From Yahweh to Zion

by Laurent Guyénot

  In my opinion, the Northwoods memo, which appeared out of nowhere four months before September 11, is one of the false clues planted before and after the event in order to put skeptics on the trail of an American conspiracy rather than an Israeli one. It was probably with the same aim of preconditioning the protest movement that the Fox TV channel (a sounding board for neoconservative-Zionist propaganda) broadcast on March 4, 2001, the first episode of The Lone Gunmen TV series, seen by 13 million Americans, in which computer hackers working for a secret cabal within the government hijack a jet by remote control with the intention of crashing it into one of the Twin Towers, while making it appear to have been hijacked by Islamic terrorists, with the purpose of triggering a global war on terrorism.610

  The Fourth World War

  In the days that followed 9/11, the president’s speeches (written by the neoconservative David Frum) would characterize the terrorist attack as the trigger for a world war of a new type, one fought against an invisible enemy scattered throughout the Middle East. First, vengeance must come not only against bin Laden, but also against the state harboring him: “We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them” (September 11). Second, the war extends to the world: “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (September 20). Seven countries were declared “rogue states” for their alleged support of global terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea (September 16). Third, any country that does not support Washington will be treated as an enemy: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (September 20).611 These new rules would provide a pretext for endless aggression against any and all Muslim countries: it would be enough to claim that they harbor terrorists. By equating the “war on terrorism” with a “crusade” (September 16), Bush validated the concept of a war between civilizations.

  In an article in The Wall Street Journal dated November 20, 2001, the neoconservative Eliot Cohen dubbed the war against terrorism as “World War IV,” a framing soon echoed by other American Zionists. In September 2004, at a conference in Washington attended by Norman Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz entitled “World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight,” Cohen said: “The enemy in this war is not ‘terrorism’ […] but militant Islam.” Like the Cold War (considered to be WWIII), this imminent Fourth World War, according to Cohen’s vision, has ideological roots, will have global implications, and will last a long time, involving a whole range of conflicts. The self-fulfilling prophecy of a new World War centered in the Middle East has also been popularized by Norman Podhoretz, in “How to Win World War IV” (Commentary, February 2002). It was followed by a second article in September 2004, “World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win,” and finally in 2007 in a book called World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.612

  General Wesley Clark (son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne and proud descendant of a lineage of rabbis), former commandant of NATO in Europe, writes in his book Winning Modern Wars (2003) that one month after September 11, 2001, a Pentagon general showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran.”613 In his September 20 speech, President Bush also cited seven “rogue states” for their support of global terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea. It is curious to note in this list the presence of Cuba and North Korea, which replace Lebanon and Somalia on Clark’s list. One possible explanation is that Bush or his entourage refused to include Lebanon and Somalia, but that the number seven was retained for its symbolic value, perhaps as an encrypted signature. Indeed, the motif of the “Seven Nations” doomed by God forms part of the biblical myths instilled in Israeli schoolchildren. According to Deuteronomy, Yahweh says that he will deliver to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than [it],” adding: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them…” (7:1–2). It is further prophesied to Israel: “And he will give their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name perish from under heaven” (7:24). In the twelfth century, Maimonides affirmed in his Book of Commandments that the injunction to “let not a single Canaanite survive” was binding for all time, adding: “Putting the seven nations to the sword is a duty incumbent on us; indeed, it is an obligatory war.”614

  Iraq was the first nation attacked by the Anglo-American coalition. The justification given by the government and the media was the stock of “weapons of mass destruction” held by Saddam. CIA director George Tenet was reluctant to confirm this threat. He knew that Saddam no longer had any such arms, thanks to information provided by his son-in-law Hussein Kamel who fled Iraq in 1995 after being in charge of Iraq’s military industry. But the CIA, accused of incompetence for not being able to prevent September 11, was under intense pressure; Britt Snider, a close professional associate of Tenet’s, had already been forced to resign as staff director of the joint House and Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the 9/11 attacks, due to the claim of a conflict of interest made by Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) founded by William Kristol. Cheney and Rumsfeld could then renew their winning Team B strategy, essentially overtaking the CIA with a parallel structure set up to produce the alarmist report they needed: the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a special unit within the Near East and South Asia (NESA) offices at the Pentagon. Nicknamed “the Cabal,” the OSP was controlled by neoconservatives William Luti, Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked for the NESA at this time, testified in 2004 to the incompetence of members of the OSP, whom she saw “usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.”615 Either convinced or pretending to be, the president then announced to the nation, on October 7, 2002, that Saddam Hussein could at any time “provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.” Bush further claimed that Saddam also possessed the aircraft and drones necessary to “disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas [. . .], targeting the United States”; even worse, “the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.” Time was running out, for Saddam “could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. [. . .] Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”616

  Despite his initial reluctance, Secretary of State Colin Powell pleaded for war before the United Nations General Assembly on February 5, 2003. In 2005, after resigning to give way to Condoleezza Rice, he publicly regretted his speech to the UN, calling it “a blot on my record” and claiming to have been deceived.617 His chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, likewise would confess in 2006, soon after resigning: “My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council.”618 In 2011, Wilkerson openly denounced the duplicity of neoconservatives such as David Wurmser and Douglas Feith, whom he considered “card-carrying members of the Likud party. […] I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own.”619

  The fact that the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of all its state structures was carried out on be
half of Israel is now widely accepted. Even the best liars betray themselves sometimes, and Philip Zelikow let slip the secret during a conference at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002: “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is and actually has been since 1990: it’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”620

  And thus did Israel get rid of its worst enemy without losing a single human life or spending a single penny. The cost to Americans was valued at $3 trillion in 2008 by economist Joseph Stiglitz, and would likely exceed $5 trillion.621 The resulting impoverishment was not felt until 2008, and then with extreme violence, because Americans had been artificially immersed in a bubble of economic euphoria. Such was the contribution of Alan Greenspan, president of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, who, through excessive deregulation, favored the growth of subprime mortgage companies and caused the overall rate of individual property ownership to explode. It was, according to the relevant analysis of Gilad Atzmon, a crucial aspect of the neoconservative plan: “These figures led Americans to believe that their economy was indeed booming. And when an economy is booming nobody is really interested in foreign affairs, certainly not in a million dead Iraqis.”622

  The Iraq War represented, for the crypto-Zionists who launched it, a decisive step toward the ever-closer goal of Greater Israel. It was in this context that the October 2003 “Jerusalem Summit” was held in the symbolically significant King David Hotel. It was meant to forge an alliance between Zionist Jews and evangelical Christians around a “theopolitical” project. This project would consider Israel, in the words of the “Jerusalem Declaration” signed by its participants, “the key to the harmony of civilizations,” replacing the United Nations that had become “a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships”: “Jerusalem’s spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world’s unity. [. . .] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.” Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle, the guest of honor, received on this occasion the Henry Scoop Jackson Award.623

  The evangelical Christian support for this project should not come as a surprise. With more than fifty million members, the Christians United for Israel movement, founded by John Hagee, had become a considerable political force in the United States. Its president, Pastor John Hagee, author of Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude to War (2007), called without hesitation for “a preemptive military strike against Iran.”

  Iran, in fact, is the ultimate target of the neoconservatives. An Iran armed with the atomic bomb is indeed the nightmare of Israel. “Never let an enemy country acquire nuclear weapons” is a fundamental principle formulated since the 60s by the leaders of Israel. Netanyahu has for ten years demonized Tehran by accusing it of the darkest designs, before the General Assembly of the UN (September 27, 2012) and before the US Congress (May 24, 2011 and March 3, 2015). “The United States should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran to spur the country to end its nuclear program,” proposed American billionaire Sheldon Adelson in 2013. Adelson is one of the biggest donors to both the American Republican party and the Israeli Likud. In 2015 he threatened to use all his money to humiliate and prevent the re-election of any Congressional representative who boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in the US Congress.624

  The second fundamental principle of Israel’s foreign policy is known as “the Samson Option.” Formulated in the 1970s, when Israel had acquired a sufficient stock of atomic bombs, it is summarized by Ron Rosenbaum in How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III (2012): “Abandonment of proportionality is the essence of the so-called Samson Option in all its variants. A Samson Option is made possible by the fact that even if Israel has been obliterated, it can be sure that its Dolphin-class nuclear missile submarines cruising the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf at depths impervious to detection, can carry out a genocidal-scale retaliation virtually anywhere in the world.” Israel could easily “bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals, for instance)” as well as the “holy places of Islam.”625

  A third, tacit principle determines the character of twenty-first-century Israeli proxy wars in the Middle East: the abandonment of the distinction between soldiers and civilians through the category of “terrorist”—which justifies, moreover, contempt for all the “laws of war” by which men have attempted to civilize barbarism. Inhuman treatment in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq will remain in history as one of the most sinister symbols of this total degradation. Is it a coincidence that, according to the great reporter Robert Fisk of The Independent of London: “The head of an American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi tortures [at Abu Ghraib], it now turns out, attended an ‘anti-terror’ training camp in Israel and, earlier this year, was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the right-wing Israeli defense minister.”626

  “Color revolutions” are regime changes that give the appearance of a revolution, in that they mobilize large segments of the people, but are actually coups d’état, in that they do not aim at changing structures, but rather at substituting one elite for another to lead a pro-US economic and foreign policy. In 2009 the first “green revolution” was launched against Iran. It was puppeteered by Washington and led by expatriated Americanized bloggers. Though a failure, carbon copies succeeded two years later with the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia and Egypt. In 2009 it was revealed that several of the Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Yemeni, Syrian, and Egyptian internet users who triggered the disturbances had taken a training course in 2009 on techniques of peaceful revolutions offered by CANVAS, the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, funded by Freedom House. Freedom House is an organization funded 75 percent by the federal government (via the National Endowment for Democracy and the State Department), which according to its statutes “assists the development of freedoms in the world,” on the assumption that “The American predominance in international affairs is essential for the cause of human rights and freedom.” Led by James Woolsey, director of the CIA between 1993 and 1995, it has included the famous “philanthropists” Samuel Huntington, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

  After Egypt it was Libya’s turn. Dictator Muammar Gaddafi had committed the double mistake of trying to get closer to Europe and the United States while refusing any compromise with Israel. Tribal, ethnic, and religious rivalries are the Achilles heel of the countries of the Middle East, as a result of their arbitrarily drawn borders on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. The strategy of destruction consists of encouraging, arming, and financing the groups opposed to the regime, augmented by fanatics and mercenaries of various types, and then casting the resulting disturbances as “repression” in the eyes of Western public opinion. This then justifies armed intervention to “support the rebels.” The decisive role played by the French government in convincing the UN Security Council to validate such aggression will remain an indelible stain on the history of France. The former chief of staff of the French Armed Forces, Admiral Édouard Guillaud, declared on January 26, 2014, one week before his retirement: “The South of Libya has become a real black hole [. . .] a place for the regeneration of terrorism, of supplying arms to terrorists, it is the new center of gravity for terrorism.”627

  The hordes of jihadists recruited to destroy Libya (many of them from Iraq) would then be redirected toward Syria to launch the same type of “Arab Spring.” Threatened with destruction, Syria was offered as an alternative a puppet gove
rnment whose president, Burhan Ghalioun, promised in 2011 to “end the military relationship to Iran and cut off arms supplies to Hezbollah and Hamas, and establish ties with Israel.”628 The true nature of the Syrian “rebels”—stateless barbarians, drug addicts, and Al Qaeda allies—could not be hidden for long from the public. They had to be supported discreetly, as for example by delivering them weapons by way of phantom “moderate rebels,” or directly but “by mistake.” Meanwhile Israel was taking care of their wounded and sending them back into combat, while occasionally bombing Syrian government positions. As an additional bonus, the image of black-masked medieval butchers served to demonize Islam in the eyes of a public opinion paralyzed by confusion.629

  Such is the contribution of this new genre of “Marranos.” Consider the case of Adam Pearlman, grandson of an administrator of the Anti-Defamation League, who under the pseudonym Adam Yahiye Gadahn, unconvincingly bearded and beturbaned, broadcast anti-American Islamic diatribes in 2009 before being unmasked; or Joseph Leonard Cohen, member of the Revolution Muslim group under the name of Youssef al Khattab.630 Meanwhile, the FBI and other Zionist-infiltrated secret services continue to foster terror attacks on American soil under the pretext of thwarting them.631

  Chapter 10

  THE GREAT GAME OF ZION

  “A man whose testicles have been crushed or whose male member has been cut off must not be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh. No half-breed may be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh.”