Israel's General Staff: `A Bunch of Dr. Strangeloves'

[Takmazian Maral]

Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), VA
June 2 2004

INTERVIEW: MAXIM GHILAN
Israel's General Staff:
`A Bunch of Dr. Strangeloves'

Maxim Ghilan, writer, journalist, and poet, is the editor of I&P, the
Israel & Palestine Strategic Update, founded in 1971 by Ghilan and
Louis Marton. Maxim Ghilan is also founder of the International
Jewish Peace Union (IJPU), the first Jewish outfit to recognize the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as a partner in dialogue.

Because of his views favoring Palestinian statehood next to Israel,
and his active role in the peace process--before Madrid, or Oslo, and
although no Israeli government supported the idea of a two-state
solution before 1993--Ghilan was forced to live outside of Israel for
23 years (1969-1993), during which time he became a living bridge
between the Israeli peace camp and Yasser Arafat's PLO leadership. He
returned to his country only after Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin signed
the Oslo Accords. Israel and Palestine is the longest-existing
publication on the Middle East, and favors a just peace for the two
peoples, the Israelis and the Palestinians. He was interviewed in
early May from Washington by Michele Steinberg, with Dean Andromidas
of EIR in Wiesbaden, Germany. The concluding portion of the
interview, on Maxim Ghilan's background--from his arrival in Palestine
in 1944 as a refugee from Franco's Spain, where his father had been
killed by Francisco Franco's Falangists, to his historic role for
Israeli-Arab peace, will appear in the next issue of EIR.

EIR: Welcome to EIR, Maxim Ghilan. Sharon had declared he would
unilaterally separate from the Gaza Strip; but around May 13, Israeli
tanks and troops entered Gaza, in one of the largest incursions in
history, wreaking havoc both in Gaza Town and Rafah. What happened?

Ghilan: Sharon's position inside Israel became untenable because of
the Intifada Al Aqsa and his own involvement in corruption scandals.
He decided to annex, unilaterally, large parts of the West Bank, and
to withdraw tactically from Gaza, where 2,300,000 Palestinians are
inflicting a heavy price on the occupation troops and Jewish
settlers. However, the imbecile fanatics in his own Likud Party did
not understand Sharon's scheme and refused to budge from Gaza. In an
internal Likud Party polling, some 60,000 imbecile fanatics foiled
their leader's attempt. The army brass, which wants to continue their
perpetual wars, then forced Sharon to launch the "Rainbow in a Cloud"
operation in Gaza.

EIR: On April 14, there was a meeting and exchange of letters between
Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush, where Bush lifted the requirement of
Israel returning to UN defined borders. Who was responsible for this
policy? And what are the implications, in your view?

Ghilan: There are two elements in Israel responsible for this policy
change. One of them is the army general staff; the other, the
fanatics, the zealot nationalist Jewish camp, to which Sharon has
always belonged (as well as being a pure product of the military
mind), and for which he was always willing to do anything necessary,
including massacres, such as Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in '82; or
even before that, in the '50s, when Sharon headed incursions into the
Gaza Strip, which was then still in Egyptian hands. Sharon then
commanded Unit 101, a death squad which went into Arab territories
and killed people, and so forth.

So, that's one. Sharon is the most outstanding representative of the
fanatics, because he is the best strategist, and holds a long-range
view.

The present versions of Sharon's plan, the ones approved in
Washington by Vice President Cheney and President Bush, are tailored
for Sharon by the high brass of the Israeli Army, the general staff
of Israel's army. These elements command, in fact, not only the army,
but the whole State of Israel.

Ariel Sharon has never changed, and he never will. He wants a
"Greater Israel," or, if you want, a Jewish-superiority state in all
parts of historical Israel/Palestine. He is willing to go back and
forth, in order to grab the whole land himself, or at worst to
prepare the ground for his successors to do so. The grand scheme
remains the same: total land takeover, step by step and sometimes
back and forth.

At the end of each phase, Israel always expands, and so it did even
before its official creation, in the '30s and '40s, when land was
bought from absentee feudals and the Arab peasants were thrown out;
then in 1948, 1967, and ever since.

In the 1930s and before, Palestinian peasants had lived there for
generations, but officially possessed no property, and had no title
to the land, particularly in the Saron Valley.

In the wake of the Nov. 29, 1947 UN General Assembly resolution on
partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, Israel fought
off an invasion of Arab armies and Palestinian militias and profited
off its victory to take over much of western Palestine; chased out
650,000 Palestinians, and razed 416 Arab villages; on that land,
Jewish settlements were hastily created. In Jaffa town, up to then
the cultural capital of the land, only 3,000 out of the original
300,000 remained. Arab homes, even those of Jaffa citizens who
stayed, were declared "absentee property" and stolen.

The next stage came with the 1967 War, when still another contingent
of tens of thousands of Arabs was terrorized into running away to
Jordan, and Lebanon. The Golan Plateau, which was Syrian, was
annexed, and eastern Jerusalem as well as huge tracts of land around
it were annexed. In the face of international pressure, which was
considerable, the West Bank was not officially annexed, but a program
of Jewish settlement and land takeover brought to this area fanatic
Jewish settlers, 230,000 up to this date.

Sharon, after Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, Menahem Begin and Bibi
Netanyahu, Moshe Dayan and Labor politicos Galili and Tabenkin,
settled Jews strategically in any and every spot they could, so as to
force out Arabs--and not only from the West Bank and the Golan after
1967, but from the Galilee and Central Israel before that. Karmiel
and Upper Nazareth were built on confiscated land, first declared
"military areas" and then converted into "for Jews only" zones.

In the West Bank, settlement blocs were purposefully set up so as to
carve the area into Bantustans, separated from each other by
settlements, so that if and when a Palestinian state is forced upon
Israel, it should not be viable. The whole thing reminds one of
apartheid in white-dominated South Africa.

In later years, the Gaza Strip was isolated by a fortified fence. 40%
of the Strip was confiscated for 7,500 Jewish settlers, compared to
2,300,000 Palestinians in the most closely-populated area in the
world.

So, Sharon's plan is the cantonization of all Palestinian areas, for
the time being, until more of them can be expelled. This phase of
Sharon's dream is what has been approved by Bush and Wolfowitz, and
is nicknamed "creation of a Palestinian state," or "disengagement."

In fact, there's no disengagement planned, because the Israeli army
will remain in Gaza, in the West Bank and on the Egyptian border in
the so-called "Philadelphia area." Fighting will go on, because
fences cannot keep Katyusha missiles or Kassam mortar shells from
being lobbed over from Jordan, Lebanon, or from inside the Gaza
Strip.

The Washington Deal

But, back to the April 14 events in Washington. What we have here is
a U.S. agreement to completely forget, over 40 United Nations
Security Council resolutions, including 242 and 338, which were
guarantees, or at least promises by the international community, that
Palestinian land should not be grabbed by force.

These United Nations resolutions, and the Geneva Convention, to which
Israel has officially adhered, say that land conquered by force
cannot be annexed. Which stands in total contradiction to Bush's
position and to Sharon's scheme. But this is never-never land,
because of international pressure, and because of the popular
uprising of the Palestinians--their second uprising, which has been
ongoing since September 2000. Nobody can stop such an uprising.
Julius Caesar did not in Germany; Napoleon could not in Spain. the
only final colonial solution is genocide--such as that of Native
Americans at the hands of WASP settlers in North America. This may
yet happen to the Palestinians, too.

