The Piper

Let Freedom Ring

........... ...........

Michael Collins Piper Archive


.American Free Press
.Vol XI .#7 February 14, 2011


`Catastrophic Zionism':
How Turmoil Benefits Israel

By Michael Collins Piper


.If there is anything that can be said about the crisis in Egypt — which is reverberating throughout the Middle East — it is that it is ultimately open to multiple interpretations. Any “expert” who purports to give you “the last word” on the topic is deceiving you and perhaps himself. Geopolitical strategists, armchair pundits and conspiracy theory devotees are competing to tell the world “what’s really happening and why,” but there is no single truth to the matter.
First of all, consider the issue of popular unrest in Egypt. All serious evidence indicates Hosni Mubarak’s regime has sustained itself through force and oppression and, not surprisingly, support from the Egyptian military. In addition, Mubarak has maintained a close relationship with the United States and, thus, with Israel, with which Egypt entered a controversial peace agreement in 1979 that remains in effect today.
These factors have preserved Mubarak’s rule — at least until now.
However, within Egypt, there has long been widespread discontent among a variety of domestic sources, ranging from Islamic fundamentalists in the Muslim Brotherhood to more “Western”-oriented young people to working families struggling to pay food bills.
So while there is breadth and apparent depth to the opposition, the critics of Mubarak are by no means united across a wide range of issues. However, the economic turmoil plaguing Egypt in recent months seems to have been a critical factor in helping spark the rebellion.
In short, to suggest that the Egyptian rebellion was orchestrated solely by the United States and/or Israel would ignore genuine grassroots Egyptian concerns.
Israel and the American supporters of Israel know that many Egyptians of all political stripes and religious persuasions have never been comfortable with the U.S.- Israeli-Egyptian relationship and that an element of Egyptian opposition to the Mubarak regime has been its cozy concert with Israel.


The theme of "catastrophic Zionism" suggests that Israel -- as a state -- relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors.



As a consequence of this, many pro-Israeli elements are taking a firm stand against “democracy” in Egypt precisely because they fear a popularly elected regime replacing Mubarak could be hostile to Israel, no matter what the new regime’s religious flavor — if any at all.
Note, too, that one of the leading critics of the Mubarak regime is Nobel Prize-winning former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. Supporters of Israel consider ElBaradei to be problematic because he was a critic of the Bush administration’s campaign against Saddam Hussein of Iraq, raising questions about Bush claims that Saddam was engaged in building nuclear weapons. Likewise, ElBaradei has stood in the way of Israeli and American efforts to provoke a confrontation with Iran over its efforts to engage in nuclear development.
However, there are more than a few observers who perceive ElBaradei as a ubiquitous double-dealer whose agenda is uncertain
In the meantime, despite all of this, it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that Israel could stand to benefit from turmoil in Egypt. The average observer might find this difficult to understand.
While most rational people would assume that Israel would prefer to have neighboring states that are stable, successful participants in the region, this is not necessarily the case.
In fact, a carefully crafted “think piece” entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured in the February 1982 edition of the World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for Judaism and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy to wreak havoc in the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within. The author was Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with close ties to Israel’s Foreign Ministry.


The program — which amounted to “balkanizing” the various Arab republics, splitting them into religious enclaves in which, for example, Shiite Muslims or otherwise Sunni Muslims would predominate — was an agenda that Israeli dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was designed “to make an imperial Israel into a world power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby setting the stage for Israeli dominance in the Mideast.
The formula was founded on the idea of creating chaos among Israel’s Arab neighbors, hardly a policy any decent, well-meaning neighbor could be credited for fostering.
In fact, the current-day political and religious divisions and devastation in Iraq — the consequence of the American invasion of Iraq demanded by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington — mirrors precisely what the Zionist position paper laid forth as the ideal state of affairs for Iraq, from an Israeli point of view, that is.
But where does Egypt fit into all of this?
Reflecting on the Zionist strategy paper, Ralph Schoenman — an eminent American Jewish critic of Zionism — writing in 1988 in his book, The Hidden History of Zionism, pointedly noted the paper’s intent of “double-crossing Mubarak” and emphasized that the Yinon paper hoped for “the downfall and dissolution of Egypt,” despite the 1979 Camp David peace agreement.
This is geopolitics at its best — or worst — and demonstrates the kind of gambles Israel has historically been willing to take.
After all, Israel helped subsidize and nurture the fledgling Hamas faction within the Palestinian statehood movement, as a means to counter and undermine the secular Fatah faction led by senior Palestinian statesman YassirArafat. But Hamas got out of control, grew in popularity, and now stands as one of Israel’s chief rivals.
Such gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as “catastrophic Zionism,” a term used almost exclusively by Israeli and Jewish writers.
The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel — as a state — relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence. This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel.
In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is vital — fundamental — to Israel’s survival. And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
In actual fact, this notion — that peace could be dangerous to the survival of Israel — is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide.



Foreign Interventionism
a Perilous Folly


The violent demonstrations sweeping the Middle East have been big news this week. The Tunisian government has toppled. Yemen is close to falling. Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is on the outs, we’re told. Jordan’s king has replaced his entire cabinet, and the Palestinian government in theWest Bank has called for new elections.As AFPRC chairman Vince Ryan writes in the article below, no one knows what the future will hold: Will these revolutions result in leaders rejecting the influence of the United States and Israel, or will another group of easily Corrupted despots rise to power? There is also growing concern that the demonstrations are being shaped by the usual culprits for the purpose of sowing further division and infighting between Shiites, Sunnis and Christians.
As far as Egypt is concerned, the Suez Canal is no doubt of strategic importance to many countries, including the United States. But as of 1950, Egypt, via the state-owned Suez Canal Authority, took the canal away from the bankers and the British government. So whoever takes power in Egypt will have control of the canal, and that controlling entity will undoubtedly want to trade with other countries. There is little doubt that those countries that remained neutral during the unrest there will have better standing than the countries that chose sides — especially if the wrong man wins.
Upon leaving office, GeorgeWashington offered Americans these wise words: “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
That is why the only thing that should be of concern to patriotic Americans is that the U.S. never intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
This country’s current obsession with attempting to control the domestic affairs of other nations cannot succeed in doing anything but involving us in wars in which we have no legitimate interest. It can only bankrupt the taxpayers.
It was the case in Washington’s time, and it is the same now. When will our politicians take heed of the sage counsel of our first president? In February the Congress is to read aloud Washington’s farewell address, as they did the Constitution in January. We hope they are paying close attention.



* * * * * * *



. . ..Michael Collins Piper can now be heard on the Internet at He is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America , The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up in the 20th Century, The GOLEM: Israel's Hell Bomb, and Target: Traficant. These works can be found at America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS: 1-888-699-NEWS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.



(Issue #7, February 14, 2011, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)


* * * * * * *

Update references:

A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon (with a foreword by, and translated by Israel Shahak)
Egyptian Revolution of 2011 Wikipedia article
Mohamed Mustafa ElBaradei Wikipedia article.