The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon



mossad isis

By James Hall / SARTRE

Now that the dust has settled in Paris from the latest “False Flag” mission to herd the sheeple into a pen of jingoistic fervor, the blood flow coming out of the latest version of Comité De Salut Public would make Robespierre proud. Setting the context, dauntless ex-CIA  Michael Scheuer out does his usual perceptive analysis. 

“Honoring Paris’s dead and wounded is now being done with crocodile tears, candles, moments of silence, crowds of strangers holding hands, pledges of solidarity, the endless, pro forma singing of national anthems, and bouquets of followers mounded up as colorful, if wilting, temples to the dead. 

None of this nonsense honors anyone, it is simply another meaningless iteration of the made-for-TV, post-Islamist-attack “Festival of the Dead”, an event to which Westerners seem to be intensely attached and are now institutionalizing.” 

The remainder of his essay is published on  and provides a true alternative to the failed policies that maintain endless war for a Greater Israel. The same parade of mourners for the collateral damage targeted from terrorist assets created and sponsored by Western Intelligence services, have an existential mental blockage accepting the true architects behind the carnage.  

Before timid deniers of the cold hard facts on how the world really operates dismiss this conclusion, take the time to do your own research and evaluation. Start with the links on Who Sponsors the Islamic State (ISIS)?  

Next face up to the documentation that proves the Faustian bargain entered into by Western governments and their intelligent services that create and fund militant adversaries to keep the chaos going. Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad is an important disclosure. 

“Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012.Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad. 

According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the “leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).” 

Even with a causal exposure within the main stream media, it is difficult not to hear the savage attacks that blame the Snowden revelations, which compromised security and intelligence methods. Before swallowing the usual fear rhetoric, dig deeper and link the dots. The account, Snowden Bombshell: ISIS Leader CIA/MI5 Asset, Trained By Israel presents the linkage that most “PC” conditioned acolytes refuse to accept.  

“The former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Snowden said intelligence services of three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”. 

NSA documents refer to recent implementation of the hornet’s nest to protect the Zionist entity by creating religious and Islamic slogans. 

According to documents released by Snowden, “The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state “is to create an enemy near its borders”. 

The C-SPAN video ISIS revealed as ISRAELI SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE is not easily brushed aside. Such an interview will not take place on network broadcasts.  

If you have an open mind, the report by Pete Papaherakles in the American Free Press, Is ‘IS’ a CIA-Mossad Creation? – reveals startling information. “The leader of the radical Islamic State (IS), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has been reputed to be a Mossad-trained operative whose real name is Elliot Shimon, the son of Jewish parents.” 

The Gulf News source reports that ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi Trained by Israeli Mossad, NSA Documents Reveal, adds: “Leaks revealed that ISIS leader and cleric Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech.” 

At this point you should be asking just how this ISIS threat got its start and where did the funding originally come from. A former Iranian minister of intelligence, Heydar Moslehi, urges you to look towards the usual keepers of the secrets. Iran Says ISIS Created by U.S., Britain, Zionism, CIA, Mossad and MI6 “Moslehi said the coalition was a “bazeecheh” — a Persian word meaning a “plaything” or a “trifling amusement.” Islamic State, Moslehi said, was created by “the triangle of Mossad, MI6, and the CIA,” a reference to the Israeli, British, and U.S. intelligence agencies.” 

Do not think for a minute that the French intelligence agencies are purely operating in the interests of France. The controversial case presented on Former French Foreign Minister – Israel Controls French Intelligence, should not be rejected out of hand. Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas referred in a book he published entitled “Coups et blessures” (Assaults and Injuries), that “The “Israelis” are doing whatever they want in France, and are controlling the French Intelligence with what serves them”. 

The shadow governments are running the operations. Watch the Smoking gun proof that ISIS is a CIA/MOSSAD/MI6 job???, video.  

Allow your common sense to ask, Where Does ISIS Get All Those Tanks, Weapons And Shiny New Toyota Trucks? 

Toyota trucks aren’t all ISIS has managed to buy, capture or scavenge from us. In June, CNBC reported that so far we’ve accidentally furnished the Islamic State with at least $219.7 million worth of weapons, vehicles and other military supplies and gear — and that’s just the stuff we know about. 

Based on various reports, CNBC came up with the following laundry list of supplies the U.S. has so kindly provided to ISIS so far. 

2,300 Humvee armored vehicles at $70,000 each: $16 million 

40 M1A1 Abram tanks at $4.3 million each: $172 million 

52 M198 Howitzer mobile gun systems at $527,337 each: $2.7 million 

74,000 Army machine guns at $4,000 each: $29 million 

Surely this cache of arms was not acquired on ebay. Who has the budget to fund this armament supply and even more important the sources for the transfer? Believing that Iraqi forces simply abandoned the stash rings of having a bazeecheh newspeak script.  

isisbibi_jpg_w300h236ISIS has become the global scourge and is being hyped up as the latest crusade against the infidel. Islamic jihadists by any reasonable definition are not benign victims. However, when intelligence services encourage, plot, subsidize and support militant terrorists to become suicide bombers, the bloodline that benefits from the constructed threat must be acknowledged.  

Sentiment from Rabbi Dov Lior, Controversial rabbi says Paris attacks punishment for Holocaust, is despicable. Just how much of this mindset is behind Zionist thinking? Lacking in any serious discussion about ISIS is the absence of any attack by this deadly force of demented Muslim extremists on Israel. 

If the danger of a caliphate is the utmost threat that the establishment propagandists would have you believe, what is the difference in the way the Israeli’s conduct their affairs?  

Permanent terrorism is the ultimate growth endeavor no matter who is waging the violence. The intelligence services are at the forefront of engaging in perpetual acts of terrorism. America needs to take back control of its foreign policy by dumping Israel as an ally.  

Examine the steps to restore sanity submitted in the Washington Blog, Nine Ways to Stop Terrorism. 

I. Stop Overthrowing the Moderates and Arming the Crazies

II. Stop Supporting the Dictators Who Fund Terrorists

III. Stop Bombing and Invading When a Negotiated Settlement Is Offered

IV. Stop Imperial Conquests for Arab Oil

V. Stop Drone Assassinations of Innocent Civilians

VI. Stop Torture

VII. Stop Mass Surveillance

VIII. Stop Covering Up 9/11

IX.  Stop Doing It Ourselves 

The Paris massacre is a game changer that will intensify the same mistakes made over decades of shadow government conspiracy operations run by their own intelligence agencies. As incidences of further panic spread, just keep in mind that the globalists are intensifying their reign of terror. 

Go back and study in depth the six point steps made by Michael Scheuer, On cutting the crap, breaking the Caliphate’s back, and focusing on America. He ends his case:

“If successful, it allows the United States to bid farewell to the Middle East – leaving it to whoever is stupid enough to want to be involved — and begin to focus on genuine U.S. national interests, like reducing the debt, controlling the borders, rebuilding the conventional military, severely limiting immigration, withdrawing from NATO, evicting illegal aliens, eliminating domestic Islamist organizations, and generally minding our own business.” 

The Sumner Redstone version on the Showtime series Homeland will never portray the real terrorists. Are you mature enough to follow the wisdom in this Scheuer message or would you rather believe treasonous intelligence spooks?

