A+ A A-


Website URL:

The following is the bottom one-third-plus of the MLK Conspiracy Trial
Transcript, Volume 9, from November 30th, 1999, the source for which is at:

                      Testimony of Mr. William Schaap,
            attorney, military and intelligence specialization,
                   co-publisher Covert Action Quarterly,
                   on the role of the U.S. Government in
                  the assassination of Martin Luther King

                 MLK Conspiracy Trial Transcript - Volume 9
                             November 30, 1999

     Vs. Case No. 97242-4 T.D.
     November 30th, 1999
     Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen,
     Division 4, Judge presiding.
     Suite 2200, One Commerce Square
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     (901) 529-1999
     (901) 529-1999

     For the Plaintiffs:
     Attorney at Law
     575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006
     New York, New York 10022
     (212) 605-0515
     For the Defendant:
     Attorney at Law
     100 North Main Street, Suite 1025
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     (901) 527-6445
     Reported by:
     Registered Professional Reporter
     Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski,
     Richberger & Weatherford
     2200 One Commerce Square
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     (901) 529-1999

     - INDEX -
     . . .
     Direct Examination
     By Mr. Pepper --------------- 1299
     24 --------------- 1265 (Collective)
     25 --------------- 1271
     26 --------------- 1275
     27 --------------- 1286
     28 --------------- 1304

     MR. PEPPER: Plaintiffs call Mr. William Schaap to the stand.

     WILLIAM SCHAAP, Having been first duly sworn, was examined and
     testified as follows:


     Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Schaap.

     A. Good afternoon.

     Q. Would you state your full name and address for the record,

     A. My name is William Schaap. My address is 143 West Fourth
     Street, New York, New York.

     Q. Could you give us a summary of your professional background,

     THE COURT: Before you do that, spell your last name.

     THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. S C H A A P.

     THE COURT: Thank you.

     A. I'm an attorney. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law
     School in 1964. I've been a practicing lawyer since then. And I'm
     a member of the bar of the State of New York and of the District
     of Columbia. I specialized in the 1970's in military law. I
     practiced military law in Asia and Europe. I later became the
     editor in chief of the Military Law Reporter in Washington for a
     number of years. And in the 70's and 80's I was staff counsel of
     the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City.

     I also in the late 1980's was an adjunct professor at John J.
     College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York
     where I taught courses on propaganda and disinformation.

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Have you also been involved in journalism and

     A. Yes, I have. Since 1977 or '78, in addition to being a
     practicing lawyer, I've also been a journalist and a publisher and
     a writer specializing in intelligence-related matters and
     particularly their relationship to the media. For more than 20
     years I've been the co-publisher of a magazine called the Covert
     Action Quarterly which particularly deals with reporting on
     intelligence agencies, primarily U.S. agencies but also foreign.

     I published a magazine for a number of years called Lies Of Our
     Times which specifically was a magazine about propaganda and
     disinformation. And I've been the managing director of the
     Institute for Media Analysis for a number of years. I also, for
     about 20 years now, I think, was one of the principals in a
     publishing company called Sheraton Square Press that published
     books and pamphlets relating to intelligence and the media.

     Q. Do you also write? Have you authored articles and works?

     A. Yes, I do. I've written, oh, dozens of articles on --
     particularly on media and intelligence. I've edited about seven or
     eight books on the subject. I've contributed sections to a number
     of other books and had -- I've -- many of my articles, of course,
     have appeared in my own -- our own publications, but I've also had
     articles appear around the world including New York Times,
     Washington Post and major media like -- like those.

     I've appeared a lot on radio and television as an expert on
     intelligence and the media. I'm slowing down a bit now because I'm
     getting older. But I used to do a lot of speaking at universities
     and colleges around the country and debating government officials
     and people connected to organizations that supported the CIA and
     the other -- FBI and the other intelligence agencies.

     Q. Have you ever testified as an expert witness in the area of
     governmental use of media for disinformation and propaganda?

     A. Yes, I have. I've -- I've testified as an expert in that field
     in both state and federal courts in this country. I've testified
     in foreign courts. I testified once before the United Nations on
     that subject and once before the U.S. Congress.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, I'm going to show you a copy of a -- of your own
     CV. It's a summary of your professional qualifications. I want you
     to confirm its accuracy.

     A. Yes, that's -- that's my CV that I prepared.

     MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, we move admission of Mr. Schaap's CV and
     move that he be accepted as an expert witness in the matter at
     hand for the issues of government use of media or disinformation
     and propaganda purposes.

