Reproduced for “fair use” from Global Research
“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
The Infamous "Oded Yinon Plan". Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky
By Israel Shahak
Global Research, August 26, 2013
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Theme: Culture, Society & History, Politics and Religion

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

  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

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


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.


Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab
capitals will be the same.

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
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
intosmall 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


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


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
prioritywhich is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course
withthe 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


Egypt is 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
longrun. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could
bedriven 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.  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
notconstitute 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 causethe 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
nocompromises. 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
theproblem 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
bepersuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes
inwhich 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-
Jewin the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by
theAAUG 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,
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 Year1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington,
D.C. 1979,); DrewMiddleton, 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,

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.
SeeEconomic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent
EconomicDevelopments 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 EastInternmational, 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
PressService, 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’ariv1/12/80. 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 Report10/10/77; 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.

Copyright © Israel Shahak, Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., 2015