The Yinon Plan for a Greater Israel

First topic message reminder :

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.

...


“[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)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I did not miss this, you only acted because I exposed your hypocrisy.
Who needs enemies when I have friends like you Eddie eh?

I acted because you asked me to and I take all poster's complaints seriously.

Stop being a drama queen. I cannot do right for doing wrong.

I did not ask you, I would have thought you would have acted and not as you did question when I stated I reported.
You though questioned it, so stop giving me feeble excuses for your bias Eddie.
Now more than any I have good reason not to trust you as being fair as a mod.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I did not miss this, you only acted because I exposed your hypocrisy.
Who needs enemies when I have friends like you Eddie eh?

I acted because you asked me to and I take all poster's complaints seriously.

Stop being a drama queen. I cannot do right for doing wrong.

I did not ask you, I would have thought you would have acted and not as you did question when I stated I reported.
You though questioned it, so stop giving me feeble excuses for your bias Eddie.
Now more than any I have good reason not to trust you as being fair as a mod.

Okay firstly, I did not even see the actual report in the mod section, I only saw your actual post about it and I haven't even contributed to this thread!
Secondly, the insult was to you, not your wife, so it was a tad feeble of a report tbh.
Thirdly, Zack has been asked to stop.

So why are you still whingeing?

Actually don't bother answering; it's just an excuse to have a go at me and everyone else today

Go nuts.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I did not ask you, I would have thought you would have acted and not as you did question when I stated I reported.
You though questioned it, so stop giving me feeble excuses for your bias Eddie.
Now more than any I have good reason not to trust you as being fair as a mod.

Okay firstly, I did not even see the actual report in the mod section, I only saw your actual post about it and I haven't even contributed to this thread!
Secondly, the insult was to you, not your wife, so it was a tad feeble of a report tbh.
Thirdly, Zack has been asked to stop.

So why are you still whingeing?

Actually don't bother answering; it's just an excuse to have a go at me and everyone else today

Go nuts.

I do not buy your excuses Eddie where in fact you actually questioned me reporting this until you realised your error.
Please be honest for once in your life and stop giving lame excues.
He brought my wife into the debate, where she has no relvance and also it was an insuly.
Either they are wrong or you excuse them based on who by.
I proved ytou are not to be trusted and biased.
Now stop wasting my time with your drivel Eddie, as I will never trust you to act fairly in any given situation. Veya i would do as he no matter how much clashes with me would be fair, that is why I respect him as a mod no matter how much we differ

So spare me your petty excuses

Oh whatever.

Ben can explain it all to you as Ive already stated today and before today, that there's a glitch in my receiving or seeing reports made.

Bore off.

eddie wrote:Oh whatever.

Ben can explain it all to you as Ive already stated today and before today, that there's a glitch in my receiving or seeing reports made.

Bore off.

Boring fuck off you child hater

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh whatever.

Ben can explain it all to you as Ive already stated today and before today, that there's a glitch in my receiving or seeing reports made.

Bore off.

Boring fuck off you child hater

I think what you've said to Eddie today is utterly uncalled for and you should be man enough to apologise to her.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh whatever.

Ben can explain it all to you as Ive already stated today and before today, that there's a glitch in my receiving or seeing reports made.

Bore off.

Boring fuck off you child hater

"Child hater" lol

Because I asked a question on whether a child, who jumped onto a track, might have had mental problems?

Do you realise how utterly nutty you sound?

How sad is it that when an article is presented by a peace activist that they have to go running off to Google to try and find something to smear an hourable man who campaigned vigoursly for peace and they end up on an obscure blog wher the person unning it is more intersted in trying to get people to complain about two companies advertising in a UAE based magazine. It's even sadder when instead of just trying to debate the mans work to instead laugh it off with a load of immature ha ha ha's against a msan who was survivor of the holocaust who migrated to Israel and served in the IDF and was respected throughout the academic world but targetted by mainly Zionists for his views.

Some people knew him well though....



http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html

Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat and the War on Terrorism

Extract...

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorist s such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors
.
Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.

Mr. President, in that address, you put forth a most compelling vision of a world at peace, free from the threat of terrorism, where freedom flourishes. The strength of that vision lies in its moral clarity and consistency. In the war on terrorism, we cannot condemn some terrorists while claiming that other terrorists are potential partners for peace. We cannot help some allies under siege, while urging others to
compromise their fundamental security.