     THE COURT: Objections?

     MR. GARRISON: I have no objection.

     THE COURT: All right. (Whereupon said document was marked as Trial
     Exhibit Number 28.)

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, in the course of your research,
     have you had occasion to study the use of the media by government

     A. Yes, I have. I've studied many government reports on the
     subject. Many, many books have been written about it and articles.
     In fact, I've written many of those articles.

     Q. Can you give the Court and the Jury a brief summary of the
     subject indicating the extent to which this type of activity by
     government still takes place?

     A. Yes, I can. I -- I won't go into ancient history, but it should
     be noted that -- that governments around the world have secretly
     used the media for their purposes for many hundreds of years,
     probably thousands. But certainly from the 16th and 17th century
     in England on there has been a great deal of research about the
     use by governments -- a secret use of the media.

     For our purposes though, the -- particularly relating to the U.S.,
     the most significant and the first major deliberate program in
     this country was during World War I when President Wilson set up
     an organization called the Committee For Public Information under
     a public relations executive -- a man named George Creole. The
     purpose of this committee was to propagandize the war effort
     against Germany. This was created immediately after the U.S.
     entered World War I in 1917. And in propagandizing the war effort
     and war news, it was the policy of this committee to have no
     compunctions about falsifying the news whenever it was felt that
     that was necessary to help the war effort.

     Q. Can you give us an example of the type of falsification of the
     news that you're talking about.

     A. Yes. They -- the Committee For Public Information purported
     very often to release documents, supposedly genuine documents, to
     the press in order to substantiate whatever particular position
     the -- the Wilson government might have been taking at the time.
     And one of the most famous that happened early in its creation in
     1917 was a disinformation campaign to suggest that the Russian
     revolutionaries, Lenin in particular and Trotsky, were actually
     German agents being paid by the Kaiser.

     The Government and Creole's committee made up the story. They made
     up -- created phony documents. They passed it all to friends in
     the major newspapers. And almost immediately this was front page
     news around the United States and around the world.

     Q. I'm going to show you a New York Times headline of that era and
     see if that's the kind of falsification you're talking about.

     A. Yes, this is -- the rest of the text is from an article where
     that headline appeared. But that was on the front page of the New
     York Times in 1917. And later it transpired that the documents
     were -- were forgeries that had been created by Mr. Creole. And,
     of course, it was obvious by the current course of history, the
     Russian revolutionaries were hardly friends of the Kaiser.

     Q. Yes, indeed.

     A. Much less employees.

     Q. Can you continue with your summary, please.

     A. Yes. After World War I, the U.S. continued to be the -- or
     actually became the world's leader in the control of information.
     Britain had been more pre-eminent before World War I. But at the
     end of the war, the U.S. was really in control of all the world
     communication media. And disinformation was used by the government
     sporadically during the inter-war years. It was particularly used
     in the red scares of the 1920's and the creation of disinformation
     suggesting various opponents of the government were communists.

     But it wasn't a major aspect of government policy until the advent
     of World War II. And that was when deliberate disinformation or a
     structure for emitting deliberate disinformation became very, very

     Q. What happened at that point in history to bring about that

     A. Well, at the very beginning of World War II there were really
     two schools of thought competing, both of which had government
     agencies. One that was set up was called the Office of War
     Information which was a civilian organization although it worked
     closely with the War Department, as it was then called. And it was
     headed by a man named Elmer Davis who was a very famous reporter
     -- journalist.

     His philosophy was that the agency should tell the American people
     exactly what was happening -- tell them the truth. If we lost a
     battle somewhere in Europe or the Pacific, we should tell the
     people we lost that battle. If we won a battle, we'd tell them we
     won it. But he believed that in the long run we would do best by
     reporting the truth.

     But at the same time another key organization that developed
     during World War II was the Office of Strategic Services, the OSS,
     which was headed by a military man, William Donovan, who was known
     as Wild Bill Donovan, who believed the saying that George Creole
     had -- his philosophy from World War I, which was that you should
     lie to the people whenever it's necessary, whenever you think
     lying will help maintain morale and win the war.

     This struggle was taking place, of course, in the context of World
     War II. And Donovan won both with President Roosevelt and
     afterward with President Truman. His philosophy that
     disinformation was a powerful -- a valuable weapon for a country
     to have, and that the disadvantages of lying to the American
     people were outweighed by the advantages of being able to
     manipulate the media.