Read featured article here

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles from

The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Moscow Warns CIA, Not Turkey, Downed Russian Fighter Plane Over Syria

A new report circulating in the Kremlin prepared by the Ministry of Defense (MoD) on the downing of an Aerospace Forces Sukhoi Su-24M bomber aircraft over Syria states that it was a deliberate act perpetrated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who were at the time of this catastrophe “controlling/operating” a Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jet on a supposed to be photographic reconnaissance mission.

CIA shoots down Russian jet

According to this report, under the terms and provisions outlined in the 20 October agreement, whose full name is “The Memorandum of Mutual Understanding between the Defense Ministries of Russia and the United States on preventing incidents and providing for aviation flights during operations in Syria”, Aerospace Forces conducting combat missions in the Levant War Zone over Syria were notified yesterday by US Air Force flight controllers operating out of Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base that a Turkish Air Force F-16 was operating near the Turkey-Syrian border.

US Air Force flight controllers in further clarifying the “purpose/mission” of this Turkish Air Force F-16 flight, this report continues, stated to their Aerospace Forces counterparts that it was conducting a routine photographic reconnaissance flight for intelligence purposes—which this reports notes is always conducted under the direction of the CIA who mission is monitoring arms shipments from Turkey to Islamic State rebels in Syria.

Sensing no threat from this CIA operated Turkish Air Force F-16, this report says, an Aerospace Forces Su-24M bomber returning to its Syrian airbase with its two Sukhoi Su-30 fighter plane escorts “allowed/authorized” them to accelerate towards their base due to low fuel issues and increased its flight altitude to 6,000 meters (19,685 feet) to prevent attacks from ground based fired missiles as per its procedures.

Immediately upon the Su-24M reaching the altitude of 6,000 meters, this report grimly states, and without its Su-30 escorts able to protect it, the CIA directed Turkish Air Force F-16 immediately went to hypersonic speed and fired three air-to-air missiles at the Aerospace Forces “target” destroying this Federation bomber and causing its two pilots, Lieutenant Colonel Oleg Peshkov and Captain Konstantin Murahtin, to safely eject from their now destroyed plane.

And also:

After safely ejecting from their destroyed bomber plane, this report continues, Lieutenant Colonel Peshkov and Captain Murahtin, when nearing the ground, were then shot at by Islamic State terrorists who in doing so committed a grave war crime—and which killed Lieutenant Colonel Peshkov whose attackers celebrated his death.

Captain Murahtin, however, this report says, was able to be saved when the Su-30 escorts returned and provided covering fire to protect him—and who, also, provided air cover for the Aerospace Forces helicopters sent to rescue him.

Of the three Aerospace Forces helicopters sent to rescue Captain Murahtin however, MoD experts in this report say, one was destroyed by a US missile fired by Islamic State terrorists killing Naval Infantry Soldier (Marine) Alexandr Pozynich.

And Also:

With MoD satellite data proving that the Su-24M bomber was about 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) in Syrian airspace when it was shot down, this report continues, Turkey then “absurdly” claimed that it had violated its airspace up to a depth of 2.19 kilometers (1.36 miles) for about 17 seconds and had been warned to change its heading 10 times—which would have been impossible as a normal plane-to-plane single “communication transfer” takes at least 45 seconds to occur.

Also, this report notes, with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stating in 2012 that a “short-term border violation can never be a pretext for attack”, this disaster became even more bizarre when Turkey yesterday, in a letter to the UN Security Council, openly stated that it had shot down the Su-24M and even admitted it had ordered the attack on the rescue mission for the downed pilots.

Though Prime Minister Erdogan has yet to contact President Putin, this report says, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov did discuss this disaster with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu, who assured Russia that Turkey wants to preserve friendly ties with Moscow, and to which Minister Lavrov replied that the Federation was not planning a war against Turkey.

Based on the MoD analysis in this report though, Foreign Minister Lavrov further stated: “We have serious doubts that this act was unintentional. It looks very much like a preplanned provocation.”

MoD intelligence experts in this report further support Minister Lavrov by noting it was not a coincidence that a Turkish film crew captured this shootdown either as they were most likely tipped off to be at the right place at the right time—a fact undisputed by even American observers.

Critical to note too, this report says, this disaster occurred just days after Turkish officials warned Russia to “immediately end its operation” against these Islamic State terrorists—and which we, in our 23 November report, Putin Declares ISIS On “Brink Of Total Defeat”, Warns NATO War Has Been “Total Lie”, noted the MoD’s grave concerns by stating: “To if the United States led NATO will intervene to protect their Islamic State allies against total defeat and risk World War III with Russia and China, this report warns, is the greatest unanswered question now facing the Federation.”

With the CIA having now plotted with certain elements within Turkey to provoke a larger war, this report concludes, President Putin ordered this morning that the previous agreement with the United States is now suspended and that the much feared S-400 defense missile system will now be deployed to the Hmeymim airbase in Syria—whose missiles have a range of 250 kilometers (155 miles) [the Turkish border, at its closest, is less than 50 miles away], and when combined with the airspace defense provided by the Moskva naval cruiser, will now spell certain death for any other Turkish-CIA-NATO aircraft should they ever again attempt to target a Federation warplane.

S400 Russian Missile system

Click on image to enlarge

Russian Slava Cruiser

Click on image to enlarge

See original source for this article here


The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

ISIS Toyotas

By Joachim Hagopian

The sad truth is that in the new millennium, government propaganda prepares its citizens for war so skillfully that it is quite likely that they do not want the truthful, objective and balanced reporting that good war correspondents once did their best to provide. Phillip Knightley, The First Casualty

Exposing the lies spewing forth from Washington and its MSM ministry of propaganda these days is a fulltime job entrusted to alternative media to report the deceptively hidden truth. The latest round of developments in the aftermath of last week’s Paris tragedy killing 129 people and injuring over 350 more innocent victims illuminates the aforementioned problem in article on Saturday headlined, “Pentagon pressing allies for more help against Islamic State.”

The question becomes help for or against the Islamic State?… because the historical facts clearly show the US Empire and its host of allies have only helped Islamic State terrorists, never for a moment have they seriously fought against the Islamic State. Bottom line, this undisputable reality only proves that the US and its unholy partners-in-crime have created both al Qaeda terrorists and the Islamic State terrorists, including all the so called moderate terrorists Obama claims to support in between.

A brief history lesson shows that al Qaeda was birthed in the late 1970’s under the guiding tutelage of longtime globalist criminal acting then as President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Under their original name the Mujahedeen were the US proxy mercenary terrorists (not unlike ISIS) recruited by the CIA to combat the Soviet Empire expansion into Afghanistan and then continue growing and flourishing under the Reagan-George HW Bush regime throughout the 1980’s.

Over many years as former CIA director, VP, president Pappy Bush did lots of shady war and oil business dealings with the Saudi aristocratic bin Laden family. So it was a natural marriage to enlist young Osama bin Laden, family upstart, to lead the CIA-sponsored band of rebels that helped defeat longtime cold war enemy and empire rival the Soviet Union.

It worked like such a charm in the empire graveyard of Afghanistan, culminating with the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1991, that under the new name al Qaeda Osama and his proxy terrorists were rehired to help “balkanize” the Balkans, engaging in ethnic cleansing against Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo and smuggling opium onto the West while assisting in the demolition of the once sovereign nation Yugoslavia into a half dozen weakened failed states under the Bush senior-Clinton regime throughout the 1990’s.

