The Zarqawi affair, part 6 of 15
By B. J. Sabri
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Sep 19, 2006, 00:50

�One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [New York Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1] [Source]

When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." --Raphael Eitan, New York Times, 14 April 1983. [Source]

"It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable." --Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, head of the Israeli Shas party, regarding "Arab murderers and terrorists", 10 April 2001 [Source].

To summarize from the previous part: how was it possible that a small state with no legitimate claims to exist, no resources, low population count, and above all, surrounded by legitimate hostile forces, could grow up so rapidly to become a military regional power? Why did the United States and the West finance and arm Israel? Was that because of infatuation with Israel as an idea?

There are many reasons why the West sides with Israel, but affection toward Judaism and Jews, or infatuation with Israel as an idea is not among them. It is a fact that most Christian nations discriminated against peoples adhering to Judaism because of the Christian dogma that the ancient Israelites of the Middle East (no ties to modern Jews from all nationalities) were instrumental in the crucifixion of Jesus.

In the past, the primary reason that made Western colonialist powers endorse Israel was the view that Israel could be a useful tool in the military control of the Arab states on behalf of these powers. That tool would protect colonialist privileges from Arab independence movements. The secondary reason was the influence exercised by European, American, and Russian Zionist organizations over their respective governments to extend aid to Israel in exchange for its services.

But with the triumph of Zionism in the United States and the accession of Zionists to critical policy posts in the successive American administrations, those old relations that tied the West to Israel fell into disuse. Now, the West is the tool of Israel and world Zionism, and the wars against Iraq and Lebanon are the final demonstration in this sense.

In the passage from the Western imperialist order to the Zionist-Israeli world order, one item has never changed though, and that is, Israel�s dependency on Western financing -- especially American financing -- to survive. It is therefore important to ask, why did the United States finance and arm Israel? Does U.S. Zionism have any thing to do with it? And, how does all this relate to Zarqawi and Iraq?

About financing and arming Israel: American Jewish Zionist, Alfred F. Knopf Organski tried to camouflage the essence of who controls the United States by calling the American financing of the rogue Zionist state assistance. In his book: The $36 Billion Bargain: Strategy and Politics in U.S. Assistance to Israel, published in 1990 by Columbia University Press, Organski argued that the United States gave all these billions of dollars to Israel because of the strategic objectives of the United States and not because of pressure by the Israel Lobby.

This is nonsense. First, let us forget for a while about the �Lobby�! Second, why does Israel and U.S. Zionism need an Israel Lobby in the United States if secular Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists are nestling in every sensitive corner and crevice inside the Congress, the White House, the Pentagon, the media, and, the National Security Agency? Moreover, by using the term �bargain� in his title, Organski was actually suggesting that, since the U.S. needs Israel, it obtained its services at a bargain price!

Beyond that, why is Israel the U.S. choice as a strategic partner and not the treacherous Jordanian regime, or even formidable Turkey that still resents the Arabs since they sided with Britain against it in WW1? Further, because there is an abundance of Arab traitors and collaborators, why did the U.S. need to spend $36 billion of our tax money to control the Arabs if could it control them totally and absolutely without war to serve its economic and strategic interests?

We shall explore that next before moving to discuss the Zarqawi affair in more detail.

Why did the U.S. need to spend $36 billion of our tax money to control the Arabs if could it control them totally and absolutely without war to serve its economic and strategic interests?

There is no need for an elaborate answer: Israel rules the United States via American Zionists, and as such, it can order the U.S. to co-opt Israel as a partner and the treasury to open its fat purse. American financing of Israel, therefore, is not a generous assistance but a gigantic extortion by U.S. Zionists. As for the U.S. strategic need for Israel, this is a hoax, since Israel is actually a iability that the U.S. has to maintain, subsidize, and keep arming in order to be useful as an interventionist tool.

To understand Israel�s� connections to the Iraqi question, it is important to understand first the nature of the state of Israel.

One: Zionism bragged about its ability to regroup peoples of diverse ethnicity but with Judaism as a common denominator inside one state. Curiously, this regrouping is Israel�s weakness. Because there is no dialectical relation connecting an Ethiopian Jew to a Chinese or Ukrainian Jew; the state of Israel did not become an open nation but a closed, self-contained society. This means two things. One: Israel is only an economic-military enterprise that people can join or leave. Two: Zionism transformed Palestine into a fortified island for peoples of Jewish faith, and then detached them from surrounding realties of the Middle East to the point that it is legitimate to ask how do Israelis view themselves: Middle Eastern, Western European, Ashkenazi, Polish, Persian, Arab, or Slavic?

Two: because it is an economic-military enterprise, the wars of the Zionist regime did not only increase the people�s sense of vulnerability, but also their anger for those who disrupt the daily management of the enterprise, meaning anti-colonialist Arab struggle. If we add to that the acquired enmity to those who once opposed the existence of Israel on Arab soil, the psychological conditions of the Israelis becomes clearer. It is my opinion that Zionism had transformed normal human beings into a hating, killing machine solely to survive as an ideology of limitless power.

Three: moreover, since Israel had consistently rejected all proposals for co-existence with Arab states, it became a prisoner of its own Zionist ideology (starting with the Arab Summit [1980, Morocco], Arab states offered peace in exchange for mutually recognized borders, the return of captured Arab territory, and the resolution of the Palestinian Question). In essence, Zionism wanted Israel to become the synthesis of all Western social and ideological experiences; i.e., to become a hegemonic colonial power.

Four: it negates the existence of the Palestinians as a historical reality, but affirms its own existence as an alternative reality. This negation has an immense consequence on the entire Zionist psyche: the constant attempt to falsify established historical facts to adapt them to the needs of the moment.

Five: but this distorted Zionist ideology of altering history did not stop on the Palestinian door, but extended to the entire Arab house. That is, Israel�s negation of the Palestinians necessarily means the negation of the Arabs because Israel has already passed from its settler�s experience to the status of supremacist military power. Abba Eban (Israeli foreign minister in 1967 at the time of the Israeli aggression against Syria, Egypt, and Jordan) had once summarized this attitude when he exhorted the Arabs �to go back and live in their desert tents.�

Do these five traits have a common pattern? If so, how does this pattern (the Israeli state) work?

Based on the history of Israel, it is now a fact that the traits just mentioned are preponderant in the same measure and work jointly to achieve a dangerous purpose. Meaning: to justify its existence, Israel wants to see the historical milieu of the Arab and Arabized civilizations (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Assyrian, Coptic, etc.) destroyed and replaced by an order based on biblical mythologies and on a past made of fiction and fables. Of course, Jewish mythologies are only pretexts. Zionists well know that the current Israelis have no racial, social, historical, or emotional relations with the ancient Israelites. Imperialist colonialism or greed for a Zionist empire is the fundamental motive that unifies, maybe all current Jewish residents of Israel.

To conclude, Zionism since 1956 (The Suez war against Egypt) is not the Zionism advocated by Moses Hess or Theodor Hertzel. While 19th-century Zionism deceived by creating romantic imagery on land, railroads, and telegraphs (as imagined by Hertzel in his book: The Jewish State), Zionism from Ben Gurion to Yehod Olmert is crude expression of fascism, violence, and inner sense of superiority. Most importantly, once Zionism founded Israel with direct, fundamental British management, Israel ceased to exist as dream home for the Jews, and became an expansionist, military organization.

Having giving an overview on Zionism as it relates to Israel, then, what was the fixed, neurotic objective of Israel since the 1967 blitzkrieg against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan? Answer: when Israel realized it could defeat the Arabs with donated Western weapons, the next temptation was to subjugate them by any possible means, and that is, of course, thanks to an unlimited supply of advanced U.S. weapon systems.

A question: why is Israel fixated with Iraq?

The answer is straightforward: to implement the strategy of modern, neocon Zionism on regional and world levels in coordination with the United States.

Where is the fixation then? Aside from the neurotic, frivolous theory espoused by some Zionists that Israel has a blood feud with Iraq because of Babylonian captivity, a solid reason exists: Iraq was not only a nationalist, wealthy state, but was also determined to arm itself to defend against Zionist expansionist goals. As a result, Israeli policy toward Iraq had two aims: 1) defeat it militarily, which it did via the United States in the Gulf War Slaughter in 1991, and 2) to see it partitioned after the U.S. invasion and occupation in 2003.

But why does Israel want to partition Iraq? There are three interconnected explanations:

One: since Israel based its existence on monolithic religious identity, it has to justify that racist existence by positing that different religious or confessional groups within the same religion cannot coexist, thus they must separate, each in its own enclave. Israel then wants to see a Coptic state, a Christian Maronite state, an Assyrian state, a Druze state, a Berber state, and so on. The precedent for the Israeli plan to cantonize the Middle East began with its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 that, of course, failed to achieve its objectives of partition.

Two: advocating the installation of a Shiite state in the guise of the Jewish State (Israel) would greatly facilitate the secession of the Kurdish region whose leaders are allies of the Zionist state, and have already allowed Israel to buy land and install military bases on Iraqi-Kurdish soil.

Three: the partition of Iraq, with the U.S. leading the process, would then serve as a model and precedent to partition the rest of the Arab world. The result is small Arab cantons that are easy to manage and control by a nuclear entity positioned over 8,000 square miles of colonized Palestinian territory.

But, how can Israel partition Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines if it is not occupying it militarily?

We should remember two things. First, Israel is occupying Iraq by means of the military forces of the United States. There should be no doubt that America is Israel�s proxy in the war against and the occupation of Iraq. Let us read a minor detail through the following sequence of facts:

  1. The American Zionist, Richard Perle, is one of the main architects of the invasion of Iraq. But,

  2. Richard Perle is also the author of Clean Break that he authored for the Likudist Israel leader Binyamin Netanyahu. In Clean Break, Perle postulated a new Middle East where the U.S. and Israel work to overthrow the governments of Iraq and Syria.

  3. Wrote Perle, �Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means of foiling Syria�s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.� [Italics added]

  4. Keep in mind three things. First, neither Israel, nor Turkey, or Jordan, single or combined, could have ever achieved Perle and Netanyahu�s strategic objective of removing President Saddam Hussein from power. This removal needed the work of a superpower. It took the United States 13 years of wars, sanctions, and invasion to remove the Iraqi president. Second, while Perle speaks of Syria�s regional ambitions, he omitted mentioning Israel�s regional ambitions, which are the overthrow of the governments of Iraq and Syria. Not only that, but extended that ambition to such details as to who should rule Iraq, as if Iraq belongs to his Zionist whims -- he suggested a dynasty of traitors and accommodators: the Hashemites. Accordingly,

  5. The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the implementation of Clean Break. Therefore,

  6. By substitution, the U.S. occupation of Iraq is effectively an Israeli occupation of the same. And,

  7. Finally, because the Zionist establishment is the decision maker of U.S. international and Arab policy, it follows that if megalomaniac Israel wants to partition Iraq, then the American political system will oblige. The latest convergence on the issue is the article written by the Democrat, Senator Joseph Biden, Jr., and the Zionist Leslie Gelb. In it, both figures recommended the partition of Iraq as a solution for what they called �sectarian violence,� which, incidentally and as I mentioned earlier, never existed in Iraq until Wolfowitz and Bush invaded it.

Based on the above, we can detect several dialectical bonds that theoretically should lead to the partition of Iraq. What are these bonds? Moreover, does Israel have the material means to partition Iraq? And, again, where does Zarqawi fit in all this?

B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. Email:

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor