imperialism, can only
enact their plan for Israeli dominion through neo-colonial schemes in
the Arab East, and these require the support of their imperial master.
In this regard, Oded Yinon's blueprint is the application to the
present and near future of the Zionist design pursued by Herzl, Weizman,
Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion, and, today, by Peres and Shamir. Those who
would select among them, offer Palestinians a Hobson's choice, for the
political debate among the Zionist rulers centers on the means and
timing of a conquering design.
When, for example, Moshe Dayan took Gaza in 1956, Ben Gurion
became angry, informing Dayan, "I didn't want Gaza with people, but Gaza
without people, the Galilee without people." Moshe Dayan, himself, told
Zionist youth at a meeting in the Golan Heights in July 1968. "Our
fathers had reached the frontiers recognized in the partition plan; the
Six-Day War generation has managed to reach Suez, Jordan, and the Golan
Heights. This is not the end. After the present cease-fire lines, there
will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan ... to Lebanon and ...
to central Syria as well."[182a]
Neo-colonial rule, however, depends, as Oded Yinon makes clear, upon
the dialectical relation between military might and hired hands.
Fragmenting the Arab states will proceed under the cover of war -
whether a blitzkrieg attack, use of a proxy armed force or covert
operations. The ultimate success requires local leaders who can be
bought or ensnared.
Zionists, therefore, have given us repeatedly not only their
"Mein Kampf," but the evidence that the preservation and extension of
their rule depends on misleaders among the victim peoples. The
"divide-and-rule" schemes of Zionism and their imperial patron are
unending.
If the Palestinians and the Arab masses are to withstand these
plans for conquest, they will have to remove the corrupt regimes which
barter popular aspiration. They will need to forge a revolutionary
leadership which speaks openly about the role of these governments, is
vocal about Zionist plans, and which shows determination to carry the
struggle throughout the region.
The Four "No's"
Yinon's ideas are not outlandish. They are advocated by Sharon and
Begin's Minister of Defense, Moshe Arens, and also by the Labor Party.
Y'ben Poret, a ranking official in the Israeli Ministry of
Defense, was irritated in 1982 by pious criticisms of the expansion of
settlements in the West Bank and Gaza: "It is," he declared, "time to
rip away the veil of hypocrisy. In the present, as in the past, there is
no Zionism, no settlement of the land, no Jewish state, without the
removal of all the Arabs, without confiscation."[183]
The 1984 political platform of the Labor Party was promoted in
full-page ads in the two leading Israeli dailies, Ma'ariv and Ha'aretz.
The ads highlighted the "Four No's:"
- No to a Palestinian state
- No negotiations with the P.L.O.
- No return to the 1967 borders
- No removal of any settlements.
The ad advocated an increase in the number of settlements on the West Bank and Gaza, their full funding and protection.
In 1985, the President of Israel, Chaim Herzog, a Labor Party
leader, echoed the sentiments of Sharon and Shamir emphasized by Oded
Yinon.
"We are certainly not willing to make partners of the
Palestinians in any way in a land that was holy to our people for
thousands of years. There can be no partner with the Jews of this land."[184]
As with Camp David, even a Bantustan on parts of the West Bank and Gaza
would be but a prelude to the next "dispersal." Forcing 2.5 million
Palestinians into Jordan is, another interim measure, for Israeli
"lebensraum" [Hitler's infamous phrase meaning "living space"] will not
be confined by the Jordan River.
"It should be clear, under any future political situation or
military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the
indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of
Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan River and beyond it [emphasis
added], as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear
epoch which we shall soon enter."[185]
Palestinian Population Transfer
Yinon's ideas were also echoed in an important story carried by The
Washington Post on its front page on February 7, 1988, under the
headline "Expelling Palestinians: It Isn't a New Idea and It Isn't Just
Kahane's." Two Israeli journalists, Yossi Melman, diplomatic
correspondent of the Israeli daily, Davar, and Dan Raviv, London-based
CBS News correspondent, disclosed that barely two weeks after the end of
the June 1967 war, secret Israeli cabinet meetings were convened to
discuss the "resettlement of Arabs." The information was obtained from
private diaries kept by Ya'acov Herzog, director general of the Prime
Minister's office. The official transcript of the meeting remains
secret.
According to the Post article, Prime Minister Menachem Begin
recommended the demolition of the refugee camps and the transfer of the
Palestinians to the Sinai. Finance Minister Pinhas Sapir and Foreign
Minister Abba Eban, both Labor Zionists, disagreed. They called for the
transfer of all the refugees "to neighboring Arab countries, mainly
Syria and Iraq." The 1967 cabinet meeting did not reach a decision...
"Sentiment seemed to favor Deputy Prime Minister Yigal Allon's proposal
that the Palestinians ... should be transported to the Sinai desert,"
the Post article states. Accordingly, the Prime Minister's office, the
Defense Ministry and the army jointly set up a "secret unit charged with
'encouraging' the departure of the Palestinians for foreign shores."
The secret plan was revealed by Ariel Sharon before a Tel Aviv audience
in November 1987, when he disclosed the existence of an "organization"
which for years had transferred Palestinians to other countries,
including Paraguay, with whose government Israel had made the necessary
arrangements.
These "transfers" were handled by the Israeli military governor's
office in Gaza. When one of the transferees, Talal ibn-Dimassi,
attacked the Israeli consulate in Asuncion, Paraguay, killing the
Consul's secretary, complications ensued:
"The attack in Paraguay put an abrupt end to the secret Israeli
plan which the government had hoped would help solve the problem of the
Palestinians by exporting them," the Post article states.
Over one million people were contemplated for "transfer." Only 1,000 were successfully sent out.
Melman and Raviv emphasize that the relocation of Palestinians is
not new ''as the 1967 cabinet discussions show." They state that a
similar scheme would be attractive to a growing number of Israelis as
they watch the recent uprising in the West Bank and Gaza."
An Option Long Considered
The authors acknowledge that the removal of the Palestinians has been
the central focus of Zionist planning since the inception of the
movement. They write:
"Since the early days of Zionism, resettlement has been an option
for dealing with the problem posed by the large Arab population in the
historical land of Israel." Melman and Raviv recount a series of schemes
which were designed to effect the removal of the Palestinian people.
The East bank of the Jordan River [the state of Jordan] was
contemplated, a scheme indicated in March 1988 in a full-page
advertisement republishing a column by George Will which equates Jordan
with Palestine.[185a]
Labor Zionists and Revisionists were united on the necessity to
transfer the Palestinians elsewhere. Vladimir Jabotinsky spelled out the
various efforts made since World War I in a letter written in November
1939.
"We should instruct American Jewry to mobilize a half billion
dollars in order that Iraq and Saudi Arabia will absorb the Palestinian
Arabs. There is no choice: The Arabs must make room for the Jews in
Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is
also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs." By 1947, Labor Zionists
and Revisionists joined together in the mass expulsion of 800,000
Palestinians. In 1964, a young Israeli colonel named Ariel Sharon
instructed his staff to determine "the number of buses, vans and trucks
required in case of war to transport ... the Arabs out of northern
Israel." In 1967, Israeli military commanders began the process.
"One general sent bulldozers to demolish three Arab villages near Latrun on the road to Jerusalem, expelling their residents."
Such an expulsion order was issued for the West Bank city of Qalqilya and then cancelled.
Since the Uprising began in December 1987, Michael Dekel of the
Likud has taken up the call "to transfer the Arabs," and Gideon Patt, a
government minister from the Liberal Party, has declared that the
Palestinians should be placed on trucks and sent to the border.
Melman and Raviv conclude with the following prognosis:
"Kahane's message - expel the Palestinians or risk losing control
of the land of Israel -remains a potent one. And in the absence of a
political solution to the Palestinian problem [sic], Israel may be
pushed toward desperate measures."
A Warning by Sharon
It is in this context that Ariel Sharon's declaration of March 24,
1988, is to be assessed. Sharon stated that if the Palestinian uprising
continued, Israel would have to make war on its Arab neighbors. The war,
he stated, would provide "the circumstances" for the removal of the
entire Palestinian population from inside Israel and from the West Bank
and Gaza.
That these are not idle remarks or restricted to Sharon became
clear when Yossi Ben Aharon, director general of the office of the Prime
Minister, declared in Los Angeles:
"Israel has acquired a reputation of not waiting until a
potential danger becomes actual." Ben Aharon was referring to the
acquisition by Saudi Arabia of silkworm missiles from China intended to
menace Iran. The Israeli declaration was taken very seriously by the
Saudis, President Mubarak of Egypt and the Reagan administration,
inducing a "flurry of diplomatic activity." The March 23, 1988, New York
Times reports:
"The Reagan administration has expressed its concern that Israel
not conduct any pre-emptive attack on Chinese-built missiles purchased
recently by Saudi Arabia. ... Israel has not given a definitive reply to
the Administration's appeals to refrain from attacking the Saudi
missiles. The missiles ... were discussed during Mr. Shamir's visit to
Washington last week." Within two days of Ben Aharon's statement, Hosni
Mubarak warned Israel that Egypt "would react to an Israeli attack on
Saudi Arabia's new medium-range missile sites as 'firmly and decisively'
as if it were an attack on Egypt itself."[185b]
This statement was followed by Mubarak with a second declaration
in what was described as "a deepening crisis." "Mubarak told reporters
that he took a 'grave' view of reports that Israel was considering a
pre-emptive air strike to destroy the missiles.... 'This is a grave,
grave matter. An Israeli attack ... would blow up the entire peace
process. I warn against any attack on Saudi Arabia which is a sisterly
and friendly country."[185c]
These public responses by President Mubarak indicate that the
possibility of an Israeli adventure, intended to provide cover for
expulsion of the Palestinians and to fragment Saudi Arabia, the
paymaster of the Arab regimes, is not an idle one.
The timing of The Washington Post story of February 7, I 988, may
be more than fortuitous. The Israeli authorities have no answer to the
uprising of the Palestinian people other than intensified repression.
Israel and U.S. Power
If the Palestinian people face the destruction of their organized
existence by Israel, one fact must be stressed: The Zionist state is
nothing but the extension of the power of the United States in the
region.
Israeli extermination plans, occupations and expansion are on behalf of the principal imperialist power in the world.
Whatever may be the tactical divergences which emerge from time
to time between Israel and the United States, there is no Zionist
campaign that can sustain itself without the backing of its principal
sponsor. The U.S. government between 1949 and 1983, provided $92.2
billion in military aid, economic aid, loans, special grants and tax
deductible "bonds and gifts."[186] As Joseph C. Harsh, put it in the August 5, 1982, issue of The Christian Science Monitor.
"Few countries in history have been as dependent on another as
Israel is on the United States. Israel's major weapons are from the
United States - either as gifts or on long-term, low-interest loans,
which few seriously expect to be repaid.
"Israel's survival is underwritten and subsidized from
Washington. Without American arms, Israel would lose the quantitative
and qualitative advantage which President Reagan has promised to
maintain for them. Without the economic subsidy, Israel's credit would
vanish and its economy would collapse.
"In other words, Israel can only do what Washington allows it to
do. It dare not conduct a single military operation without the tacit
consent of Washington. When it does undertake a military offensive, the
world assumes correctly that it has Washington's tacit consent."
The Israeli state is not coextensive with the Jews as a people.
Zionism, historically, has been a minority ideology among Jews. A state
is but an apparatus which enforces specific economic and social
relations. It is a structure of power and its purpose is, however
guised, to coerce and to impose obedience.
If, for example, the apartheid state of South Africa had
three-fifths less territory or two-thirds less people under its control,
it would not be a whit less unjust. An oppressive state is unacceptable
whether it presides over a postage stamp or a continent. The Namphy
regime in Haiti is no less repugnant because of the relatively small
size of that country or of the population over which it rules.
Our attitude toward a state which exploits and demeans its
subjects is not conditioned by the extent of its sovereign reach. We
know this to be true for Stroessner's Paraguay or Zhivkov's Bulgaria. It
is no less true of the Zionist state of Israel.
Even if the apartheid Israeli state were anchored on a ship off
of Haifa, it would be an outrage. Like the South African state,
Pinochet's Chile or the state in America (run by 2% of the population
who control 90% of the national wealth), we owe it no allegiance.
Blood, Sweat and Tears
Nearly fifty years ago, an orator responded not to the occupation of
his country or the liquidation of three-fourths of its towns and
villages. He was not reacting to massacre, mass imprisonment, detention
camps and torture. He did not decry the theft of the land and property
of an entire people or their overnight transformation into pauperized
refugees existing in tent camps, hunted and persecuted wherever they
fled. He did not denounce a forty-year ordeal punctuated by unrelenting
bombing, invasion and yet further dispersal. He responded to but a few
weeks of sporadic bombing as he declaimed, memorably.