As you eloquently stated: “Our enemies send other people’s children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed.
We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again to day.”

Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

Sincerely

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/images/uploads/PNAC_Letter_to_President_Bush_on_Israel,_Arafat_and_the_War_on_Terrorism.pdf

Benjamin Netanyahu in 2002 – “If You Take Out Saddam, I Guarantee, It Will Have Enormous Positive Reverberations on the Region”

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I did not miss this, you only acted because I exposed your hypocrisy.
Who needs enemies when I have friends like you Eddie eh?

I acted because you asked me to and I take all poster's complaints seriously.

Stop being a drama queen. I cannot do right for doing wrong.

I did not ask you, I would have thought you would have acted and not as you did question when I stated I reported.
You though questioned it, so stop giving me feeble excuses for your bias Eddie.
Now more than any I have good reason not to trust you as being fair as a mod.

Okay firstly, I did not even see the actual report in the mod section, I only saw your actual post about it and I haven't even contributed to this thread!
Secondly, the insult was to you, not your wife, so it was a tad feeble of a report tbh.
Thirdly, Zack has been asked to stop.

So why are you still whingeing?

Actually don't bother answering; it's just an excuse to have a go at me and everyone else today

Go nuts.

I don't see these reports either and for Didge to complain about the mention of his family is rank hypocrisy of the very highest order considering the abuse I have had from him - even before his 'back-handed' sham of an apology.

sassy wrote:Benjamin Netanyahu in 2002 – “If You Take Out Saddam, I Guarantee, It Will Have Enormous Positive Reverberations on the Region”

Oh dear

Indeed, Netanyahu was a rather aggressive Iraq hawk back in the early 2000s. "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said in 2002 testimony to Congress. "Once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons,"
Not only did Netanyahu get the nuclear issue wrong — Saddam was not building a nuclear program after all — but he incorrectly predicted that the war would inspire an Iranian democratic uprising that would topple the theocratic regime.
"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region," Netanyahu claimed. "And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone." Here's video:



http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8114221/netanyahu-iraq-2002

Irn Bru wrote:How sad is it that when an article is presented by a peace activist that they have to go running off to Google to try and find something to smear an hourable man who campaigned vigoursly for peace and they end up on an obscure blog wher the person unning it is more intersted in trying to get people to complain about two companies advertising in a UAE based magazine. It's even sadder when instead of just trying to debate the mans work to instead laugh it off with a load of immature ha ha ha's against a msan who was survivor of the holocaust who migrated to Israel and served in the IDF and was respected throughout the academic world but targetted by mainly Zionists for his views.

Some people knew him well though....



http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html

Peace activist?



The bullshit the left buy into is comical and as seen this is nothing more than the bullshit created by a self hating Jew even the guadian think he makes antisemitism

Irn Bru wrote:

eddie wrote:

Okay firstly, I did not even see the actual report in the mod section, I only saw your actual post about it and I haven't even contributed to this thread!
Secondly, the insult was to you, not your wife, so it was a tad feeble of a report tbh.
Thirdly, Zack has been asked to stop.

So why are you still whingeing?

Actually don't bother answering; it's just an excuse to have a go at me and everyone else today

Go nuts.

I don't see these reports either and for Didge to complain about the mention of his family is rank hypocrisy of the very highest order considering the abuse I have had from him - even before his 'back-handed' sham of an apology.

Oh do pipe down you little runt I went straight to ben because as seen you are not to be trusted to act as a moderator.

What I did in the past is no excuse to not do your job which as seen you are not fit for purpose

Irn Bru wrote:Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat and the War on Terrorism

Extract...

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorist s such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors
.
Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.

Mr. President, in that address, you put forth a most compelling vision of a world at peace, free from the threat of terrorism, where freedom flourishes. The strength of that vision lies in its moral clarity and consistency. In the war on terrorism, we cannot condemn some terrorists while claiming that other terrorists are potential partners for peace. We cannot help some allies under siege, while urging others to
compromise their fundamental security.

As you eloquently stated: “Our enemies send other people’s children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed.
We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again to day.”

Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

Sincerely

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/images/uploads/PNAC_Letter_to_President_Bush_on_Israel,_Arafat_and_the_War_on_Terrorism.pdf

Is this your evidence for the conception of this whole plan?


One moment


::::rotgdflmmfa

You said Israel did not try to influence the invasion of Iraq.  It did, and that was part of the evidence.

sassy wrote:You said Israel did not try to influence the invasion of Iraq.  It did, and that was part of the evidence.