     So when the war was over, the Office of War Information was
     dissolved. The OSS was transformed into the CIA. And the CIA was
     now existing in peace time, mind you. World War II is over, and
     now the CIA is set up with this information as a major part of its
     work and, in fact, as most of the reports later pointed out, the
     largest single part of the CIA's operations.

     The -- within the government at least, the acceptability of lying
     to the public became very widespread and acceptable even in time
     of peace. There had been people who felt, well, it's one thing
     when you're at war. But even in time of peace it became
     acceptable, and it spread from other agencies, including the --
     the FBI which also began to engage in media manipulation in a
     very, very large way.

     Q. So in addition to being a war time strategy with respect to the
     security of the nation and the -- the promulgation of -- of
     falsehoods in times of war, this tactic started to be used in
     peace time.

     A. Exactly. That was the major difference. Certain things were --
     were much more acceptable or expected over the course of history
     in time of war and were generally supposed to stop when the war
     was over. Now, there were people who argued in the late 40's that
     the Cold War was a war just like a hot war, and that was the war
     that was on, and that was why we had to do this.

     But what really happened is there were not battles being waged
     between soldiers. There was not a hot war going on anywhere, and
     yet the -- the infrastructure that had been set up to spread
     disinformation to be able to lie became institutionalized and
     became operating at a greater and greater level.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, how is it that some individuals like yourself have
     become more aware of these kinds of practices in our lifetimes
     while the mass of the population has not?

     A. Well, it's mostly because -- by coincidence there were a number
     of factors that came together, mostly in the 1970's, leading to
     major congressional investigations of these activities leading
     some newspapers to fund serious in-depth investigative reports.
     And in the middle and late 70's there were a series -- a huge
     series of congressional reports on intelligence activities, a
     whole section of which was devoted to media activities.

     And then there were major exposes in the New York Times and the
     Washington Post. It was sort of the Watergate mentality, I guess,
     that allowed this to happen. There was a window of a few years
     when exposing government misconduct, particularly past government
     misconduct -- and as far as the government was concerned, the
     older the better. But at least there was a window of opportunity
     where this was acceptable even within the mainstream, the
     establishment press. It was not frowned upon as much as it might
     have been at other times both before and since.

     Q. Before we go into some specific instances of this and details,
     can you explain to the Court and Jury really how does
     disinformation work? And why is it so -- why is it so successful?

     A. Well, you have to understand first the target of propaganda --
     of disinformation. The consumer of the false news so to speak is
     -- in what we're talking about is the American public in general
     and sometimes the public overseas. Disinformation is almost always
     by -- by definition, about things that the average person has no
     separate personal knowledge of, otherwise it couldn't really work.
     I mean, you can't fool the people you're talking about. You can
     fool the other people who don't know about it. You're not trying
     to fool the people you're talking about.

     The simplest example is during the Vietnam War when there was a
     massive bombing campaign and the U.S. was bombing Cambodia.
     President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger repeatedly made
     public statements that we were not dropping bombs in Cambodia.
     Well, you couldn't fool the Cambodians who looked up and saw the
     bombs falling in their back yard. They knew you were bombing
     Cambodia. But the American people by and large accepted these
     statements as truth, and in fact that was a disinformation
     campaign that was later admitted.

     You're -- really we're talking about things that the public has no
     separate knowledge of. And it's also reinforced by the fact that
     Americans generally tend to believe what their government tells
     them, to believe that government officials on all levels generally
     tell the truth. And that -- if you have that, that absence of
     skepticism, it's a major plus for the disinformationists.

     And, also, it's very, very unusual around the world other than in
     the United States. In most other countries, particularly in
     Europe, it's much more the opposite. People tend on average to be
     very skeptical of their government. If the Italian government
     issues a statement, the average Italian on the street will say
     it's probably a lie until you can prove to me otherwise that it's
     not a lie. Because governments lie. That's what they -- you know,
     they sort of expect them to do that whereas Americans don't expect

     The average American would hear something from the government or
     hear the news on television and assumes that what they're hearing
     is the truth unless they're shown otherwise. They assume that
     almost nothing is ever a conspiracy. In Europe it's very much the
     opposite. Anything happens. They tend to think it's a conspiracy
     unless you show them that it wasn't a conspiracy.

