sheds sunshine on facts based on historical narratives.
Resurrecting the Pakistan-Afghanistan Confederation
‘The Israeli Connection’
By Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Reply by Stanley Hoffmann
In response to The ‘War for Washington’
(October 8, 1987)
To the Editors:
Stanley Hoffmann, in his review of The Israeli Connection [NYR, October 8], managed to spell my name correctly eight of nine times, and I am grateful for that. When it comes to more substantive aspects of the text, however, Hoffmann’s reading does not reach the same standard of fidelity. Let me illustrate:
1. Hoffmann presents the book as examining “Israel’s arms dealings throughout the world,” and then suggests that “financial considerations—the enormous contribution made by arms sales to the Israeli balance of payment” may account for them. Most of the events described in The Israeli Connection are not “arms dealings” or “arms sales,” and cannot be explained on any economic grounds.
A few questions about events which are covered in the book:
Was the Israeli involvement in the Algerian war for independence (on the French side, of course) based on financial considerations?
Was Israeli aid to the Kurdish rebellion against Iraq based on economics?
Was Israeli aid to the Idi Amin coup in Uganda based on profit considerations?
Was Israeli support for the Marcos regime based on prospects for financial gain?
Do Israeli military advisers and secret police operatives in South Africa represent a financial investment?
Numerous additional examples are found in the text, and they demonstrate quite clearly that the book is about a lot more than “arms sales.”
2. The book does not cover just Israeli involvement with “Eden Pastora’s contras,” but Israeli support for all contra groups, especially those under the command of Enrique Bermudez.
3. The book does not suggest that Israel is a “surrogate of the US.” It did not act as a US surrogate in Algeria, Uganda, Ethiopia, Turkey, Morocco, Zaire, South Africa, and many other places. Israel has its own foreign policy, but is certainly a “strategic asset” and a valuable ally of the US, especially when it comes to covert operations.
4. Hoffmann complains that the term “the Third World” is never examined. The book’s index provides us with twenty-five items related to the “Third World,” including a definition. This definition (on pages 176–177) is specific enough to include measures of life expectancy and per capita income.
5. A word which most annoys defenders of Zionism, like Stanley Hoffmann, is “colonialism.” You can say anything about Zionism, as long as you don’t use the forbidden word, which, as it happens, describes the situation pretty well. Hoffmann’s defense is that “most Zionists, unlike colonialists, did not aim at dominating the ‘natives’—in this instance, the Arabs. Zionism’s flaw was its ignorance or neglect of the effects its own brand of nationalism was bound to have on displaced Palestinian Arabs or on Arab residents subjected to Jewish rule.”
Colonialism is a system under which, in a defined territory, nonnatives are entitled to political rights which natives are denied. That is exactly what Zionism had in mind in regard to the natives (without quotation marks) of Palestine and that is exactly what we have today in Israel. Under the Israeli system of government, a Mr. Cohen from Brooklyn (provided he can qualify as “Jewish”) has more rights than any Palestinian native the moment he steps off the plane at Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. The same Mr. Cohen (provided he can qualify as “white”) will have more rights than any black native of South Africa, if he decides to settle in South Africa and lands at Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg. This may be one source of the solidarity between Israel and South Africa, which Hoffmann mentions.
It is true that Zionism did not seek to dominate the natives. It simply wanted to displace them and replace them with settlers. This system is known as settler colonialism. In settler colonialism, the native population is removed, to make room for settlers and their new society. The basic principle used to justify it in both Israel and South Africa is the definition of some natives as foreigners and some foreigners as the real natives. That is how we came to have displaced Palestinian Arabs. This system has nothing to do with the occupied territories. It exists in Israel in its pre-1967 borders, in Tel Aviv, and in the Galilee. It is just possible that using such forbidden words as “colonialism” may get us further in understanding why most Israelis don’t want to go back to the old borders, and why they feel a certain empathy for South Africans.
6. Hoffmann has decided to ignore one explanatory chapter in The Israeli Connection (titled “Israel as Pariah and as Model”), which points to the similarity between Israeli involvements in the Third World and those of other nations, such as South Africa, Taiwan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Brunei. This is one of the questions raised by the Iran-contra affair. Not only Israel is supporting the contras, but also several other countries which are far removed from Central America. The questions about Israeli involvement can be asked about South Korea and Saudi Arabia, and may yield instructive answers.
I invite interested readers to examine the text of The Israeli Connection and judge for themselves what the book really says, and how well.
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
New York City
Israeli scholar, professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, in his controversial book, The Israeli Connection, wrote about Zionists’ hatred toward the Muslim World and their support for anti-Muslim insugencies and covert military and intelligence operations to destablize Muslim countries, especially which don’t recognize Jewish settler colonization of Arab lands. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi cites Israeli involvement in Iran-Contra affair, helping French colonists during Algerian War of Independence, aiding Idi Amin’s military coup in Uganda, aiding Kurdish and Shia rebellions against Saddam Hussein regime, support for Marcos’ fascism against Moro Muslim resistance, support for Burmese and Chinese genocide of Muslim minorities, and many others.
In 1968, Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi gave birth to country’s first foreign ’espionage and terrorist’ organization known as the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Indira Gandhi adised RAW’s chief, R.N. Kao, to establish freindly relations with its Israeli counter-part, MOSSAD.
Charles Ferndale in his February 2009 article, titled The Great Game revisited, wrote: “In order to maintain its dominence in the region, Israel has for years set about destablising any Muslim country that poses threat to its dominance. Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons and Israel is within range. So Pakistan must be weakened to the point at which it ceases to operate militarily as a nation. Pakistan is supposed to be West’s foremost ally to fight against Islamic militancy, so Israel cannot attack Pakistan directly, and, if Israel did, she certaily would be defeated. So what to do? Well, two stages come to mind; one use America to attack Pakistan for you; and two, train and send into the border regions of Pakistan gangs of thugs willing to commit atrocities that then will be blamed on ‘barbaric Muslim militants’ – suggesting that Pakistan has lost control of its territory to dangerous extremists and so may lose control of its nuclear weapons.” The insurgency in Swat being the latest example of that Israeli strategy.
Former Chief of Pakistani intelligent agency, Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI), Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul (1987-89), was recently interviewed by Jeremy R. Hammond, the editor of Foreign Policy Journal (a pro-Israeli propaganda outlet). Jeremy repeated the same out-dated Zionist propaganda rhetorics – 9/11, terrorism, anti-Americanism within Muslim World, Pakistan’s internal problems and its bad relations with its neighboring India and Afghanistan. Jeremy showed his cunningness by asking Hamid Gul about his views on 9/11 – knowing that Hamid Gul had stated his views in an interview just two weeks after 9/11 – on September 26, 2001 – In which he blamed Israeli MOSSAD and the pro-Israeli American officials for pulling 9/11. He repeated his claims during an interview with Alex Jones last year.
The General told Jeremy that he has not been in contact with Taliban or Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden since he retired from Pakistan Army in 1992. He told Jeremy that 9/11 was an inside job, which gave Washington an excuse to attack Muslim countries to exploit their natural resources. He also told Jeremy that it was Indian RAW and Israeli MOSSAD, who were not only behind Mumbai terrorist attacks last year – but with the help of American are trying to destablize Pakistan for being the only Muslim nuclear power and the lucrative Afghan drug trade – which according to UNDOC World Drug Report 2009 is more than US$400 billion annual business.
Calling the 9/11 commission as a cover-up, Hamid Gul said: “I think the American people have been made fool of. I have my sympathies with them. I like Amercans. I like America. I appreciate them. I have gone there several times.” Hamid Gul is banned from entering both Britain and the US.
“The invasion of Afghanistan was never meant to capture Osama Bib Laden – as stated by George Bush, General Tommy Franks, and the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, Richard Myers. The purpose was to reach the oil fields of Caspian Sea. The invasion was to control increasing Chinese influence in the region and provide a wider security shield for Israel (from Islamic regime’s increasing influence in the Middle East). They were drawing the new Middle East map for the domination of Israel.”
jeremy rhammond // August 19, 2009 at 1:54 am | Log in to Reply
1) Calling FPJ a “a pro-Israeli propaganda outlet” is hilarious. I invite readers to go to http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com and search “Israel” and see what kind of articles come up, to see for themselves how laughable this is.
2) “Jeremy showed his cunningness by asking Hamid Gul about his views on 9/11″
False. In fact, I clearly write in the article, “General Gul turned our conversation to the subject of 9/11…” I asked General Gul 3 questions: 1. How do you respond to the charges of your involvement in terrorism? 2. What were the true reasons for the war in Afghanistan? 3. How is the TTP financed and supplied?
3) ““The invasion of Afghanistan was never meant to capture Osama Bib Laden – as stated by George Bush, General Tommy Franks, and the Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, Richard Myers. The purpose was to reach the oil fields of Caspian Sea. The invasion was to control increasing Chinese influence in the region and provide a wider security shield for Israel (from Islamic regime’s increasing influence in the Middle East). They were drawing the new Middle East map for the domination of Israel.””
This entire quote is a fabrication. The quotation marks should be removed, since this is the author’s own paraphrase, not a direct quote from my article.
I invite people to read the actual interview for themselves: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/12/ex-isi-chief-says-purpose-of-new-afghan-intelligence-agency-rama-is-%E2%80%98to-destabilize-pakistan%E2%80%99/
This blog post is an embarrassment.
rehmat1 // August 19, 2009 at 2:39 am | Log in to Reply
Jeremy for your information I read not long ago Richard N. Haass making a similar laughable claim that his Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent think tank – which makes recommendations on foreign relations – “which if one likes it; it’s good – and if one doesn’t like it we don’t force it”. Now, anyone, who read between the lines to see the Islamophobe agenda of aricles, mostly written by Zionist Jews.
I believe in freedom of speech – for others to cover the truth under journalist lies and for me to expose those hidden anti-Muslim agenda.
Let us keep our interests on the table – shall we!
jeremy rhammond // August 19, 2009 at 6:14 am | Log in to Reply
Perhaps you’d care to address my comments, which I’ll reiterate in brief for you:
1) FPJ is highly critical of Israeli crimes and U.S. support for Israeli violations of international law. To suggest FPJ is a “pro-Israeli propaganda outlet” is a farce. I challenge you to try to provide evidence for that claim.
2) You stated in error that I asked General Gul about his views of 9/11. I don’t know what you were trying to insinuate in doing so, but you should at least get your facts straight.
3) You put the second to last paragraph in quotes. This is not a quote from General Gul, but your own paraphrase. The quotation marks should be removed.
rehmat1 // August 19, 2009 at 10:15 am | Log in to Reply
Mirrior, mirroe – Who is the ugliest one the world?
1. There is a great difference between “critical of some actions of an colonial power and calling it what it really is – a parasite site created by the western ZOG to solve their centuries-old “Jewish Problem”. Professor Chomsky is very critical of the Zionist-regime, but did he ever demanded that European Zionazi should be extradited to their European ancestral motherlands and the pre-1948 Palestine should be return to its native Muslim, Christian and Jewish inhabitants? Hey, what the heck – even Israel disinformation outlets such as MEMRI, Wikipedia, S.I.T.E., CFR, etc. too sometime have criticized Zionist fascism.
2.”But what, I asked General Gul, in his view, were the true reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan, and why the U.S. is still there?”
3. Really, what you think Hamid Gul was trying to tell you instead, eh! And BTW – did you read and understood rest of my article instead of playing famous Israeli Hasbara trick: “Jimmy Carter is anti-Semite and a Jew-hater…” Now, Israelis have bestowed that title on Obama. That’s called “character assassination and not dialogues”, O’ the great journalist.
“It is essential that we strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans,” – David Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of the Zionist entity.
Filed under: Current Affairs, Pak CA, Politics, US CA, US Int Rel., US Poli | Tagged: sabotage of Pakistan
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come to cut out what remains,
Just roll to your rifle, and blow out your brains.
And go to your God like a soldier. Rudyard Kipling author of "White Man's Burden"
Modi & Hindu fundamentalist Modi in “India” funded by US Gujaratis