Where did I say that?

What i said is that the translation made was a load of horshit and the original was speculative babble, which it only got one thing right with the Arab springs none of which had anything to do with Israel.
You and Irn are the biggest idiots I have come across in the bullshit hate you have For Israeli Jews you buy into any crap it seems

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat and the War on Terrorism

Extract...

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorist s such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors
.
Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.

Mr. President, in that address, you put forth a most compelling vision of a world at peace, free from the threat of terrorism, where freedom flourishes. The strength of that vision lies in its moral clarity and consistency. In the war on terrorism, we cannot condemn some terrorists while claiming that other terrorists are potential partners for peace. We cannot help some allies under siege, while urging others to
compromise their fundamental security.

As you eloquently stated: “Our enemies send other people’s children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed.
We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again to day.”

Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

Sincerely

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/images/uploads/PNAC_Letter_to_President_Bush_on_Israel,_Arafat_and_the_War_on_Terrorism.pdf

Is this your evidence for the conception of this whole plan?


One moment


::::rotgdflmmfa

Part of the plan Didge.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



Is this your evidence for the conception of this whole plan?


One moment


::::rotgdflmmfa

Part of the plan Didge.

Only in your head it seems, trying to make things fit which do not
Most people saw Saddam as a major problem that they wrongly thought if removed would bring harmony

No, most people didn't, which do you think they want Tony Blair tried as a war criminal.

OBTW, the petition on the government site requesting that Netanyahu is arrested when he comes to UK in September has already gained just uner 65,000 signatures in just over a week.  If it gets to 100,000 it has to be discussed in Parliament.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105446

65,000 is that it?

Not many when you think about it and it will be laughed at by the Governemnt.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



Is this your evidence for the conception of this whole plan?


One moment


::::rotgdflmmfa

Part of the plan Didge.

Only in your head it seems, trying to make things fit which do not
Most people saw Saddam as a major problem that they wrongly thought if removed would bring harmony

Do you think he should have been removed just like the siganatories to the letter did?

Cuchulain wrote:65,000 is that it?

Not many when you think about it and it will be laughed at by the Governemnt.

Sorry Didge, but most petitions take months to get that many, and the law says it has to be discussed in HOC if it gets to 100,000 and it will.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Only in your head it seems, trying to make things fit which do not
Most people saw Saddam as a major problem that they wrongly thought if removed would bring harmony

Do you think he should have been removed just like the siganatories to the letter did?

He should have been removed in 1991 when the people did rise up
It was a crime we did nothing to help
Saddam after all was a mass murderer

sassy wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:65,000 is that it?

Not many when you think about it and it will be laughed at by the Governemnt.

Sorry Didge, but most petitions take months to get they many, and the law says it has to be discussion in HOC if it gets to 100,000 and it will.

Like I said it will get laughed out of Parliment as it should do

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Only in your head it seems, trying to make things fit which do not
Most people saw Saddam as a major problem that they wrongly thought if removed would bring harmony

Do you think he should have been removed just like the siganatories to the letter did?

He should have been removed in 1991 when the people did rise up
It was a crime we did nothing to help
Saddam after all was a mass murderer

He was but do you think that the outcome would have been any different if it had been done then from the outcome that has happened now.

You support Tony Blair in eventually doing what should have been done in 1991 by getting rid of him then?

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

He should have been removed in 1991 when the people did rise up
It was a crime we did nothing to help
Saddam after all was a mass murderer

He was but do you think that the outcome would have been any different if it had been done then from the outcome that has happened now.

You support Tony Blair in eventually doing what should have been done in 1991 by getting rid of him then?

Yes I think the outcome would have been very different.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

He should have been removed in 1991 when the people did rise up
It was a crime we did nothing to help
Saddam after all was a mass murderer

He was but do you think that the outcome would have been any different if it had been done then from the outcome that has happened now.

You support Tony Blair in eventually doing what should have been done in 1991 by getting rid of him then?

Yes I think the outcome would have been very different.

In what way?

And Blair?

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes I think the outcome would have been very different.

In what way?

And Blair?

Not interested in Blair.

Why would have it have been better timing, well for one the people wanted change and it would have then been backing the people.
There was not the organised mass of islamic extremism then that there was after the second Iraq war.
There would have still been the violence that did occur but no doubt there would have been no need to occupy the occupy the country as happened after the second Iraq war