"I have nothing to offer you but blood, tears, and sweat. You
ask, 'What is our policy?' I say it is to wage war, by sea, land and
air. With all our might and with all the strength that God can give us
to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark,
lamentable catalog of human crime. That is our policy."
"You ask, 'What is our aim?' I answer in one word - victory.
Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory however
long and hard the road may be. For without victory for us, there is no
survival, let that be realized, no survival. I feel sure that our cause
will not be subject to failure and I feel entitled to claim the aid of
all." And a week later, he declared:
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall
fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall
fight in the fields. We shall fight in the streets. We shall fight in
the hills. We shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a
moment believe, this island were subjugated and starving, we shall carry
on the struggle."
What is it that makes it permissible for the head of the Raj, the
Imperial Raj, Winston Churchill, to utter these sentiments - but
renders them illicit for the Palestinian people? Nothing, but that
endemic racism which colors consciousness in our society.
Winston Churchill was a belligerent spokesperson of British
imperialism, notably in Palestine and the Arab world. If Churchill can
be allowed, demagogically, to sound a call to resist aggression and
attack, how much more are the Palestinian people entitled to fight back -
to resist occupation, to battle for their survival and social justice.
[157] lsrael Shahak, trans. & ed., The Zionist Plan For the Middle East, (Belmont, Mass.: A.A.U.G., 1982)
[158] Ibid., p. 5.
[159] Ibid.
[160] lbid., p. 9.
[161] lbid.
[162] lbid., p. 5.
[163] lbid., p. 4.
[164] lbid., p. 5.
[165] lbid., p. 9.
[166] Ibid.
[167] lbid., p. 4.
[168] Ibid.
[169] lbid., p. 9.
[170] lbid., p. 5.
[171] Ibid., p. 4.
[172] Ibid., p. 8.
[173] Ibid.
[174] Ibid.
[175] Ibid., p. 4.
[176] Ibid., p. 4 & p. 9.
[177] Ibid., p. 5.
[178] Ibid., p. 10.
[179] Ibid.
[180] Ibid., pp. 10-11.
[181] Ibid., pp. 9-10.
[182] Ibid., p. 10.
[182a] Sunday London Times, June 25, 1969.
[183] Israeli Mirror, London.
[184] Yosi Berlin, Meichuro Shel Ichud, 1985, p. 14.
[185] Shahak, The Zionist Plan.
[185a] New York Times, March 27,1988.
[185b] The Washington Post, February 7, 1988.
[185c] Ibid.
[185d] Ibid.
[185e] Ibid.
[185f] New York Times, March 23, 1988.
[185g] Los Angeles Times, March 25, 1988.
[185h] Ibid.
[186] For a full discussion of the financial relationship between the United States and Israel see Mohammed El Khawas & Samir Abed Rabbo, American Aid to Israel: Nature & Impact, (Brattleboro, Vt.: Amana Books, 1984).
[158] Ibid., p. 5.
[159] Ibid.
[160] lbid., p. 9.
[161] lbid.
[162] lbid., p. 5.
[163] lbid., p. 4.
[164] lbid., p. 5.
[165] lbid., p. 9.
[166] Ibid.
[167] lbid., p. 4.
[168] Ibid.
[169] lbid., p. 9.
[170] lbid., p. 5.
[171] Ibid., p. 4.
[172] Ibid., p. 8.
[173] Ibid.
[174] Ibid.
[175] Ibid., p. 4.
[176] Ibid., p. 4 & p. 9.
[177] Ibid., p. 5.
[178] Ibid., p. 10.
[179] Ibid.
[180] Ibid., pp. 10-11.
[181] Ibid., pp. 9-10.
[182] Ibid., p. 10.
[182a] Sunday London Times, June 25, 1969.
[183] Israeli Mirror, London.
[184] Yosi Berlin, Meichuro Shel Ichud, 1985, p. 14.
[185] Shahak, The Zionist Plan.
[185a] New York Times, March 27,1988.
[185b] The Washington Post, February 7, 1988.
[185c] Ibid.
[185d] Ibid.
[185e] Ibid.
[185f] New York Times, March 23, 1988.
[185g] Los Angeles Times, March 25, 1988.
[185h] Ibid.
[186] For a full discussion of the financial relationship between the United States and Israel see Mohammed El Khawas & Samir Abed Rabbo, American Aid to Israel: Nature & Impact, (Brattleboro, Vt.: Amana Books, 1984).
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar