In simple summation: THE ODED YINON PLAN is
Israel's plan to completely destroy the Middle East and then rebuild the entire area as "GREATER ISRAEL" using the
United States as the murdering fool to do all of the destroying while Israel commits not a single soldier to the effort...
as usual. Scroll down to examine the details of the plan...
“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
The Infamous "Oded Yinon
Plan". Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky
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,
the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. (article first published by
Global Research on April 29, 2013).
In recent developments, President Donald Trump has confirmed his support of Israel’s
illegal settlements and his opposition to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which
confirms the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
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.”
viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria
and Iraq, the war on 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
Bear in mind this design is not strictly a Zionist Plan, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, namely
Washington’s intent to fracture and balkanize the Middle East.
“Greater Israel” consists in
an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman, “A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:
• historic Palestine;
• South Lebanon
up to Sidon and the Litani River;
• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and
• control of the Hijaz Railway from
Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.
Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in
the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”
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.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:
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
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
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.”
Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of a process of Israeli
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated April 1, 2017
Plan for the Middle East
Translated and edited by
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.”
“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”
Published by the
Association of Arab-American University
Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982
Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)
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 mid-fifties.
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.
Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist
strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence.
There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they
react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to
the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously
Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.
July 23, 1982
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 into small 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 rest.
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.
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,
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
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 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
who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence
of that state.
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 problems.
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 priority which is obstructed by the Camp David
and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the 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
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 long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem
due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11
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. Egypt
is 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
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
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
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
constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute 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 cause the 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
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
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 no compromises. 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 the problem 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
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 be persuaded. The first steps in
the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which 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.
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-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression,
published by the AAUG 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 Year
1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew
Middleton, 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,
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,
11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic
Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments
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 East Internmational,
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
Press Service, 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’ariv 1/12/80. 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 Report 10/10/77; 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., 2017
________________________THE JEW"S POINT OF VIEW ________________________
Next Year in Jerusalem
do we, the Jews celebrating Pesach (Passover) in Jerusalem, still say: "Next year in Jerusalem!" Aren't we already
The rebuilt Jerusalem we pray for is not this modern city, and the redeemed Eretz Israel is not the political
state of the Jews we see today. As the influence of the Torah extends, so will the boundaries of Eretz Israel expand accordingly.
Futuristic Map Based on the Torah
"To your descendants I have given this land,
from the Egyptian River as far as the great river, the Euphrates."
Bereshit (Genesis) 15:18
The speculative map above is mostly based on
the commentaries of Rashi and Malbim about the boundaries of the future described in the Book of Ezekiel, chapters 47-48.
The details of the future map of the Land of Israel are mentioned only cryptically in the Tanach and various Talmudic sources.
The final redemption
The Jew has come home for the third and last time. "But
the third shall be left therein" (Zecharia 13:8). "The first redemption was that from Egypt; the second,
the redemption of Ezra. The third will never end" (Tanhuma, Shoftim 9).
"Therefore say unto the House of Israel... I do this, not for your sake, O House of Israel, but
rather for My holy name which you desecrated through the nations whither you came. And I will sanctify My great name that
was desecrated amongst the nations... and the nations shall know that I am the Lord when I shall be sanctified through
you before their eyes. And I shall take you from among the nations and gather you out of all the countries and I will
bring you into your own land." Ezekiel 36:22-24
exiles shall be ingathered only through faith"
"When will the Moshiach come? Today, as it is said: 'Today, if you will hearken
unto my voice' (Psalms 95:7)"
Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a.
NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM
May we soon live in Moshiach's Jerusalem, and plow the land of redeemed Israel. May we celebrate the Pesach
(Passover) Seder in spiritual freedom, when all Jews will have claimed their inheritance in the eternal Eretz Israel.