This US notion of “balkanizing” sovereign nations into failed state pieces was echoed by war criminal globalist Henry Kissinger a couple years ago expressing his desire to partition Syria into “more or less autonomous regions.” Of course the same can be said for US design on Iraq. As part of its global chessboard divide and conquer scheme, it’s been a carnivorously predatory foreign policy staple for the imperialistic Empire of Chaos to systematically carve up, destabilize, weaken and otherwise destroy not only entire independent nations but entire regions like the Middle East and North Africa as well.

As a sidebar note, in recent decades a seamless transition of the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have flowed from one administration to another, from Bush one to Clinton one back to the Bush two, onto Obama and God help us not be back to Clinton two. That’s because those who control US foreign policy for a long time have also owned and controlled America’s corrupt two party system. Electing a democrat or republican to office has been the elite’s crafty way of merely granting American voters an illusion of choice but long before any November election the ruling elite handpicks every presidential two party candidate backing both to ensure that every US president elected is a mere puppet dancing on an oligarch string.

The late 1990’s spawned the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) – the masterplan for “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” as envisioned by the likes of neocon gangsters Cheney, Bush 2, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et al. These war criminals plotted the demonic exploits of US Empire well into the twenty-first century, of course including the redrawing of the Middle East by using WMD lies as pretext for war after staging their “new Pearl Harbor event,” thus with help from their friends Israel and Saudi Arabia, they created and their al Qaeda terrorists as their hired gun stooges to take the blame for murdering 3000 Americans and establishing their “long” war on terror. Of course also in their sinister plan was the dismantling of the US Constitution and America’s civil liberties.

Tragically the disastrous costly quagmires of both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars were an integral part of the PNAC plan. Right after 9/11 General Wesley Clark became privy to the neocon agenda to take down seven sovereign nations within five years in the Middle East and North Africa. But in actuality regime change has long been embedded standard US foreign policy anywhere in the world where a sovereign country refuses to submit to US Empire’s rape and plunder. Just as Putin and Assad justifiably criticize US global hegemony for its brutal consequences reserved for those nation-states that openly defy Western imperialism, Hezbollah’s leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah speaking in Beirut a month ago said:

The punitive aspects of US foreign policy are aimed at anyone who refuses to submit to US domination, which is to say, refuses to become local extensions of the US government (and by implication, of the large oil and weapons companies that dominate it.) He who takes his own decision on the basis of his country’s interests is unacceptable to the United States.

If you doubt the truth of Nasrallah’s words, just ask the former Yugoslavia, or Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Syria, Somalia, North Korea, Russia, China, each of them know all too well as targeted US enemies for resisting and challenging Empire hegemony. Or ponder the short list (dozens more attempts were unsuccessful) of fallen leaders from sovereign nations who have been assassinated and/or overthrown by US imperialistic interests: 1953 Iran, 1954 Guatemala, 1950’s Vietnam, 1961 Congo, 1964 Brazil, 1965 Indonesia, 1965 Dominican Republic, 1973 Chile, 1990 to present Haiti, and 2014 Ukraine.

Through its CIA the US-NATO forces have led the West’s state sponsored terrorism for multiple decades on virtually every continent, from MENA to sub-Saharan Africa to South and Central America to Europe to Central Asia and Pacific Asia. Throughout the modern era, US Empire has been the prime suspect among nations as the guiltiest perpetrator systematically utilizing false flag propaganda to get away with spreading terrorist murder, mayhem and war to every corner of the globe with total impunity. No other nation, not Russia nor China but only the US is guilty of tampering and interfering at will with the internal affairs of countless sovereign nations which is a clear violation of international law. Its hypocritical double standard always citing US exceptionalism can no longer be used as the flimsily justified excuse or self-serving mantra on either moral or legal high ground. Empire’s long run as the sole unipolar superpower-world bully is over and as such, the US should no longer expect to get away with flagrantly defying and violating every international law from the Geneva Convention to the UN Charter.

After the costly occupation and horrendous war defeats representing the two longest running wars in US history in Iraq and Afghanistan, in September 2014 Obama declared a fake war against ISIS after the terrorists invaded Iraq in June, promising to “hunt them down.” But instead US military forces were only ordered to pretend to fight a fake enemy when in fact they were actually ordered to defend and protect them with air supportPilots commonly complain they are not being given clearance to fire upon Islamic State forces.

The ISIS invasion of Iraq was merely Obama’s excuse to remove the corrupt Iraq puppet leader Maliki in order to reestablish a US military foothold in Iraq to then go after Assad in Syria, something the world and Putin (who brokered the Assad deal to turn in his chemical weapons) had denied Obama the year before from carrying out his bogus “red line” lie calling for airstrikes against Syria when in fact it was Obama’s own ISIS pals themselves that committed the false flag chemical weapons attack on Syrian children.

Despite leading a so called “coalition” of allied forces alleged to have flown more than 20,000 airstrikes over Iraq and Syria against ISIS in the first year alone and stepping up a relentless inhumane campaign of remote controlled killer drone warfare deployed in over a half dozen MENA nations, ISIS only continues its exponential growth while expanding territorial control throughout the Middle East and far beyond into the northern CaucasusCentral AsiaUkraine, also teaming up with affiliate African terrorist groups Boko Harem in Nigeria and Al-Shabaab in Somalia. Just this week four former drone pilots wrote a formal letter to Obama pleading their case that the drone attacks have only increased the number of terrorists. But then that’s precisely the plan. To keep the war on terror going, fresh new ISIS recruits are needed. Hence by 2019 Obama plans to increase drone use by 50%. Clearly Obama’s diabolical intention is to spread terror around the world.

In another disturbing development this week, African terrorists took 170 mostly Westerners hostage killing 21 of them at the Radisson Hotel in the Mali capital of Bamako. Their ringleader Mokhtar Belmokhtar (image right) happens to be a CIA asset and the incident came five days after CIA chief John Brennan predicted more acts of terrorism. Two weeks prior to the Paris attacks Brennan also met with his French counterpart and former Mossad director and after the Paris incidents admitted to the press that the CIA knew attacks in Europe were coming. If he knows so much, why does he allow them to keep happening? Perhaps because he’s in cahoots with the terrorists himself.

Barack Obama has been chosen by the ruling elite and given the gauntlet to dutifully undermine and destroy the United States from within in order to implement the New World Order’s one world government. Many Americans including contending presidential candidate Ben Carson fear and believe that the next major false flag could usher in Obama’s martial law that through his own illegal executive orders have given him unlimited dictatorial powers that include canceling next year’s presidential election, anointing himself US dictator for life.

Under Obama’s and Brennan’s watch, ISIS has been allowed to extend their operations worldwide, even into America. Our president’s open border policy has enabled terrorist cells to proliferate inside the United States. Back in April this year Judicial Watch reported that ISIS has partnered with a Mexican drug cartel to participate in joint military exercises at a training camp just eight miles from the El Paso Texas border. Yet Obama simply denies the terrorist presence and has done nothing but keep his 1500 mile open border policy intact to purposely leave the nation grossly unprotected and criminally vulnerable, in effect inviting terrorism attacks on US soil as part of his puppet masters’ plan to destroy America from within. As recently as Sunday November 22nd, on the 52nd anniversary of the JFK assassination, Obama chose to arrogantly claim that ISIS “cannot strike a mortal blow” against America.

Of course putting on a false front of self-security for the American public is designed to assuage growing fears that another 9/11 is eminent on US soil. This is the same US president who also made “off the record” remarks to friends alluding to not wanting to be murdered on the job like Kennedy as his lame excuse for not standing up more for the American people to fight against his evil NWO handlers. After all, in this diabolical world climate where the US government has devolved into a mere front for a shadowy international crime syndicate owned and operated by the ruling elite, biting the hand that feeds you is signing your own death warrant. Kennedy was the last US president to learn that lesson the hard way and humanity’s been suffering ever since.

A recent Defense Intelligence Agency document confirms that in 2012 the Obama regime elected to throw its full weight behind the Islamic State terrorists fighting against Assad’s Syrian forces knowing that the Islamic State’s ambitious sectarian agenda was to create havoc in order to build a radicalized jihadist caliphate throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Yet the Obama neocons willfully bet on ISIS, squandering US taxpayer dollars to furnish carte blanche heavy weaponry brand new Toyota trucks, continued air support and countless airdrops of arms, ammo, food and medical supplies even after ISIS invaded Iraq in June 2014.

In fact with another 50 ton ammunition airdrop last month, Obama’s still trying to preserve the ISIS supply line stretching from NATO ally Turkey’s border into northern Syria even while as of late Putin’s been busily bombing Islamic State’s infrastructure. In the last several weeks planes from US led allies Canada, Sweden, Germany and the US have all been showing up at the Baghdad airport without authorized approval ostensibly headed toward the Kurdistan region of Iraq filled with arms. But the big question remains for whom? The Kurds or the IS terrorists? In the meantime, since Russia determined that an Islamic State bomb planted onboard its airliner took it down over the Sinai desert on Halloween, Russia has vowed to destroy ISIS with a vengeance. Islamic State tanker truck convoys filled with oil are currently the prime targets of Russian bombs.

For three straight years the lying traitors in Washington have been secretly supporting the cancerous spread of Terrorists-R-US expanding far beyond the Middle East and North Africa and deep into Europe with repeated Paris attacks. Creating failed states will travel, by design US Empire has produced the gargantuan international migration crisis over flooding Europe under the globalist umbrella of multiculturalism. This massive influx of Muslims into Western nations largely populated by Caucasian majorities now desperate to hang onto their historical and cultural roots and identities is designed to enflame and exploit racial tensions and hatred as part of the elite’s divide and conquer agenda, also making it conducive for developing yet more terrorist cells dangerously operating throughout the West.

The bare truth is our own treasonous leaders in Washington who all swore to uphold, defend and protect our Constitution and nation from both foreign and domestic enemies, from the president to his justice, state and defense departments to key Congressional members have plotted the downfall of the United States as a sovereign nation and every last one of them needs to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity with their arrest and trial for treason against the United States. More Americans are accepting this bitter sad truth that their own government has not only betrayed us, it is preparing to indefinitely detain and/or kill us without legal rights, warrants, charges or trails. Before we’re permanently silenced, we as sovereign citizens need to amass our collective will utilizing military, law enforcement and willing agents within the judicial system who still honor our Constitution to make arrests and hold criminals in our crime cabal government accountable. Two retired generals, one from the Army and the other from the Air Force, have taken to the airwaves on TruNews citing a potential constitutional crisis since Obama has failed to protect American citizens by aiding and abetting our terrorist enemy ISIS that have vowed to launch attacks on US citizens inside America. This could be the legal mechanism that may provide the clout behind removing the treasonous president from office.

This latest AP article portraying the Pentagon’s so called renewed efforts to muster a rallying cry to enlist Western allies’ “help” against ISIS is an insult to humanity as well as an insult to our intelligence because every day more of us world citizens are catching on as to the sinister truth behind US Empire and the ruling elite pulling its strings. A quote from the article:

The call for help is driven by a hope to build on what the Obama administration sees as the beginnings of battlefield momentum in Iraq and Syria. It may also reflect a sense in the Pentagon that the campaign against the Islamic State group has advanced too slowly and requires more urgent and decisive military moves.

This paragraph is laughable. Commander-in-chief Obama possessing the most lethal killing machine on the planet has had fifteen months to “hunt down the Islamic State terrorists,” yet has nothing to show but preplanned failure masking his covert success to not destroy ISIS but to only protect them.

Putin taking charge and actually fighting a real war against terrorists has thrown Obama, Carter and the Pentagon into discombobulated panic. So in retaliation a Russian plane gets blown up killing all 224 people onboard and then the US-Mossad-French intel community in cahoots with IS terrorists pull off France’s 9/11 in Paris a week ago. And now Obama plans to capitalize on his sponsored terrorism by gaining some “battlefield momentum” fighting ISIS his secret allies. What a preposterously unfunny joke! After waging his fake war for over a year, Obama has covertly supported ISIS terrorism allowing the scourge to extend far beyond the MENA region. The AP post “boldly” points out that the Pentagon may reluctantly be acknowledging its progress against ISIS is “too slow,” so it’s now asking for urgent help. What a nauseous façade MSM maintains for the MSM-owned ruling elite.

The only thing Obama and the Pentagon want more help with is removing Assad from power and neutralizing Russia as the only nation engaged in any real war against terrorism. That oil pipeline running through Syria from Qatar designed to cut off the flow of Russian oil-gas exports to Europe doubling as the final gateway to get to the Middle Eastern prize Iran would complete that neocon 7 nation regime change wet dream and that’s really what all this propped up luster bluster for going after ISIS is about. Fork tongued doublespeak is the only language that the Obama regime speaks, and the Washington neocons are banking on their Nazi mentor Joseph Goebbels’ misquoted truism: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

The US is calling for urgent military assistance from European allies that also include Israel, Turkey, oil-rich Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich, thoroughly corrupted Gulf State monarchies that finance, arm and train Islamic State militants. Yet all of these so called “anti-ISIS” allies either protect or are complicit in allowing anywhere from $1-3 million per day that flow into the Islamic State’s bank accounts stolen from Syrian and Iraqi petro field refineries selling black market oil to nations like Turkey and Jordan. That of course was before Putin started bombing both refineries and tanker convoys hurting ISIS where it counts the most.

So while the US allies are too busily crying the financial blues to fill the Empire coffers to continue running its fake war against the terrorists, they all collectively protect, ensure and in some cases patronize ISIS in maintaining and supplying its primary source of revenue that keeps the largest terrorist group on the planet still operating and growing larger with each passing year. Thankfully Putin’s much needed intentions are changing all that, something the US and all its allies have refused to do.

After stating the likelihood that Europe’s too hard up for money to help, the article adds “chances of drawing significant additional help from Arab nations seem even slimmer.” But that’s certainly not because they’re too cash poor like Europe. Of course no mainstream media outlet would ever dare to admit it, the all too obvious reason that the Arab states refuse to help fight against ISIS is that they are its biggest supporters. As Islamic State financiers, trainers, arm suppliers and jihadist joiners coming from the same twisted brands of Sunni Wahhabi and Salafist Islam, they are ISIS!

An anonymous senior defense official revealed to AP after Secretary of War Ash Carter met for an hour with his top military advisors and war commanders urging them to take full advantage of the Paris bloodbath while still fresh on the minds of allied leaders. Carter ordered Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph Dunford, NATO Commander General Philip Breedlove and lead commander “fighting” the Islamic State Lt. General Sean MacFarland to reach out to UK, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey to seek military support for combat equipment, supplies, trainers, advisors and special operations forces.

It’s worth noting the stark contrast between how the world reacts to terrorism when it takes place in a Western nation as opposed to the Middle East. A week ago two Islamic State suicide bombers blew themselves up in a Beirut marketplace killing 44 people and over 200 injured yet in the anguish over Paris it was all but ignored by Western media. Thousands upon thousands of innocent fellow human beings who are Lebanese, Syrian, Libyan, Iraqi, Yemeni and Palestinian are also being slaughtered by terrorists.

They suffer far more carnage on a daily basis than any Westerner but the impact of their terrorism remains largely invisible to the rest of the world. Why? More than anything else, when bloodshed is spilled by darker skinned mostly Muslim populations in the Middle East or North Africa, their lives hold less value in the minds of the Western world. Despite millions of innocent victims living in terror (whether at the hands of ISIS, Israeli apartheid killers, Saudi or US bombs/drones or for that matter Assad or Putin bombs) every day across the Middle East and North Africa, few among us even give it a second thought. But when young whites in an upscale Paris district are murdered, France is immediately joined by the US and much of the world in horrified solidarity and support for both the victims and their grieving nation, followed shortly by a deafening chorus seizing the opportunity to escalate the violence on an epic scale, or at least that’s the latest rhetoric reflected in Pentagon news delivered to the world by the Associated Press. More double standard hypocrisy manifests in the form of more jingoistic propaganda hype justifying an upcoming multi-nation global sized war

This AP article is nothing more than Empire propaganda promoting the global masses into blindly accepting the inevitability of World War III. Under the false pretense of going after terrorists, the not so hidden real agenda has been all along to go after emerging giants RussiaChina as Empire’s biggest threats to its full spectrum dominance and global hegemony. Western globalists refuse to accept a bipolar, more balanced, sane and stable world where East and West can peaceably co-exist. From the get-go ISIS has been a required asset to the globalist owned Empire used to maintain its endless war on terror to fulfill its sinister agenda to destabilize and impoverish the entire world. This perpetual war of terror in turn only feeds the Frankenstein monster that Eisenhower warned America about in his presidential farewell address nearly 55 years ago.

The military industrial complex is a gluttonous, parasitic cancer that’s been feeding nonstop off humanity’s very lifeblood for far too long. It’s time for informed citizens of the world who see what’s happening and wish to leave a still habitable world for their children and grandchildren to now rise up and demand that the maniacal evildoing of a handful of subhuman psychopaths be stopped in their tracks from destroying all life on our only planet.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at Joachim is also a regular contributor toGlobal


Read featured article here

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles from GlobalResearch.

The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Settlements israeli flag

By Israel Shahak

This article was first published on Global Research on April 29, 2013.

Global Research Editor’s Note

The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government (which has recently been re-elected), the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.  The election was fought by Netanyahu on a political platform which denies Palestinian statehood.  

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria and Iraq, the war in Yemen, the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and NATO is directly supportive of the crusade directed against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), which ultimately seeks to destroy both Syria and Iraq as nation states. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015 

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”


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 No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)

Table of Contents

Publisher’s Note1

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.


The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.


This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication,  Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.


The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980′s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967″ that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”


The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled  ”Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.


It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.


Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982


by Israel Shahak


The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:


1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.


2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.


3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.


The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982


A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.


At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.


This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several “truths” which are presently disappearing–for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man’s requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society, 1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.


The vision of man’s limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2


The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child’s play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world. 3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.


The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West’s military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz’ dictum into “War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,” and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country’s security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4


The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. 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 and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites 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. 5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).


Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. 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 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.


All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. 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.


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 20 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 today. 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.


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 UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist 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.


Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. 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 except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.


Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. 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.


This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. 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.


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 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad’s state of Christians and half a million Shi’ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6


In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee. 7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.


The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. 8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.


In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil. 9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.


(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979. 10


Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-

Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which 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. 11


The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow. 12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. 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.


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 as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run. 13


The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. 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 Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, 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. 14


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. 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. 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. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. 15


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. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure. 16


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.


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. 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. 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, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, 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. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan. 17


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. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. 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, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.


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. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today. l8


Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation. l9


From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises. 20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future. 21


Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.



Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.


The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.


It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.


Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.


Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?


In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak

June 17, 1982 Jerusalem

About the Translator

Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)


 1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

 2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

 3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

 4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

 5. Elie Kedourie, “The End of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.

 6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

 7. E. Kanovsky, “Arab Haves and Have Nots,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79.

 8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

 9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.

 10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10.

According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

 11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

 12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

 13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

 14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha’aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.

 15.  J.P.  Peroncell  Hugoz,  Le  Monde,  Paris  4/28/80;  Dr.  Abbas  Kelidar,  Middle  East  Review,  Summer  1979;

Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha’aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.

 16. Arnold Hottinger, “The Rich Arab States in Trouble,” The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.

 17. As for Jordan’s policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma’ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa’amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha’aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha’aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma’ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO’s position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al’Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, “The Palestinian Problem,” Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, “The Palestinian Myth,” Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO,” Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980.

 18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya’akov Hasdai, “Peace, the Way and the Right to Know,” Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, “Strategic Depth–An Israeli Perspective,” Ma’arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, “Israel’s Defense Problems in the Eighties,” Ma’arakhot October 1979.

 19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime’s Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).

 20. Henry Kissinger, “The Lessons of the Past,” The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, “OPEC’s Challenge to the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, “Oil and the Decline of the West,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report–”Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?” U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Present Danger,” The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez “The illusions of SALT” Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, “The Present Danger,” Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, “Oil and American Power Six Years Later,” Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, “The Abandonment of Israel,” Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, “Misreading the Middle East,” Commentary July 1979.

 21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.

The original source of this article is Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


France Moves to Make Conspiracy Theories Illegal by Government Decree

GR Editor’s Note

The following text was first published in March 2015 in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks.

In the context of the tragic events of November 13 in Paris, this analysis brings to the forefront the issue of freedom of expression and critique of the established political order and media narrative in France as more broadly in the EU and North America.

In this regard, Francois Hollande’s decision to  establish a State of Emergency constitutes a threat against online independent media including those which are casually referred to as “conspiracy theorists”. 

With the repeal of civil liberties, the independent media will in all likelihood be the target of State repression.  

The broader question is the following: is the State of Emergency in France intended to eventually establish a de facto totalitarian regime in France (and more broadly in the EU) under the disguise of democracy, namely to abolish the political and social foundations of the French Republic. This totalitarian environment and its media propaganda apparatus are also required to grant legitimacy to the US-NATO led “global war on terrorism”.  

Michel Chossudovsky, November 25  2015 (Global Research)


Political elites and super-bureaucrats are worried. It’s becoming harder to control consensus reality. 

A history stitched together by lies and cover-ups, political assassinations, slight-of-hand false flag deceptions, secret societies, dual loyalties and stolen fortunes – this has been the exclusive privilege of organized crime and the ruling elite for centuries.

Putting aside history’s ‘big ticket’ items though, the real reason for this authoritarian trend is much more fundamental. By knocking out their intellectual competition, political elites and their media moguls hope to minimalize, and thus eliminate any alternative analysis and opinion by applying the completely open-ended and arbitrary label of “extremist” to speech. They want to wind back the clock, where a pre-internet, monolithic corporate media cartel held a monopoly on ideas.

Although France has taken the lead in this inter-governmental effort (see below), the preliminary assault began this past fall with British Prime Minster David Cameron publicly announcing on two separate occasions, that all of these so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ (anything which challenges the official orthodoxy) should be deemed as “extremist” and equivalent to “terrorist” and should be purged from society on the grounds of ‘national security’. The first came with Cameron’s warped speech at the UN, and afterwards, a similar charge was made by the UK leader against anyone who dares press the issue of institutional paedophilia and child abuse.

Watch this UN speech by Cameron where he clearly claims that ‘conspiracy theorists’ are the ‘root cause’ and indeed, an equal threat to national security as ISIS terrorists currently running amok in Syria and Iraq

As yet, few are aware of how in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, French Prime Minster, Francois Hollande delivered an official declaration (see full report and text from his speech below). However, Hollande takes it beyond the usual hyperbole and focuses on giving the state an administrative and legal foothold for policing both speech and thought crimes in France. If this can be accomplished in France, then a European roll-out would soon follow.

Ironically, in order to achieve this fascist leap forward, Hollande has equated “conspiracy theories” to Nazism, and is calling for government regulations to prevent any sharing or publishing of any views deemed as ‘dangerous thought’ by the state. Specifically, Hollande is citing “Anti-Semitism” and also anything which could inspire ‘acts terrorism’ – as the chief vehicles for what the state will be designating as ‘dangerous thoughts’. With the thumb of Hebdo still pressing down, this may just sound like politics writ large by the French leader, but in reality it’s full-blown fascism.

Worse yet, with all of the world leaders gathered togther in Paris in January supposedly marching solidarity for ‘free speech’ and proudly chanting “Je Suis Charlie” (image above), that Hollande would use this as political cover to restrict free speech in Europe should shock even.

RINF reports how the new censorship regime has already been implemented this week:

“Earlier this week, the Interior Minister of France — with no court review or adversarial process — ordered five websites to not only be blocked in France, but that anyone who visits any of the sites get redirected to a scary looking government website, saying:

While it could be argued that the four websites initially listed by the government for ‘blocking’ were exclusively for ISIS/ISIL-related activity and thus, should be kept hidden, the government has made no caveat in its reams of policy literature, other than some vague language as to what it defines as ‘extremist’, as to where this growing list will stop, or indeed, if it has any limits at all. Because this process is extrajudicial, then there will be no warning to gov’t targets of this new regime. In fact, as RINF reports, this has already happened:

“In that first batch was a site called “” The owner of that site not only notes that he was never first contacted to “remove” whatever material was deemed terrorist supporting (as required by the law), but that nothing in what he had posted was supporting terrorism.”

Will French gov’t censors also block this website – because it is challenging the government’s new public filtering program? Are we entering a new intolerant, Chinese-style policing culture in Europe, and throughout the west? Certainly they have the ability and the legal clearance to do just that right now.

Fear of losing control over manipulative narratives has always been a primary obsession with those in power, and clearly, based on what we’ve seen here – governments are making an aggressive move on free speech now. Skeptics will no doubt argue that this 21WIRE article itself constitutes a conspiracy theory. If that was the case, then why have western governments, particularly those in the US and Britain, already spent millions, if not billions in state funds in order to infiltrate, disrupt, and occupy forum websites, and social networking groups of so-called ‘conspiracy theorist and even creating entirely new groups just to contradict them? Does that not already prove what the government modus operandi is?

As if that wasn’t enough already, now France wants to take it to a whole new authoritarian level. It may sound ridiculous, but this is exactly what is taking place in government as we speak.

History shows that once this new regime is in place, they will not relinquish any new powers of censorship, and so a long, intellectual dark age is certain to follow…

The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


The downing of a Russian jet fighter over Syria’s airspace was undertaken  by Turkey in consultation with Washington and Brussels. Turkey did not take this decision without getting the greenlight from the Pentagon. 

By: Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Is this an act of  revenge against Russia for bombing the US-sponsored Islamic State in Syria? 

The unspoken truth is that Russia is undermining US-NATO’s ground operations inside Syria. The latter are made up of  various Al Qaeda affiliated  formations which de facto constitute the foot-soldiers of the Western alliance. These ISIS and Al Nusrah rebel forces are in turn led by intelligence operatives and Western special forces, many of whom are deployed by private mercenary companies on contract to US-NATO.

The downing of Russia’s plane by Turkey is a clear act of provocation. What is its broader intent?

How will backlash at the diplomatic level? Is military escalation contemplated by Washington?

A covert war of stealth is currently unfolding which could evolve towards direct military confrontation between US-NATO and Russia.

The Role of China

From a strategic and military standpoint of view, Russia’s main ally is China, which until recently has been the object of military threats in the South China sea under Obama’s pivot to Asia.

What has been Beijing’s response to the downing of Russia’s aircraft by Turkey? What future role would China play in a scenario of military confrontation and escalation directed against the Russian Federation?

US-China Military Relations

In the course of the last few months, both the US and Britain have been playing a game of friendly diplomacy and economic cooperation with China’s president Xi Jinping.

Is the West attempting to Co-opt China? What bearing do these developments have on China and its strategic alliance with Russia?

According to US analysts, relations between the U.S. military and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are said to have “improved” in recent years “amid growing tensions between the United States and China” in the South China Sea.

The two countries have held frequent joint military exercises (theoretically limited to humanitarian assistance/disaster relief). In June 2015, a China-US army dialogue mechanism was signed with a view to “boosting army cooperation”

Central Military Commission Vice-Chairman Fan Changlong, who has just completed a visit to the US, urged Washington to reduce its military activities both in the air and in the waters of the South China Sea when meeting US government and military leaders.

Fan and US army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno witnessed the signing of the dialogue mechanism at the National Defense University in Washington on June 15 2015.

This is the first cooperation document to be signed by the two armies in recent years.

Guan Youfei, director of the Foreign Affairs Office of the Ministry of National Defense, said afterward that the two armies could hold joint exercises on land next year.

Guan said the two sides discussed mutual trust mechanisms for reporting major military operations and the code of conduct on military encounters in the air and at sea, both signed last year. (China Daily, June 15, 2015, emphasis added)

In August 2015, China and Russia launched major war games entitled ‘Joint Sea 2015 II,’ described it as an “unprecedented show of military cooperation,” (See RT, August 30, 2015). The drills involved the deployment of “a total of 22 ships, 20 aircraft, 40 armored vehicles, and 500 marines from the two countries, including the Varyag missile cruiser, flagship of the Russian Pacific fleet; and the Shenyang destroyer, the Chinese flagship, participated in the active phase of the exercises”(RT, August 30, 2015)

US-China Joint Navy Exercise

The conduct of major China-Russia war games in late August did not foreclose China’s decision to the holding of military drills some three months later (November 16-21) with the United States. This time the US Navy Pacific Fleet and the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) conducted a “friendly” joint US-China military exercise off the coast of Shanghai in the East China Sea.

According to the U.S. Navy, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) arrived in Shanghai on the 16th of November with  a mission to promote “maritime cooperation and reinforce a positive naval relationship with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) East Sea Fleet.” (The Diplomat, November 18, 2015)

While U.S. sailors stood at attention when entering the port, around 70 Chinese sailors held up a bilingual sign that said “Welcome US Navy Destroyer USS Stethem to Shanghai.”

This was a friendly military exercise coupled with social events. The scale was by no means comparable to that of the August Sino-Russian Joint Sea 2015 II held off the coast of Vladivostok in August. Nonetheless, in the course of this 5 days mission, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift held consultations with his Chinese counterpart  commander of the China’s East Sea Fleet, Admiral Su Zhiqian:

After the port visit, the USS Stethem will hold naval drills with the People’s Liberation Army Navy, including a joint rescue operation with Chinese warships near the estuary of the Yangtze River, as well as communications exercises involving the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES).

In a bitter irony, these joint exercises took place following the dispatch of “the USS Lassen, another Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, within 12 nautical miles of China’s man-made islands”. These US maneuvers in the South China Sea were considered by Beijing as an act of provocation instigated by the US Navy.

In turn, the US has mobilized a military alliance of  several Southeast Asian countries against the People’s Republic of China (PRC), not to mention the establishment of the US sponsored Republic of Korea Naval base on Jeju Island, which lies within proximity of China’s coastline. The naval base constitutes a threat to China (rather than to North Korea).

The November Sino-US military exercise in the East China Sea are part of a propaganda campaign which consists in tacitly instilling a pro-US perspective within the ranks of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA):

“This is our second visit to China in three months,” said Lt. Erika Betancourt, Stethem’s operations officer. “The strides we have made in our partnership and operational cooperation improve both our ability to conduct exercises and our interactions at sea.” US Navy News Service, November 23, 2015)

While the November joint military exercises were largely symbolic, the important question is:

Are they indicative of an “About Turn” in Sino-US military relations– i.e. a shift from overt threats under Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” towards “military cooperation” and “dialogue”.

Defense News (November 16, 2015) intimates that a redirection of US military strategy in relation to China is unfolding: “US, Chinese Navies Train Together Despite Tensions”. 

USS Stethem (image left)

The ship’s commanding officer, Harry Marsh, told reporters the visit was intended to “build mutual trust” between the two navies.

US sailors, he said, would learn about their counterparts’ “maritime experiences, so that when we operate at sea we can do it safely, and we understand what they are doing and what we do”.

The stopover comes shortly after the US sailed a warship near artificial islands being built by Beijing in the South China Sea.

Harris downplayed the friction [between the US and China]: “Countries may have some disagreements, yet our navies are able to operate safely at sea.(Defense News) 

The Role of Military Alliances

Alliances are fundamental in the history of war. The First World war was in part the result of a destabilization and shift in military alliances.

Strategic alliances are often characterized by “cross-cutting coalitions” between opposing sides which in some cases lead to destabilizing the broader structure of military alliances.

Unquestionably, Washington’s intent is to establish a “cross-cutting” relationship with the People’s Republic of China with a view to eventually undermining and destabilizing China’s alliance with Russia.

US foreign policy in relation to China could be described as  a “threaten-cooperate” strategy. It’s an ambivalent relationship which involves a quid pro quo. “Pivot to Asia” versus “military cooperation”. It consists in “threatening” China with a view to forcing China to “cooperate” with the US.

Will China succumb to this diabolical agenda?

Is Washington attempting to rebuild its strategic relations with China with a view to eventually weakening and isolating Russia?

While the Chinese political leadership is divided, there is nonetheless a strong pro-American lobby in China both within the Shanghai business community, the media as well as among intellectuals in elite universities and the Beijing-based think tanks such as the  Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

Sino-US cooperation in the military sphere inevitably has a bearing on Moscow’s strategic relationship with Beijing.

The US Navy held friendly military exercises with China’s PLA Navy  less than a week prior to a blatant act of military aggression against the Russian Federation, which is China’s closest ally.

In recent developments, Turkey has acknowledged in a letter addressed to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the 15 members of the UNSC that “it had shot down on an unidentified plane that violated Turkish airspace and defended its right to do so”.

While China and Russia are the core members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), they have also developed important bilateral relations in military affairs.  For Moscow, the Sino-Russian military alliance is central to its ability to play a key “stabilizing role” in global politics.

The consolidated position of our countries is having a stabilizing effect on the international situation,”  according to Russia’s defense minister Sergei Shogu on an  official visit to Beijing in September.

“The Russian defense chief added that military cooperation remained the main basis of Russia and China’s strategic partnership (emphasis added), following the conduct of  the biggest ever joint Sino-Russian naval drill in Russia’s Far East.  By broadening their military cooperation, Russia and China will protect the security of their sovereign territories, the Russian defense chief said.” (RT,  September 2, 2015)

The question is how will China respond to an act of military aggression by a NATO member State directed against the Russian Federation?

We are at a dangerous crossroads: With regard to Turkey, any act of military reprisal by Russia (which at this stage seems unlikely) could potentially lead to military action by NATO against the Russian Federation, invoking the clause of “collective security” (article 5 of the Washington Treaty). Moreover, the aggressive action by Turkey could be followed by subsequent acts of aggression and/or provocation against Russia with a view to triggering (i.e. justifying) a process of military escalation.

What position will China take when the issue of Turkey’s downing of Russia’s war plane over Syria is brought to the UN Security Council?

The position taken by China could be decisive in preventing a process of military escalation.

Escalation would consist in an enlarged US-NATO-Israel led war against the broader Middle East-Central Asian region, extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Xinjiang-Uighur Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan. (see map below).

At the time of writing, no significant statement has as yet emanated from the Chinese government.

The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


By TLB Contributor: Dane Wigington

There are members of society that are so totally despicable that words cannot fully describe them. The criminal behavior of countless agencies and organizations is a reflection of the epidemic moral depravity that runs through their ranks. So many have long since sold their honor for a paycheck and a pension. Our will and our morality is all that any of us truly owns, the rest can be taken. If these sacred values are sold or sacrificed, there is nothing left to stand on as the gathering storm gains momentum. Those who have sold out are willing to do or say anything, including the attempt to completely poison the perspectives of our children for a profit.


A little girl takes a photo of the toxic skies above Lhasa, Tibet. Source:

We who are awake and aware must make every effort to expose the people and agencies that are engaging in the mental corruption and conditioning of our children. In the short 5 minute video below, deplorable material from Common Core and NASA is addressed, and the documents in question are shown.

Inexcusable transgressions like those just outlined in the video cannot be overlooked. The public email contacts of responsible parties should be posted and displayed everywhere possible. Such people must be placed on notice that we, the populations of the world, are NOT OK with their behavior. They should also be put on notice that at some point in the near future the public will likely hold them legally and morally accountable as accomplices in the climate engineering assault by helping to cover the tracks of the perpetrators.

In the meantime, protecting and properly educating our children is up to us.

Do we inform them about what is occurring above their heads? Yes.

Do we make clear to them that we are fighting for their future? Yes.

Do we do everything in our power to provide them hope and the chance to be a child without an excessive burden? Yes.

My own children’s voices are in a video addressing the ongoing climate engineering insanity.

See more here

They have hope for a future because they know we are fully committed to them. Our children need to know that our lives belong to them. We must all work together toward sounding the alarm, there is not a day to spare.


TLB recommends you visit GeoEngineering Watch for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article here


The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


The Legends TV show on TNT, predictive programming at its most accurate.

 By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges

Have you ever wished that you had the ability to foretell the future? If only you knew what was coming so you could be better prepared. If only astrology and fortune tellers were real. They are not real, but it is possible to know the future and all you have to do is to pay attention to what Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry is telling you about what is coming. The strategy employed by the elite’s control of Hollywood is to tell the public the horrific things that lies in our collective futures. Some people believe the elite must reveal what they are going to do. I have no idea if this is true. But what I do know is the Hollywood and the entertainment industry can tell us exactly what is coming and they do it often.

The control of Hollywood, by the elite, to deliver messages from the ruler of darkness that truly rule over our planet is called PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING.

The Simpsons Predict 9/11, the Ebola Outbreak, Donald Trumps Presidential Run and Predictive Programming

When it comes to legitmizing predictive programming, the Simpsons TV show is my favorite and absolutely has no equal.




I would have been overcome if the Simpsons had predicted Trumps record-setting Saturday Night Live appearance in the Fall of 2015.


This certainly makes one wonder about the integrity of the Trump campaign. is he just another Ross Perot in sheeps clothing?

Even more telling was a cross-over episode in which the Simpsons and Family Guy “exposed the illuminati. Parents you might want to pay attention to what your kids are watching.

simpsons illuminati

The Simpsons so-called “first cousins” over on the South Park TV show predicted that real outbreak of Ebola the same week as the first victim was diagnosed with Ebola inside of the United States. This means that the show, had to be produced about 6 months prior to the outbreak of Ebola, accurately forecasted what was to happen.

south park ebola

Transhumanism and Predictive Programming

transhumanism 1

Our popular entertainment media is championing the bifurcation of critical resources between the haves and the have-knots. For example, in the movie, Hunger Games, the ruling elite living in Capital City possessed life enhancing technologies that the rest of the people couldn’t even dream about. In the movie, Man of Steel, the birth of who we would come to call Superman, represented the first live birth in centuries on the mythical planet of Krypton. The movie made it clear that everyone else, on Krypton, for the past several centuries, had been bred for a specific purpose in which to serve the leaders of society in a transhumanist culture where genes were turned on and turned off as it befitted the leadership of the planet to breed people with specific skill sets. In the movie Elysium, the elite don’t even live on the earth, as they exist in a disease-free and idyllic world while leaving the bulk of humanity to suffer in universal Third World conditions.

The TNT “Legends” TV Show

Martin Odum, a FBI agent with the ability to transform himself into a different person for each job that he performs in his FBI role as an uncercover operative. Generally, thought to be the best at what he does, Odum is in danger of losing his real identity which is what eventually happens.

The show is in the beginning of Season Two and the setting changes from the United States to London. Odum is now a fugitive from justice as he has been framed for a political assassination. A traumatic brain injury of an unkown origin has caused Odum to lose his memory and with it, the knowledge of who he really is. While in the UK he attempts to track down people who could provide clues as to who he is. Odum reasons that once he knows his own identity, he can begin to prove his innocence for the capital crime that he is accused of perpetrating in the United States.

The Legends TV Show Predicts the Radical Muslim Attack on Paris


Episode 3 of Season 2 aired on November 22, 2015, aired the week after the Paris attacks. However, the show, which was about a radical muslim attack on Paris had to be produced at least 6 months in advance of the terrorist attack. Originally, TNT announced it would not run the episode in the aftermath of the attacks. However, someone above the TNT managment made the decision to air the show. Somebody wanted this show out there which was produced at least 6 months ahead of the actual attack. Interestingly, Season 2 is based in the UK. The decision to change scenes to Paris came out of the blue and would seemed out of place for most of the show’s viewers. This Episode and its predictive content was no accident.

Future Shows to Watch

I have not yet seen the last i the triology of the Hunger Games, but there will not doubt be much in the area of Agenda 21 for the “aware” viewer. Additionally, the Star Wars remake will most certain contain message from the elite to the rest of us who are clearly “not worthy” in the eyes of the elite.

The moral of the story is that if you want to know what is coming, simply pay attention to Hollywood.


TLB recommends you visit Dave at The Common Sense Show for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article HERE

The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Assad président

Last month, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard went on CNN and laid bare Washington’s Syria strategy. 

In a remarkably candid interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gabbard calls Washington’s effort to oust Assad “counterproductive” and “illegal” before taking it a step further and accusing the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are “sworn enemies.” 

In short, Gabbard all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting “World War III.”

For those who missed it, here’s the clip:

That was before Paris.

Well, in the wake of the attacks, Gabbard has apparently had just about enough of Washington vacillating in the fight against terror just so the US can ensure that ISIS continues to destabilize Assad and now, with bi-partisan support, the brazen Hawaii Democrat has introduced legislation to end the “illegal war” to overthrow Assad. 

Gabbard, who fought in Iraq – twice – has partnered with Republican Adam Scott on the bill. Here’s AP:

 In an unusual alliance, a House Democrat and Republican have teamed up to urge the Obama administration to stop trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad and focus all its efforts on destroying Islamic State militants.

Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, and Austin Scott, a Republican, introduced legislation on Friday to end what they called an “illegal war” to overthrow Assad, the leader of Syria accused of killing tens of thousands of Syrian citizens in a more than four-year-old civil war entangled in a battle against IS extremists, also known as ISIS.

“The U.S. is waging two wars in Syria,” Gabbard said. “The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attack on 9/11. The second war is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”

Scott said, “Working to remove Assad at this stage is counter-productive to what I believe our primary mission should be.”

Since 2013, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear. CIA-backed rebels in Syria, who had begun to put serious pressure on Assad’s forces, are now under Russian bombardment with little prospect of rescue by their American patrons, U.S. officials say.

For years, the CIA effort had foundered — so much so that over the summer, some in Congress proposed cutting its budget. Some CIA-supported rebels had been captured; others had defected to extremist groups.

Gabbard complained that Congress has never authorized the CIA effort, though covert programs do not require congressional approval, and the program has been briefed to the intelligence committees as required by law, according to congressional aides who are not authorized to be quoted discussing the matter.

Gabbard contends the effort to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it is helping IS topple the Syrian leader and take control of all of Syria. If IS were able to seize the Syrian military’s weaponry, infrastructure and hardware, the group would become even more dangerous than it is now and exacerbate the refugee crisis.

And make no mistake, Tulsi’s understanding of Washington’s absurd Mid-East policy goes far beyond Syria. That is, Gabbard fully grasps the big picture as well. Here’s what she has to say about the idea that the US should everywhere and always attempt to overthrow regimes when human rights groups claim there’s evidence of oppression:

People said the very same thing about Saddam (Hussein), the very same thing about (Moammar) Gadhafi, the results of those two failed efforts of regime change and the following nation-building have been absolute, not only have they been failures, but they’ve actually worked to strengthen our enemy.

Somebody get Langley on the phone, this woman must be stopped.

Here’s Gabbard speaking to CNN this week about Assad:

So there’s hope for the US public after all.

Perhaps if the clueless masses won’t listen to “lunatic” fringe blogs or Sergei Lavrov, they’ll listen to a US Congresswoman who served two tours of duty in Iraq and who is now telling Americans that The White House, The Pentagon, and most especially the CIA are together engaged in an “illegal” effort to overthrow the government of a sovereign country and in the process are arming the very same extremists that are attacking civilians in places like Paris.

Good luck Tulsi, and thanks for proving that there’s at least one person inside that Beltway that isn’t either dishonest or naive.


From Gabbard

“Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad:

  1. Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria.  There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.  These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before.
  2. We should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve their goal because it is against the security interests of the United States and all of civilization.
  3. Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the United States.  These groups make up close to 90 percent of the so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the ground.
  4. Because our efforts to overthrow Assad has increased and will continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists, thus making them a bigger regional and global threat.
  5. Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of Syrians forced to flee their country.
  6. Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries.
  7. Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria.
  8. Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service members in the futile effort to create a new Syria.  This is what we have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not succeeded.  The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in Iraq.
  9. Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual enemy.
  10. Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.”


Oh, and if you needed another reason to like Tulsi, here’s a bonus 40 second clip for your amusement…

The original source of this article is Zero Hedge
Copyright © Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, 2015

The Liberty Beacon contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 980 other subscribers