So, instead, Sharon is creating a situation, which is not tenable for
the Palestinian population, in the hope that he can digest the land,
meanwhile, into expanding Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank,
and contain the Palestinians as subdued vassals--complete serfs; those
who won't submit, will be pressurized to emigrate. Christian Arabs
already do. That's what Bush means by a "Palestinian state."
Moreover, in the West Bank, the Palestinians will be concentrated to
an enormous degree in small enclaves. As for Gaza, it is already
become a pressure cooker, with conditions so unbearable, with drugs,
prostitution, child labor, and endemic violence. Sharon's dream would
only increase this horror.

So, Sharon and the Army hope--that the Palestinian population will
ultimately go away. But demography is against this. In Gaza, you have
2.3 million; in the West Bank, 2 million and more; inside the Green
Line, in Israel, 1.2 million. And outside the land, another 4 million
or so, many of them still in refugee camps.

To believe one can break and then control such a mass is, of course,
completely unrealistic thinking. Only a peace agreement with the
intervention of the international community can bring about a
long-lasting ceasefire, and only a confederation of all Middle East
and Central East countries, ethnic and religious blocs, can ensure
long-lasting peace and prosperity.

Sharon's so-called "separation plan" leads to total radicalization of
Palestinian society, to the growth of Hamas into a truly
international power. Moreover, "separation" actually encourages a
forced mobilization of large sectors of the Arab world, including
Arab businesses, in favor of Hamas, rather than in favor of Arafat's
Fatah. In past decades, these Arab sectors outside of Palestine were
afraid of the armed might of the Palestinian Liberation Organization,
and so helped it. They did not do so just out of "Arab brotherhood":
They were afraid for their regimes and their lives. Now, they are
afraid of Islamic fundamentalism.... Hamas and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad are part of this vast popular movement, and will obtain any
help they need.

What the fanatic Israeli nationalists did when they assassinated
Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, two months ago, was create a new
Islamic saint. Pictures of the blind sheikh's wheelchair being blown
up by an Israeli 'copter have added a powerful icon to Islamist
propaganda worldwide. In the Middle East, Israel and the United
States are artificially creating a mass movement--and I'm talking
about millions and millions of people--mobilized behind the Islamic
fundamentalists.

Add to that the fact that the majority of Islamic countries are not
Arab: they are Indonesians; they are Chinese; they are
Indo-Pakistanis; they are Africans. So, this has the potential for
the destruction of the whole structure of Muslim societies throughout
the world, especially in the South; and even before it, the
destruction of northwestern society.

EIR: Do you think that what Sharon has in mind, involves a larger
plan to redraw the map of North Africa, Southwest Asia, and all of
the Muslim and Arab world?

Ghilan: I have no doubt of that. In 1982, Sharon already had
magalomaniac plans to take over Arab oil countries in the Gulf. Only
American intervention forced him to limit his invasion to Lebanon. As
I see the situation now, there are, in the United States, inside the
capitalist camp, two opposing elements: one, conventional,
conservative business society; and another, neo-fascists inside the
American army, and [inside] that country's "capitalism." The
neo-fascists, unfortunately, presently hold power, or at least, have
a deciding influence on the thoughts, or the head of the present
administration. They are aided and abetted in that by fanatic
Christian fundamentalists, just as the Israeli Army is aided and
abetted by fanatic, religious Jewish felons.

EIR: In both countries, these fanatics are a minority; yet, their
influence goes far, far beyond. Is it that everyone else is afraid of
them?

Ghilan: No, no. It is not that. Not everybody is afraid; some people
are afraid, but not everybody! Yet, there is a kind of domino effect.
Let's talk in realistic, rather than in abstract terms: In Israel,
you have a society in which the Army is the deciding factor in
politics, economy--local and foreign-linked, religion, and in
international affairs. This is a dog in which the Army "tail" wags
the national dog.

I'm not talking about the whole Army; I'm talking about the hawks in
the General Staff. Inside the General Staff, you have two
elements--two elements or wings, two forces. One, professional army
officers, not totally blinded by power, arrogant but thinking in
terms of the future. Then you have the fanatics, the war-eaters,
nationalist idealists in fear of a second Shoah or Jewish genocide.

Most Dangerous Bunch on Earth

This is perhaps the most dangerous bunch of men on Earth at this
moment.

Why? You have other countries which are bigger, more prosperous,
stronger militarily, and have instruments of mass destruction: the
United States, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation, for
instance. And you have other dangerous states where the people at the
top are crazier and more fanatic than the Israeli brass. For
instance, Saudi Arabia; for instance, North Korea. But also, other
more obscure crazies, in Latin America, in Asia, and in Africa.

But, nowhere on the globe, do you have leaders and generals who are
both extremely sophisticated, and also possess massive amounts of
implements of mass destruction, men who are truly extremist, fanatic
nationalists.

If Nigeria, or Angola, or Colombia suddenly wants to go to war
against the rest of the so-called civilized world, against the very
relatively sane world, it simply could not. Such a country may
destroy hundreds of thousands.... It can kill a million people, a
million and a half people, which is genocide, but not cause the
physical end of the world. Even North Korea is too hungry and too
dependent on China.

Not one of the other extremely crazy regimes says "The whole world is
against us." In Israel they teach children a song which says exactly
that, in these very words. No other country threatens to destroy the
world by launching a nuclear conflict, to commit mass-suicide, as the
Jewish Masada rebels did, to thumb their noses at the Roman Empire.
Or as Samson is said to have done to the Philistines in one last
titanic suicidal act, which is taught to kids as an example.

Of course, the root of this madness is Shoah-paranoia, but that does
not make this bunch less dangerous.

Yes, the Israelis can destroy the world, or ignite a world war that
will. The Israeli military has the necessary means to do so. And
Until Bush and Cheney came to power there was no other
non-conventional power that considered using tactical nukes.

By the way, let me make clear this point: that I am not a pacifist,
and, I am absolutely not against a small country also having
defensive non-conventional weapons as the big countries have--as long
as it is not ruled by demented leaders with paranoid ideologies. Here
we have a bunch of Dr. Strangeloves. Shaul Mofaz and Bogey Ya'alon--or
Dick Cheney--are not the proper depositories of world-destroying
weapons.

So, we have these people at the eye of the tornado. You also have the
regular kind of military people inside the Israeli General Staff.
But, the people who make the decisions are the crazies. Again, why?
Because a situation has been created, over 50 years, in which Israeli
society lived with the crutch of outside aid. At first, it was just
Jewish people, rich and poor, who helped the State of Israel
consolidate. But, in the last 40 years, aid has mainly and officially
come from the United States, extensive military aid, to the extent of
about $3.1 billion a year officially, but in fact much, much more, to
the extent of $16 or $17 billion a year, in a variety of ways. This
creates a symbiotic relationship, in which Israel gets
military-offensive aircraft and technology, as well as intelligence
and other technology. Israel then uses American money, the U.S.
grants and guarantees, to pay American firms.

Of course American and Israeli middlemen get their cut amounting to
many millions. In this circular business arrangement, two elements
earn a lot of money: One is the American military-industrial
establishment, like Lockheed, Boeing, Caterpillar (armored tractors)
and so on, who recruit for that purpose people who work in the
Pentagon. They get their cut and later work with the big commercial
ones.

Weapons Cry Out For Wars

The Israeli middlemen are Defense Ministry or Army officials and also
private entrepreneurs, who are all, without exception, people who
worked or work at the highest [levels of the] Israeli army, at
hush--hush levels. They directly profit from circular deals and become
millionaires, if not billionaires.

But, you also have the productive industrial sectors, here and there,
who have no interest in stopping this symbiotic relationship,
centered and based, essentially, on everlasting, ongoing war: on
weaponry, and military technology. Because prosperity, such as it is,
brings financial growth not only to the biggies but also to the
peripheral industries. And to the trade-unions, including workers in
the local military industries. So everybody is for this deal going on
indefinitely.

Weapons and military high-technology cry out for wars. A high-tech
relationship usually brings profit to both sides. But this one does
not! It's a military relationship--a military hardware and software
relationship that diminishes peace-oriented sectors, which means that
the people involved, indeed, the army General Staff or the Israeli
Air Force staff, have a professional, personal interest in the
continuation of a war situation in the Middle East. If a peaceful
situation is found, their power disappears: No wonder it has lasted
over 50 years.

When an officer is released from the army and joins the reserve
forces at the ripe age of 45 or so, he gets not only a pension, but
it's a foregone conclusion that he will get to be one of the heads of
a big industrial enterprise, or of the electricity company, or become
a cabinet director of some ministry--or, in the most advanced cases,
prime minister. And, there has been no Israeli Prime Minister who was
not somehow connected with the so-called defense establishment. And
that includes Shimon Peres, who is one of the few Prime Ministers of
Israel, who was never a general or a chief of staff, but he was
Ben-Gurion's official defense advisor, who created the Israeli
nuclear technology with the aid of Guy Mollet, the social democrat
Prime Minister of France in the early 1950s.

EIR: Who are these generals, in the nationalist fanatical camp today?
Can they be named?

Ghilan: Well, you have, first of all, the man who became prime
minister, Ariel Sharon; and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who was
before that chief of staff. Second, you have the present chief of
military intelligence, Aharaon Zeevi-Farkash, who was handpicked by
Ariel Sharon. And then you have Amos Yaron, Director-General of the
Defense Ministry, a hawk among hawks. And people like the former
deputy head of the Mossad, Gideon Ezra, who is now a cabinet member;
Then, you have Mossad head Meir Dagan. Also the present Chief of
Staff Moshe Ya'alon. But "Bogey" Ya'alon is also a pragmatist, whose
fanaticism is subordinated to his personal ambitions. My guess is
that Ya'alon will align on whatever party he thinks has a chance to
win the next Knesset elections, or the one after, be it Labor or the
Likud. Bogey wants to eventually become prime minister, and will
possibly play the hard-liner wherever he lands, not just because he
is one, but also to win public sympathy.

One more name, and I'm done with them: Major General Dan Halutz, the
former head of the Israeli Air Force, one of the most fanatically
nationalist generals and one of the most aggressive. He was
responsible for the helicopter attacks on Palestinian activists, and
ordered a one-ton bomb dropped on a civilian building because Hamas
leader Mash'al had been there. He then stated he does sleep very well
when he thinks of having given the order that killed so many
civilians.

Dan Halutz has just been named deputy head of the General Staff,
which means he is going to become the next Chief of Staff after Moshe
Ya'alon leaves. During the internal Likud census Halutz sat at
Sharon's right, against army regulations prohibiting political
involvement.

EIR: You use the term neo-fascist; are you thinking in those terms of
what they call themselves here, the "neo-conservatives"?

Ghilan: Yes, but not only the neo-cons. I'm talking about the more
extreme elements in the fundamentalist Christian camp, both
Protestant and Catholic. I'm talking of undercover and special
services people, inside the Pentagon, amongst whom we find some
Christian fundamentalist fanatics in uniform, hoping to see the war
between Gog and Magog and therefore keen for the renewal of America's
"gung-ho" policy, as it was applied in the Korean War, or the Vietnam
War, people who then wanted to drop an atomic bomb on the Kremlin,
and today talk of "tactical nukes" to be deployed in the Middle East
and who see the influence of any non-American power or state in the
world, Israel excluded, as an insult to American hegemony. They have
no concept of what the world is like, really, outside of the borders
of the United States, and perhaps of Latin America.

EIR: Definitely. And, Sharon and Cheney have something very much in
common: They are both facing half a dozen or more investigations, and
it seems like Sharon, in particular, is very threatened by this. If
Sharon is indicted--and that's a very big "if"--how would that change
the situation?

Ghilan: First of all, I don't believe Sharon will be indicted--I may
be wrong, of course. You see, Sharon put a new Prosecutor General
into place--Menachem Mazuz; he got rid of the old prosecutor general,
Edna Arbel, who was pushed upward into the High Court of
Justice--Arbel being the one who recommended that Sharon be indicted
in the case of the shady businessman, David Appel. I don't believe
that with this new legal government advisor, and with the present
situation, Sharon will be indicted.

If he is, this will encourage the extreme nationalist idiots, who
don't understand what Sharon is doing, and believe that he is selling
out to the peace camp. In fact, Sharon is using the Gaza pretext to
try and annex large areas in the Palestinian West Bank, and indeed,
cut it in two.

But, they don't think of this. The extreme nationalists of the
National Alliance, and the Likud rank and file--including the
Kahanists who have a faction in Likud, Moshe Feiglin's people--they
don't want to understand. They say, "Hey gevalt! You are selling
out," and they won, by some 53%, an internal Likud Party
referendum--against Sharon.

This week the cabinet is going to vote--again--whether there is going
to be a very partial disengagement or withdrawal, they are speaking
of three settlements in the Gaza Strip, and eight out of hundreds [of
settlements] in the West Bank. And the Israeli army is supposed to
stay on the Gaza Strip-Egyptian border.

Next week the truncated withdrawal project will be put to a Knesset
vote.

- Sharon Lies Even To His Crazies - EIR: What is Sharon's real
policy, in your view?

Ghilan: For 50-odd years, one and the same overall nationalist
current has brainwashed the nation into even greater nationalism,
into ever greater militarization! This includes both the Likud's and
Labor's propaganda.

So, at the top, you have the sophisticated political and military
Zionist apparatus, men and women who today are infinitely more
dangerous than the rest; but you also have the "idiot" fanatics! And
they are the majority of the Likud, of the nationalist camp and
perhaps of the nation, whose grand majority seems to be evenly
divided into docile sheep and idiot fanatics. And the fanatical
idiots don't want to give up one inch of occupied territory.

Sharon must be cursing them for the idiots his followers are, but he
cannot tell them what he's really doing! At least not openly, because
that would spoil his beautiful relationship with Bush. If he says
what he really is doing, then Washington doesn't have a leg to stand
on in the Middle East.

EIR: Going back to what happened in Washington, at the last
Sharon-Bush meeting, April 14. One of the figures who is notorious
here, almost legendary, is Dov Wiesglass. How important is he?

Ghilan: Dov Weisglass is part of this thing I described--this monster,
which grew up, instead of a healthy defensive and politically sane
military establishment, which existed at the beginning of the state.
And he's also one of the people who, undoubtedly, will become head of
the right-wing camp after Sharon goes. He will survive Sharon.

Weisglass is at present, Sharon's official mouthpiece in talks with
Washington, but also one of the people whom I described before: he is
like Dagan, or Farkash, and Defense Ministry head Amos Yaron, or like
Shaul Mofaz, part of, and executor for, the hawkish wing of the army
general staff.

Of course, he did not reach such pinnacles of power in the Army as he
reached as Sharon's axe-man. He always has been a groupie, or
soldier, of Sharon, and he is, and was, one of the fanatic Army
zealots. He is also a very good politician. Or, if you want, a
military diplomat.

How The U.S.-Israel Deal Works

Dov Weisglass is head of staff of Sharon's Prime Minister's Office;
and has been, for a very long time, in touch with the Pentagon, in
military matters, which, of course, gives him an "in" to those
circles who are part and parcel of the symbiotic Israeli-American
relationship of the military-industrial clan in the U.S.

Through his Army contacts and those in military oriented industry, he
became close to Vice President Cheney and to Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz, a Jewish-American neo-con. Later on, also to
Condoleezza Rice. He knows the ins and outs of the American power
establishment, much better than most Americans, not to mention in the
Likud. Indeed, better than Sharon himself. Proof of that: his first
talks, his most important talks, long before the last Bush-Sharon
Washington meeting, were with--Cheney!

Dov Weisglass is Sharon's and the General Staff's "counselor" to use
Mafia parlance. That is systemic, not just a personal post,
comparable to Henry Kissinger's in Nixon's administration. Weisglass
shows us how Israeli power is structured: the Army tells the Prime
Minister what it wants him to do, who sends his counselor to
Washington to talk to Cheney and Wolfowitz, who--with the aid of
Condoleezza Rice and often against Colin Powell's better
judgment--convince their President, who invites Sharon to come to
Washington and formalize the deal. And then Bush utters another bit
of his doctrine--until he has to change that too.

Strategy of the Big Lie

Sharon has postponed for two months another visit to the U.S. This
shows the Army brass is not happy.

Remember, Weisglass talks in the name of the Israeli military, talks
to the American military and war industry, the most greedy and
ruthless wing of American capitalism, which uses its base, the
fanatic U.S. fundamentalists to cement the deal publicly.

In all, this is an alliance of two fanatic and greedy leaderships
backed by two camps of relatively insane fanatics who are carefully
kept ignorant through religion, media mind-washing, and a basically
dishonest political system wrongly termed "Western democracy." By the
way, the Christian fundamentalists are not really pro-Israeli. But,
as somebody in the Likud once said, at a military war tactics
session, "Let them believe whatever they will, about the coming of
their Messiah and a war between Gog and Magog--as long as they fund us
and back us."

EIR: How do you think both Israeli parties maneuvered to trick the
whole world with the disengagement plan? Here in the United States,
our Congress is going along with a plan and they refuse to see what
you are telling us as fact--that this plan is not what it seems.

Ghilan: Well, I have proof, contrary to Sharon. Whatever I say can be
documented by established facts, and above all, results. Not to speak
of the biographies of the people I have mentioned. I do not guess. I
say only things which happened, or are being done, by Sharon's
government and by the General Staff: facts on the ground, which are
now being implemented.

This touches another aspect, another facet, the strategy of the Big
Lie: in George Orwell's 1984, lying is truth, you say one thing and
mean the opposite when the time is right.

It started with Ben-Gurion; it started even before Ben-Gurion, with
the Zionist movement, the Labor Directorate, which said it did not
want a state, and then, of course, they made one; they said they
wanted to evacuate the Jews from Europe, who were under Nazi control.
But when the then-British Empire granted to the Zionist establishment
in Mandatory Palestine, the right to create a military division, the
Jewish Brigade, inside the forces fighting the Fascist Axis, Ben
Gurion and Moshe Saret actually did their best to cooperate with
Britain, so that 1 million Hungarian Jews went to Auschwitz, instead
of being exchanged for 100 military trucks, and allowed to go to
Palestine.

Cordell Hull, Roosevelt's Secretary of State, told his President at
that time, we don't want in the Middle East, another million Jews,
who will destabilize the British hold in Egypt and in Palestine.

So, the Auschwitz crematories worked at full speed, the Jewish
Brigade was created inside the British Army--giving Ben Gurion's
troops useful military experience--and the allies never bombed the
annihilation camps nor the railway tracks which carried the death
trains from France, Holland, Belgium, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and so
on.

There are plenty of documents, some Israeli and some American, to
back what I am saying.

So, it went on as far back as that. In '48, they said they would
accept the UN Partition Plan. Then they went on, to conquer as much
territory as possible, and to raze the Arab villages inside the
territory they grabbed, 416 of them, went on to throw out Arabs from
towns such as Jaffa and Haifa. That was the beginning of the refugees
problem, which is haunting Israel to this day.

In 1949, a ceasefire was signed and it held for a while--these
territorial arrangements lasted till 1967. From '49 to '67 they
claimed they want peace, but they were not willing to give up one
inch for real peace, or to agree to United Nations resolutions, or to
give in to American pressure.

Using the Jewish Superiority State
We're talking about the '50s, before the American government put an
end to the Suez operation, and took over the role of protector of
Israel, from Britain and France, who used the Jewish Superiority
State up to 1956, to perpetuate their control of the Middle East
Arabs and their oil resources.

After that, they did nothing to present any peace-oriented scheme. In
'67 they grabbed more territory: they took the whole area of
Jerusalem, they took the Golan Heights. They took the West Bank, and
all of Western mandatory Palestine, up to the Jordan River, fell
under Israeli military rule.

At that stage, they said they want to come to an agreement, an
understanding, that they will give back territories in the West Bank,
and in Gaza--and you know that nothing like that has happened. Defense
Minister Moshe Dayan, then, told a delegation of conquered
Palestinian notables: You have nothing to give me, I talk to the King
of Jordan only. And now, they are saying, of course, that they will
not return to the '67 borders, as Moshe Dayan said his government
would.

So, this is the policy of the Big Lie. All the while, the government
of Israel, and before it, the Zionist movement's leadership, applied
a policy of deliberately lying. However, the policy of the big
deliberate lie goes together, with deliberate, newly created facts,
goes together with another expansion of the state base on more
conquests, of throwing out more Arabs.

You talk about a "Jewish Democratic" state but you apply orthodox and
fundamentalist Jewish Halakha, i.e., precepts based on zealot, and
racist precepts, rather than on the Magna Carta, Britain's legal
basis, which was the legal base for the system, together with the
Ottoman Empire's legal precepts.

The Foreign Propaganda Machines
They say "disengagement" but mean Israeli-controlled "apartheid."

They talk about "targeted preventive measures," and mean the
premeditated murder of people who have not been proved guilty in a
court of law, and in the course of so doing, the murder and maiming
of innocent by-standers, including women and children.

They say: "granting them autonomy" but they mean the creation of
helpless Bantustans under Israeli control, which will supply Israel
with cheap labor and produce, and so on and so on.

Sharon's propaganda machine has now set up a special department at
the Israeli Foreign Office for linguistic, semantic disinformation,
which works mostly in Western countries, and in the United Nations,
using precisely the terms people want to hear when grisly pictures of
the occupation appear on TV screens. It operates in France, and in
the United States, in the United Kingdom and so on. Later on, quite
often, such language is adopted by the media in many countries.

EIR: What other propaganda outfits exist?

Ghilan: Well, there are really several. There seems to be a
disinformation intelligence department, according to foreign reports,
and there is a special department in the office of the prime
minister, which presumably controls all the rest. You also have a
department of the Jewish Agency, a section of the world Zionist
movement, which develops propaganda, including scare reports on the
Arabs and anti-Semitism. Money and help is distributed to Jewish
community activists and media in Europe and the United States. Claims
have been made that all of the aid to Israel gathered by the United
Jewish Appeal in the U.S. is used for such propaganda and for
"encouragement" to non-Jewish politicians.

Finally you have the press attachés at Israeli embassies abroad, who
translate Israeli and Arab texts that may help convince news editors
in favor of Israeli arguments.

EIR: Well, the Israeli machine very much parallels the office of
propaganda, lying, and misuse of terms that was used to secure the
Iraq War, here in the United States.

Ghilan: Yes, except that this Israeli propaganda network existed
before the one created in the United States before the invasion of
Iraq. I would say, somebody in the United States took a leaf out of
Sharon's book! Maybe Wolfowitz?

EIR: The Jewish-American community used to be, I believe, on the side
of the Democrats. The masses of Jewish people and many other ethnic
people would go to the Democrats to have a voice. But that has
changed in the sense that Bush's election chief, Karl Rove, is very
close to these Christian fundamentalist fanatics; his election
strategy is that his deal with Sharon will get him the Jewish vote in
the United States. How do you see that aspect?

Ghilan: It has been a long, long time since the Jewish community has
had any voice in American politics. This statement may surprise you,
so let me explain.

The Jewish-American community is--how many millions now? Five million
or so? The Jewish organizations are no more than 600,000 people
altogether, including everything: civil organizations, B'nai B'rith,
religious community organizations, the federations, which are the
local synagogue, schools, and so on; universities, the ADL and
everything else. These 600,000 people are mostly controlled --and I
exclude the Reform and Conservative communities--but even among them,
many leaders are totally controlled by Jewish business interests,
which are very, very few, a handful of people, really--I would say no
more than 10,000 people altogether; 5,000 is probably closer to the
truth. I'm talking about the major, big financiers.

Now, these people have allied themselves with the most reactionary
forces inside the United States. They speak in the name of the Jewish
community, which is silent or indifferent. The Jewish community shuts
up because (A) they are not really interested in politicking; and (B)
because they are very, very much in solidarity with the State of
Israel, which they see as a solution for those Jews who were
threatened in Europe and possibly even an escape hatch if
anti-Semitism becomes a real threat in America.

Anything that Israel does, is either accepted, or at least not
criticized by the Jews in the U.S., which brings about still another
symbiotic arrangement: the State of Israel's leadership and the
Jewish financial leadership, which controls nowadays such
organizations a B'nai Brith, the American Jewish Congress, or even
the World Jewish Congress--which once used to be democratic,
philanthropical and very sane when it was headed by the late Dr.
Nahum Goldmann, and under its Vice President Arthur Hertzberg.

Anyway, American-Jewish organizations are, in 2004, no more
democratic than the Communist Party was in the late Soviet Union, as
its leadership can maneuver and use 5 million Jews without consulting
them.

As corruption and decadence breed despair and fanaticism, that part
of the community that does not wish to leave Judaism--I'm talking
about Jewish culture and ethnic bonding, not Jewish religion--that
part which wants to remain Jewish, to keep a sub-identity inside the
great American magma, is ever more tempted by Orthodoxy, and by
Israeli patriotism--from afar.

Youths, who in the past were liberal or left-wing, because their
first generation parents came as workers from Eastern Europe, or were
the incarnated Jewish Mom's dream of "My son, the doctor, my son, the
dentist," now have affluent or middle class parents and seek idealism
in their twice-removed roots. The most frustrated adopt Meir Kahane's
ideology, and go to settle in Kiryat Arba, in the occupied
Palestinian West Bank.

Clearly, the Jewish community has been neutralized by its right wing
and by the Israeli establishment, just as many lower- and
middle-class non-Jewish Americans have been neutralized by their own
right-wing and religious Christian extremists.

And why should it be otherwise? American Jews are after all, part and
parcel of American society.

As for Bush's administration, under these conditions, it is not
worried about the Jewish vote; on the contrary, it counts on the
financial and organizational leaders to bring in the Republican
Jewish vote because, they pretend, Bush is good for Israel, which is
nonsense. Bush helps prepare the destruction of Israel through
continued warfare.

EIR: After the Bush-Sharon deal and particularly after the
assassination of Rantisi, both President Mubarak of Egypt and King
Abdullah of Jordan have made observations that they have never seen
such widespread hatred of the United States in the Middle East,
because of the failure to make peace, failure to help the peace
progress, and because of the Iraq War. Is that your estimation, also?

Ghilan: Part of my estimation. I think they don't go far enough,
particularly after the massive destruction of civilian homes in
Rafah, on Gaza's border with Egypt. I think we are seeing a rapid
deterioration of stability--of reactionary stability in the Middle
East--but still, stability that existed since the United States made a
deal with Saudi Arabia for exportation of oil at the end of World War
II, almost 60 years ago.

Now, what is happening in the Middle East, is, that after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, all those elements who believed society
in the conservative Arab states would eventually change, became
desperate.

The Only God That Did Not Fail

As a Palestinian once put it to me: "First, we Palestinians believed
in Arab pan-nationalism. Then, in the two brands of Ba'athism, Syrian
and Iraqi. Then, we believe in Gamal Abdel Nasser. And some of us
believed in Marxism-Leninism. But, all these gods failed us, so what
have we left? We Arabs have Allah left. So we trust in God and follow
Islam."

Do you know that half the leadership of the "Organisation D'Action
Communiste Libanaise", mostly Christian Maronites and Greek Orthodox
former-believers, converted to the Shia brand of Islam and joined
Hezballah's leadership?

This evolution defines precisely what is happening: many are turning
to Islamic fundamentalism, because they've no other hope for real
change. But, obviously, also, because Bush has made Islamic
fundamentalism the bogeyman of the Western world, and has declared
what the Arab world now sees as a crusade, a reactionary Christian
crusade, against the poor of the world, and most especially against
the Muslim poor of the world.

I think we are very close to a global explosion of this movement. I
think the next two areas to host Islamist expansion are going to be
large areas in Asia and in Africa. I'm talking about Angola; I'm
talking about South Africa, and I'm also talking about Indonesia and
Malaysia, which have the largest Muslim populations in the world--not
to speak about Pakistan and Southwest China, even Southern Thailand
and India.

This thing is going to blow up. It's already blowing up to a small
extent, thanks to Bush-Cheney and to Tony Blair. As yet, the al-Qaeda
thing is a small development compared to what still may happen,
thanks to Western stupidity. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the
Anglo-Americans have compounded the Soviet mistakes in the area.

Western Deals with Fundamentalism

You must keep in mind that leaders in the Arab world, including
President Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan--but also the leaders of
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the Emirates--are not particularly worried
about the needs of their populations. Nor are they worried about the
fact the U.S. government supports Israel. What they are really
worried about, is their own possessions, which they believe include
their countries. And they have now come to the conclusion, based on
very, very good home intelligence, that their regimes are not going
to last; and that even the U.S. might make a deal with the
fundamentalist movements in the Middle East against the monarchies,
because the fundamentalists might give them control of some Middle
Eastern countries to keep control of the oil and other Arab world
natural resources. And in Africa, and in Central Asia.

The Arab leaders are afraid for their own personal sake. Therefore,
they are finally at a stage in which, in spite of U.S. and British
military and development aid, to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, for
instance, they are finally speaking out. In fact, they are frankly
crying out, "Help! Help us!" And they are talking--in my opinion--they
are talking as much to the fundamentalists as to American and
European politicos of all kinds. If the U.S. can, why not they? Thus,
the Anglo-Americans are unwillingly and willingly helping the
Islamists.

Don't forget that Cheney was one of the most trusted allies of the
Arab potentates--and became the main mover of the anti-Arab crusade.

EIR: Because of the oil?

Ghilan: Because of the oil--not only Arab oil. Because of an
Anglo-American decision to control directly the whole oil production
and oil industry, even at the price of direct military occupation, as
we have seen in Iraq. This is a war for control of, simply, all the
oil in the world.

Paranoid dreams? Megalomania? Sure, but that is what they suffer
from. Beside being politically stupid and ignorant.

EIR: Do you see that terror, after what Sharon has done in Gaza in
these last few weeks, and the Bush-Sharon deal--that terrorism is
going to get worse in the immediate period?

Ghilan: On the global scene in general, and the Middle East in
particular. I'm not talking here just about Israel--Israel is a
different matter, and needs a different explanation.

EIR: Could you touch on both aspects? For example, will Hamas become
a mass organization?

Ghilan: It already is. But, it will grow from 40 to 70% soon. It has
now 40% support from the Palestinian population, in Gaza, and maybe
less, maybe 32%, 35% in the West Bank.

Now to international terrorism in Jordan, where they have just
discovered a plot for a mega-chemical attack on major government
activities, and had to suffer from revenge-attacks in the southern
end of the kingdom.

But, there is a difference. You see, I have considered the idea that
secular or ethnic popular movements might join forces with
fundamentalist uprisings in other areas of the world, but certainly
in the Middle East.

About the Israeli-Palestinian situation: since Sharon is interested
in creating terrorists to perpetuate fighting and annexation, to keep
the Bantustans under forcible control, until he can throw out or push
out as many as possible, both the civil and popular uprising and
terrorism against civilians will continue, perhaps even increase.

We have two kinds of armed struggle in both Palestine and Israel: an
armed uprising; and blind terrorism against civilians. Terror, in my
mind, is any act of violence directed against civilians either by
organizations or by governments. Popular armed uprisings include
anything directed against military forces or targets, intelligence
outfits, or the armed settlers including Palestinian collaborators
with occupation.

Civilian uprisings of course, include unarmed demonstrations,
sit-ins, marching and so on.

So, as long as occupation and annexation continue, these things will
grow, and will be put down ever more forcefully, which will create
ever greater hatred for the occupier, more extremism, more
fundamentalism in Palestine.

The Secret West-Islamic Deal
While this happens, you are going to have the rest of the Muslim and
Arab world increase their support for the Palestinians, openly or in
hidden ways, and we are going to have such things as a very strong
growth of the anti-reformist movement in Iran. This is part of a
process which was already started from the beginning of 2002, when
funds started coming into Palestine from private sources and
organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom, in support
of fundamentalist circles. The same thing happened in support of the
Iranian conservatives and, together with anti-American outrage,
helped destroy the reformist opposition.

One of the things that encouraged this reactionary development was a
hidden agreement by Britain, France, and certain circles in the U.S.
to encourage the Iranian conservatives "to keep them at the West's
side." This resulted in the partial elimination of the
Marxist-Islamist fanatics of the Iranian Mujahideen-e Khalq--many of
whom were expelled from France. But pro-Iranian power operations
stopped there, because the U.S., France and the United Kingdom came
to the conclusion that if the opposition in Iran comes to power, the
country will become much less stable, and the danger of more Islamic
fanatic antics will increase.

The Westerners are now caught between a rock and a hard place because
of Iraq's occupation. After consolidating their power, the Iranian
conservatives are worried about their Shiite brethren in Iraq and
would not mind the neighboring country becoming another religious
dictatorship. Even now, the west prefers fanatics in situ, to secular
dictatorships, or even democracies which remain independent. The West
believes it is able to make better deals with the clerics, behind the
scenes, because it worked in the past.

Israel sold goods and arms to Khomeini's men and the funds were
illegally used by Washington in the fabled Irangate affair, to fight
the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and nobody got the wiser for a while.
Only, when former CIA head, Bush, Sr., became President, it was
pushed under the carpet. Somebody assassinated all the people
involved in the Irangate affair, all the intermediaries. Secret
Israeli agent Amiram Nir, a former journalist, died in a mysterious
plane accident in Mexico, for instance.

Nowadays, conditions have changed as they always do. It's difficult
to formulate an effective imperialist policy in the 21st Century.

The only consistent American foreign policy, that remains consistent,
is support of Israel, even when the worst exactions occur here,
exactions which create terror no less consistently. And when one
thinks of what the U.S. supported in Latin America in the Irangate
era, one must conclude that stupidity is a family affair. I mean, we
now have the same kind of logic. When you see who are the supposed
Iraqi rulers, the members of the Governing Council, under the
military occupation, officials such as gung-ho Sanchez, and the
Marine forces' stalwarts--I mean you must be suicidal to put the lives
of U.S. GI's in the hands of these guys.

The U.S. had the sympathy of the Iraqi Shia community which Saddam
Hussein persecuted. Now, the Shia are both the fiercest opposition to
the occupiers and the greatest danger to a united and democratic Iraq
in the future. The Iraqi Shia community in Iraq has blown up in the
West's faces. Everything in the Middle East is blowing up in the
West's faces.

And nobody has a clue what to do, though the solution is easy to see:
have the Anglo-American coalition leave Iraq at once, give up both
military and oil control to a United Nations force with heavy
participation by the Arab countries, and hand over reconstruction to
the new Iraqi government whilst paying the bills.

Anything less will lead to the continuation of the present disaster.
Even the relatively stable situation in Kurdish Iraq will blow up in
the West's faces, later on, because sooner or later the United States
will have to choose between a free Kurdistan, and Turkey, a strategic
U.S. ally. And, if they choose Kurdistan, which means the
dismembering of Iraq into three areas, oil-rich Kurdistan will be
controlled at any price--through the Kurds. Which will mean America
losing Turkey as an ally, Turkey blowing up, and Middle East
fundamentalists joining forces with the Turkish ones, and with the
Turkish army, which is the real ruler, and which will have to forge a
de facto alliance with the Islamists in spite of its secular,
Kemalist ideology. Power makes strange bedfellows.

The Kurd-Turk Quandary

And if by chance the U.S. chooses Turkey, then the Kurds will blow up
once again. And they will blow up, not only in Iraq: they will blow
up also in Turkey. Now there is a lid on the more extreme Kurdish
freedom fighters, because they are extremists and because the rest of
the Kurds want at least their own state, in Iraq and maybe in Iran
too, just as the Armenians got an Armenian state, next to the Russian
federation. Only in a state of their own can the Kurds grow and
develop. For the time being, both the Iraqi Kurds and the Armenians
are taking a leaf out of the Zionist book and talking autonomy in
Iraq rather than independence. But, if the Americans prefer Turkey,
this goes down the drain.

In Kurdistan, you have two allies of the United States--who have
totally opposed interests. And then, you have the oil. And, the U.S.
would like a Kurdistan rump state, instead of in Iraq, but it would
not like them to control the oil. And who says that after they take
over, the Kurds won't take over the oil? And ally with other Kurds,
in Iran, and in Syria? And then in Turkey itself?

One thing is for sure: The U.S.--the neo-fascists in the U.S. in
particular--have no real strategic outlook. They have no analysis that
allows them to plan. They have no ability to sustain a long-term
occupation of Iraq, and their plan for domination of the whole area
through a "Greater Middle East" scheme is a hashish dream, an
Orientalist Western joke.

Nor have the Americans a short-range strategy: only greed and
propaganda efforts, electoral ploys. They are now forced to find
foreign mercenaries--who are starting to desert the ship. Spain and
Honduras did, and if Italy and Japan are destabilized by terror, they
will follow suit. Or else, their governments will not survive. The
new Anglo-American proposal at the UN Security Council is nothing but
a propaganda effort. The Americans and the British want to put blue
helmets on their existing forces in Iraq and get more mercenaries
under U.S. command. This is an effort to legitimize the takeover of
Iraqi oil, and to go on controlling Iraq.

It may be adopted at the UN but it will fail on the ground. It will
not stop either the popular Iraqi insurrection against the
occupation, nor, even worse, the ideological fundamentalist-Islamist
revolution.

EIR: You know, Mr. LaRouche has said, and this has become really
popular with the American people, the ordinary people: George W. Bush
is the dumbest man who has ever been President of the United States.

Ghilan: But I don't know if that's right. There's been a few very
dumb Presidents in the early stage of American history.

EIR: Well, we've been looking into it, and it seems to be pretty
close.

Ghilan: But, he's certainly a very stupid man. And, Cheney--you see,
when you have at the very top, a person who is stupid, and under him,
people who are fanatics, then you have a very explosive combination.

EIR: Right.

Ghilan: Because the fanatic isn't accountable; the idiot is
accountable. But when the fanatics define policy--Wow! Even when the
fanatics are not that intelligent, because they are ruled by their
emotions and hormonal drives rather than their heads.

America As Othello, Britain As Iago

Moreover, the American fanatics are taking their lessons from British
imperialism, they are playing Othello to Britain's Iago.

But British imperialism evolved in a completely different
environment, in one in which the navy was the main weapon of control
of any imperial power, and in which armies had a different local
approach, cultural approach, to the various indigenous populations.

Today, this is not the case, cannot be the case. But the neo-cons and
the army brass still believe in direct occupation, and in punitive
military policies, such as bumping out leaders, and killing wide
sectors of the population. The point is, in the modern world, with
modern technology, guerrilla warfare has become as potentially
powerful against empires, imperial occupants in particular, as
frontline armies and navies in past ages. The strategic situation has
changed, the local situations have changed. And if you don't see
that, if you want to impose American imperialism, using the patterns
of British 19th-Century imperialism, then you are on your way to
disaster: which is precisely what's happening in Iraq, in
Afghanistan, and soon in Africa, and in Pakistan.

EIR: On Iraq. Lyndon LaRouche is very concerned that there be an exit
strategy, and he has laid out one, which begins with the United
States saying, very clearly, "We are leaving." And Iraq has to go to
the Iraqi people. The U.S. must end the occupation. The longer the
U.S. stays there, the worse it's going to be. And he has called upon
the countries around Iraq to play a major role, specifically: Iran,
Turkey, Syria, Egypt. These will all be affected by the disaster
there.

Ghilan: You're forgetting one: Yemen.

EIR: Should they also play a major role in Iraq?

Ghilan: Absolutely. Otherwise they will become a base for the
fundamentalist revolution. And, you forget one more: Jordan, which is
at Iraq's borders, and the most delicate border, at that, because of
the rivalry between Syria and Jordan, with Egypt, Egypt should be
brought in, too.

In fact, you cannot have a democratic conflict resolution in the
Middle East after the American invasion of Iraq, a solution to the
Iraqi problem, if the whole of the Arab world is not brought in;
which brings us to the Middle East-defining Israeli-Arab conflict,
the Palestinian conflict; which means such Arab inclusion into a
peace deal must necessarily involve a prompt solution, or at least
considerable progress on the way to impose from the outside an
Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire and an Israeli evacuation from
Palestine. If that does not happen, the abcess will simply move from
one Mideastern organ to another and then in fact, to other
geo-political bodies. EIR: How do you see a solution being reached
after this policy disaster?

Ghilan: Well, first of all, the solution now goes through at least
three different stages, which should be very close to each other, a
matter of months. None of them should be longer than a year.

The first stage is, the establishment of a United Nations
trusteeship, for a length of no longer than three years, but no less
than one year. And such a United Nations trusteeship, would create a
trusteeship UN section, just as there was one for South Africa during
apartheid, with its own army, which should be different and separate
from NATO, or other UN forces. It should not include NATO
member-forces.

During the next stage, the UN, NATO states excepted, should control
all of Iraq, with the aid of Iraqi forces, then gradually hand over
military and political control of all areas to the Iraqis.

Before this is completed, at a stage which seems stable, direct
elections should be held, under international observation, the
principle being: half the national assembly or parliament on an
overall Iraqi principle of one person, one vote, the other half being
reserved for representation of the four existing sectors: Sunnites,
Shia, Kurds and secular parties, each sector getting a number of
seats in accordance with its numerical strength and the approximate
amount of territory it lives on. This calculation may be the biggest
obstacle to a truly democratic transition.

So, the UN should fund a referendum in Iraq, region-by-region and
inside the ethnic and religious communities--I'm thinking of the
Kurds, of the Shiites, of the Sunnis, of the secular nationalist
Iraqis, both pro-Baath-Saddam and anti-Saddam, but who are in favor
of a non-religious republic in which women have full rights. Seats
should be reserved for other groups, such as the Assyrians, to
mention but one.

All of them should be brought in as advisors to the UN Trusteeship
Council and later on, as commissioners of the United Nations
Trusteeship council, this international Iraq commission. Then, and
only then, should a final and definitive constitution be drawn up to
be approved according to a one person-one vote principle. This should
happen in the third year, giving the country a sufficient cooling off
period.

After one year, you gradually take out the foreign military forces,
and set up local military forces, ideally people who were already in
Saddam's Iraqi Army or police, but these forces must be composed of
local people in each area, and remain for a while under the control
of the United Nations non-NATO commissioners, and after that, of the
Iraqi Provisional Commissioners, until elections are held.

Stability can only be reached if the various communities feel that
they are represented in such a trusteeship. Otherwise, the Islamic
revolution will continue and win over the country.

Thus, all sectors will have rights, and then control, at each state,
but not the ability to sow chaos for their own sectarian reasons.
They will be part of the machine from the very beginning, but will
only get access to the control levers according to their sector,
under trusteeship, and final joint overall control of government when
internal conflicts are manageable.

This is the best of all bad solutions, since the present chaos
prevents the immediate creation of an Iraqi Federal Republic, or a
confederated one.

Iraq's Oil As An Obstacle

There is of course one big obstacle to such a scheme--oil. Who will
control Iraq's oil? After all, this is what the invasion was all
about, besides the Bush dynasty's wish for vengeance.

I don't see Western oil multinationals giving up control of oil
production and exploitation in the immediate future. Which is, of
course, short-sighted of them, because the Anglo-American
companies--plus the French, the Germans, and the Russians--are the only
ones capable of developing Iraq's oil facilities in an advanced,
industrialized manner, as only they possess the means to develop
properly the third-largest oil reserves in the world. The
multinationals should opt for profit, not control, but greed is
always stronger than logic.

So there is probably not going to be a UN trusteeship. And the
neo-fascists in the Bush Administration, who are servants to the oil
companies false gods, are certainly not going to give up direct U.S.
control of Iraq and its oil, in one way or another.

So I don't think that a democratic mechanism shall be worked out and
chaos, or just fighting, will continue, followed by economic
destabilization, worldwide.

I think nobody, neither in Europe nor in the United States, has
proposed such a step-by-step trusteeship plan, which could be offered
to such people as the U.S. Democratic candidate (who is not my own
choice for a brilliant leader but has the virtue of not being Bush or
Cheney.

Eventually, after much blood-letting, if such a trusteeship
arrangement is worked out, it can only work if the world community,
including a saner United States, reassures the Arab world and,
indeed, the whole Islamic cultural community world-wide, saying,
"Now, this is going to happen. But only with your democratic
participation in day-to-day and overall decisions. We are going to
allow the UN to bring in, if necessary, forces but keep both eyes
open to prevent an imperialist, religious or totalitarian take over."

Moreover, the Arab-Islamic community must see--not be promised, but
see--the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being ended. Again with the help
of international armed separation forces on both sides of the
Israeli-Palestinian green line. Without a relatively just peace
solution you can forget peace in Iraq or anywhere else in the Third
World.

Let's put a stop to this conflict which poisons international
relations. This is really a first-class geopolitical priority.

EIR: So, you think that these two plans must be done simultaneously:
If you do something in Iraq, you must also match it with something to
stabilize the Israel-Palestine situation?

Ghilan: Yes. But remember that the way to an Israeli-Palestinian
ceasefire is enforced separations with international armed forces at
both sides of the Green Line, of the internationally accepted pre-67
borders. I mean, Israel and the Palestinian authority are not going
to shoot at the United Nations, right?

When two madmen fight, you must bring in a doctor and restrain them,
if necessary.

At the same time, the United Nations should unilaterally decide,
backed by a Security Council resolution, to sponsor and direct open
negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The Security Council
should establish a mechanism for a permanent planning commission that
would deal with cooperation plans in the future--economy, development,
construction of homes for the masses in Gaza and elsewhere, even
cultural and religious cooperation. And about the means of funding
permanent peace in the now Unholy Land.

Pressure should be applied, economic sanctions pressure, if one or
both sides drag their feet. Inducements in the form of reconstruction
and development aid should also be offered by the world community.
Finally, although the right of return of all Palestinian refugees
should be assured, handsome offers for compensation and resettlement
in a number of developed countries should also be proposed to those
who so wish.

If you do these things, three things will happen: 1) the United
Nations will grow and develop, from a trust of a few strong nationals
ruling over many small ones, to a real international and legal forum.
2) Middle Eastern and Central Asian oil resources will finally become
the motor of economic and political development. 3) A basis will be
laid for a mashrek or Middle Eastern economic community leading to a
Federated or Confederated Mashrek on European Community lines, but
with a heightened social content.

As for Israeli-Palestinian strife in the future--nobody in the area
will allow two small states to go on fighting, thus spoiling the
economic growth of the area. The way to Jewish-Arab peace leads first
to trade and economic development, which alone will ensure continued
peace. EIR: As a veteran of the peace camp in Israel--a founder of it,
for many decades: How can the peace camp regain power in Israel?

Ghilan: Look, you have in Israel, two sides, two peace camps. You
have one, which is another silent minority, which is the non-Zionist
peace camp; in other words, those who say, "we don't want to control
anybody. We want a free Palestinian state, based on economic
prosperity, beside Israel, and maybe in the later future, a Middle
East Confederation or Community." They are a minority among the
peaceniks everywhere.

Then, you have a majority, which is the Zionist peace camp, and I
mean people such as Yossi Beilin's new Yahad Party, including Meretz;
the left wing of the Labor Party (which is not very left wing, but--);
even some people inside the Likud; some people inside the Shinui, who
are economically reactionary, but pro-peace for the Palestinians; and
the poorer rank-and-file of the Shas, the orthodox oriental party who
are against the Palestinians, but for social justice. Most of this
peace camp, Shas and Shinui excepted, is middle-of-the-road in
economic matters, and sometimes even right wing, but left of center
in Palestinian affairs.

They don't want real Palestinian independence. They want a Palestine
"state" controlled by the Israelis and by the United States, because
they believe that's the only way to ensure real security and peace
for Israel. The Zionist peace camp seems to believe that such a
controlled peace will bring about economic affluence for all
Israelis, or the real liberation of the Arab masses in the Mashrek;
with Sharon, it [the Zionist peace camp--ed] believes that [only]
(anything but--MG) an Israeli-controlled peace will [not lead to]
(bring anything but--MG) the abolition of the Israeli state. So, their
social or economic aspirations stand in abeyance till peace arrives,
and this hold for both the Zionist peace camps' right wing (Shinui)
and populist wing (Shas).

Most of these people are against Sharon, but for some of them, like
"Fouad" Ben-Eliezer or Shimon Peres, a "National Unity Coalition"
including Labor, the Likud and Shinui, is a desired goal, provided
Sharon evacuates some Jewish settlements, including all settlements
in the Gaza strip.

This creates a problem for those, such as myself, who understand
there's not going to be peace without social justice, nor social
redress without a just peace with the Palestinians.

To Be Ethical and Still Succeed
The equation is the following: if one supports the Zionist peace camp
majority at some of its happenings, such as the massive demo that was
held in Rabin Square, Tel Aviv, on May 15th, with 200,000
participants, one really helps Shimon Peres, who launched with his
speech there, a campaign for a new united national government with
Sharon and Tommy Lapid at the top. If you don't go to such events, if
you remain pure and honest, you are confined to the rather small
ghetto of the peace-and-justice camp.

I decided to participate, and as one of my friends told me: "We got
there, and when Peres starts speechifying, we hold our noses and
avoid the stench."

In any case and unfortunately, a real just peace, a really lasting
solution, may only be reached after much more blood is spilt, maybe
25,000 more Israeli dead and about three times as many Palestinians.
In the meantime, one must evolve and disseminate a non-Zionist
Israeli ethos for the future, an alternative code of beliefs and
behavior that is both humanist and practical.

And continue fighting for Justice and human rights wherever they are
violated.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2004/3122max_ghilan.html