     I mean, after all, "conspiracy" just means, you know, more than
     one person being involved in something. And if you stop and think
     about it, almost everything significant that happens anywhere
     involves more than one person. Yet here there is a -- not a myth
     really, but there's just an underlying assumption that most things
     are not conspiracies. And when you have that, it enables a
     government which has a propaganda program, has a disinformation
     program, to be relatively successful in -- in having its
     disinformation accepted.

     The other reason why it -- why it works even though as we -- as we
     know, somewhere there are people who know it's not true. Somewhere
     they know you're lying about something. But another reason it
     works is that disinformation is very, very effective over time.
     The longer that you, whoever you are, can control the spin on a
     story, the more that spin becomes accepted as the absolute truth.
     And in this country the government has a great deal of power and
     influence over that spin.

     Q. Why is it so effective over time?

     A. Well, this is an area where I had to consult with other experts
     because it turns out really to be a neurological function. And
     that was first explained to me by a -- a professor at Harvard
     Medical School. And it has to do with the way the human brain
     remembers things, the way we learn things, the way we create
     patterns and associations and reinforce -- well, I don't know how
     you -- it sort of like channels in the brain when certain things
     trigger certain collateral thoughts.

     And when you associate one thing with another over time, just the
     mention of the one brings the association of the other. What this
     will sometimes mean is that even when something is later exposed
     as a lie, if it was accepted as a truth for a long time, the
     exposure of it as a lie is not believed. It's in one ear and out
     the other.

     The best example that we know in my field is one that John
     Stockwell reported on. He was a CIA officer in Angola -- for
     Angola. But they were based -- the CIA station was based in the
     Congo. And when the Cuban troops were sent in to help the Angolans
     fight the South Africans during the early and mid 70's, the CIA's
     task was to try to discredit the Cubans and do whatever it could
     to make people around the world think it was a terrible thing that
     the Cubans were helping the Angolans.

     So Stockwell's group in Congo sat down, and one guy says to the
     other guy, let's think of something terrible to say that the
     Cubans did. And another guy says, hey, why don't we say they're
     raping Angolan women. That would be a great thing to say. The
     other guy says, terrific. And they call in their media experts,
     and they start sitting there at their desk at the CIA office and
     they start typing out these news stories about how a group of
     Cuban soldiers raped a bunch of Angolan women in some operation.
     And then they write Story Number 2 which is that the villagers got
     incensed and decided they didn't want the Cubans anymore, and they
     were going to find the fellows who did it and arrest them. And in
     Story Number 3 the villagers captured the Cubans. In Story Number
     4 they were tried by a jury of the women victims and they were
     later executed with their own weapons.

     And they made a series of about 12 newspaper stories in a row. And
     with one phone call and one visit, it went over the wire services,
     it went into Europe, it went into the United States, it went
     around the world. And for about a six-month period there were all
     these stories about the horrible Cuban rapes in Angola. And what
     that does is when you hear -- the average person hears Angola or
     Cuban, they'll think rape of the women. And if they hear rape of
     the women, they will think Angola or Cubans. And if you get
     Angola, they'll think Cubans and rape of the women.

     And these patterns build up so that that becomes the truth
     embedded in your mind. Four years later John Stockwell quit the
     CIA and wrote a book exposing it. Wrote a big piece for the New
     York Times about how the entire Cuban/Angola story was a
     fabrication. And he sat there at the desk typing it. And the day
     after that story appeared, there was still 900 million people
     around the world who thought the phony story was true.

     Because when year, after year, after year you hear that something
     was the case, one story -- one day saying, hey, the whole thing
     was a lie, and it doesn't register on their brain. It can't beat
     those -- those patterns that have been built up.

     Q. Let's go back now taking an example -- let's go back now to the
     general area of intelligence because all of this activity is
     useless unless there's a structure into which it fits and into
     which it can be put out. Can you deal with the kind of structure
     of media operations that puts out this kind of disinformation. How
     extensive is it?

     A. Yes. We can be -- we have a lot of information about the CIA.
     We have a certain amount of information about the FBI, a certain
     amount about military intelligence. And the reason for this is
     because there were those congressional investigations that I
     mentioned before. There have been reports published, particularly
     from the Church Committee in the late 70's, where they published
     volume after volume describing the extent of media operations by
     the CIA and -- and other agencies.

     They -- the exact amounts of money that were being spent were --
     were not divulged by those initial reports because that was
     considered to be classified. The intelligence budgets are always
     classified except at the same time every few weeks you'll read
     something in the newspaper where they say, the classified budget,
     which is approximately 25 billion dollars, and so on and so on and
     so forth.

     So what we -- what we have learned from these reports is that --
     the first thing was that about a third of the whole CIA budget
     went to media propaganda operations.

     Q. Well, if a third of the CIA's budget went to media propaganda
     operations, how much would that be approximately?

     A. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars a year just
     for that. I mean, the intelligence budget -- now everything
     together is according to these -- all these reports that say it's
     secret, but it's about 25 to 30 billion dollars a year.

     Now, a lot of that is high-tech stuff. It has nothing to do with
     what we're talking about -- satellites and so on. But the stuff
     that goes to the CIA is several billion. And when you factor out
     overhead and things like that, you have got your operational
     amount. Most of the estimates suggest that -- that hundreds of
     billion -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- close to a billion
     dollars are being spent every year by the United States on secret

     Again, we have fairly good figures for the CIA because it at least
     has been admitted in the past that they did do this stuff. They
     admit they do it now except they say they don't do it within the
     United States. But they admit that that's part of what they do.

     The FBI is much harder to -- to get figures for because they don't
     generally admit to conducting media operations. And unless and
     until something gets exposed and they have to admit that
     particular operation, they -- they deny to an extent where it's
     really hard to try and estimate how much money is being used by
     the FBI and by the military intelligence agencies.

     But it's sort of clear that hundreds of millions of dollars a year
     are being spent by various aspects of the government on
     deliberately creating and spreading lies.

     Q. Before we get into the specifics of media operations related to
     the Martin Luther King case and James Earl Ray, can you give us --
     just to finish the background, can you give us some idea of the
     influence that the CIA and the FBI have had over the media.

     A. Yes. Again, this was something that very specific figures came
     out in the 70's and 80's, and we don't know the precise figures.
     Today we have no reason to think that they are significantly less
     than when they came out. But when the Church Committee reported on
     the CIA media operations, for example, beyond friends in the
     press, beyond having people who were just generally -- thought
     along similar lines, it turned out that they had thousands of
     journalists in their employ. Not merely friendly, not merely
     agents, not merely someone you could pass a story to, but people
     who might have appeared to the outside world to be a reporter for
     CBS was in fact a CIA employee getting a salary from the CIA.

     And that was repeated thousands of times all around the world.
     They also owned outright, the CIA -- about that time 250 or more
     media organizations. That's wire services, newspapers, magazines,
     radio, TV stations -- all around the world that they owned
     outright. The actual shareholder of the company turned out to be
     some CIA front.

     The Church Committee, unfortunately, did not name very many of
     these organizations because those that got named, of course, had
     to close down immediately. But it was learned that -- even things
     like the Rome Daily American, which was a major English language
     newspaper in Rome, for 20 or 30 years had been owned by the CIA.
     This was published and, of course, the paper closed the next day.

     But most people didn't realize the extent of the intelligence
     media organization. It's fairly incredible. They sort of brag
     about it. When you read the books about the history of the CIA,
     one of the heroes was the first man in charge of media operations,
     a man named Frank Wisner. And they referred to his organization as
     the Mighty Wurlitzer. And there's this image of this guy sitting
     at one of those giant organs, you know, with seventeen keyboards
     and you're playing this -- sort of like The Phantom of the Opera
     in that scene, and there was the guy running the CIA media
     operations all around the world. And he really was because every
     single city of any size on earth, he had some employee who was --
     supposedly worked for a newspaper or a magazine or a radio station
     or a wire service, and they could get stories anywhere.

     Q. Can you give just one or two more specific examples.

     A. Yes. There was one -- actually in an article that was published
     written by a former CIA officer named James Willcot, who was not
     in the propaganda division, he was in finance. But he was so
     amazed he wrote a little article about this. And he was stationed
     in Japan one time when there was a big debate raging there over
     whether nuclear power ships should be able to dock in Japanese
     ports. It's been a very touchy issue -- at least since Hiroshima
     it's been a very touchy issue in Japan -- even peaceful uses of
     nuclear power.

     And the U.S. line was to promote the docking of nuclear power
     ships because the U.S. had more and more of them. So they wanted
     the Japanese papers to editorialize in favor of this in the debate
     that was going on.

     And Jim said he looked and he saw this guy at a nearby desk sit
     down and type -- this is a CIA officer, an employee of the U.S.
     Government -- type an editorial and then wave goodbye to
     everybody, left the office. The next morning that appeared as the
     editorial -- the lead editorial in the largest newspaper in Japan.
     Now, that level -- they didn't go to a friendly publisher and say,
     gee, we would sort of like it if you could maybe do something a
     little bit favorable to this issue. They wrote the editorial, they
     handed it to the guy. And the next day in Japanese it appears in
     the paper.

     Another thing showing the influence here in this country was
     during the Vietnam War. I don't know if -- well, some people
     might. People my age will remember it. There was -- Life magazine
     that had a cover picture of a North Vietnamese stamp that showed
     the Vietnamese shooting down American planes. And it showed U.S.
     planes with U.S. markings being burst into flames and crashing and
     U.S. pilots being killed. And it was a pretty bizarre and gruesome
     set of postage stamps.

     And there was a whole story in there basically trying to give the
     line that the Vietnamese were glorifying the killing of Americans.
     And they thought it was so great to kill Americans that they were
     putting it on their postage stamps. The only thing that was later
     learned is that these were not North Vietnamese stamps. They were
     CIA forgeries. Had never been real stamps. And the CIA was able to
     have them appear on the cover of Life magazine as if they were the
     real thing.

     That level of influence is something that many people don't
     realize. And when you read the congressional reports, page after
     page after page, it's absolutely astonishing how, given the
     urgency and given that they have hundreds of millions of dollars
     at their command, they could get almost anything to appear almost

     Q. What about the FBI and domestic propaganda?

     A. Well, the FBI, there's much less documentation, again, because
     the official position is that the FBI doesn't do this. Whereas the
     official position is the CIA does do it although they tried not to
     talk about it. But what did come out in the congressional reports
     primarily is that a major FBI division that was called the crime
     reporting division was theoretically supposed to keep track of how
     federal crimes were being reported. Why that was their business, I
     don't know. But that's what its theory was.

     But in fact what it was doing was a whole division set up to keep
     track of journalists and reporters and magazines and newspapers to
     decide who could be counted on to write stories that the FBI
     wanted written, who would slant stories the way they wanted it.

     The question of whether these particular reporters were actually
     FBI employees, like so many were CIA employees, is unclear. That's
     never been admitted by the government that the FBI actually took
     its own employees and had them get a job as a correspondent on the
     newspaper, whereas we know the CIA did that in many, many places.
     There's no reason to think they couldn't have done it other than
     the fact that it hasn't yet been -- been exposed.

     But in any event, there were significant pressures available to
     the FBI to -- to use their friends. And the Church Committee
     report gives -- gives many, many examples -- copies of memos from
     Hoover on down where there would be a thing attached and say, get
     this information to our friends at the Copely News Service, get
     this information to our friends at Reader's Digest, get this to
     our friendly AP reporter and so on.

     And then, of course, they would show the clipping indicating that
     in fact someone had gotten it to their friends, and it would then
     go over the wires or appear in stories.

     Q. Let's turn now to the use of the media in this type of campaign
     against Martin Luther King, Jr. But before you do that, could you
     tell the Court and the Jury, what are the sources of -- underlying
     your testimony -- this aspect of it.

     A. Yes. I did a goodly amount of additional research and
     preparation and contemplation of appearing here. And there really
     are two main sources. The first, of course, is the various
     congressional reports that we have talked about. In addition to
     reports about the general operations or misconduct of the CIA or
     the FBI, there have been specific studies -- I don't know if they
     have been mentioned in this case, but there have been specific
     studies relating to Martin Luther King, Jr., both with respect to
     attacks on him while he was alive and also specific reports with
     respect to his murder.

     There was an entire volume published from one of the Senate
     investigations on the FBI media campaign against Dr. King. [See
     Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental
     Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United
     States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976, Book III, Dr.
     Martin Luther King, Jr., Case Study --ratitor] And there was a
     House Committee that published a volume investigating his
     assassination. And these, of course, are the -- the most important
     sources for what I'm talking about and what other people have
     written about because they have a great deal of government
     documentation in them which no private journalist could ever get
     their hands on.

     There are things in there that even the best of research wouldn't
     be able to obtain. But the congressional committees had subpoena
     powers and were able to amass thousands of documents, most of
     which were photocopied and attached to their reports.

     Q. For our purposes here, as well as those sources, what other
     sources have you used?

     A. Well, I've also, of course, reviewed many books that have been
     written on the subject -- hundreds of articles. And I've -- I've
     done briefcases full of clippings that were major stories written
     about Dr. King, particularly in the last few years of his life.
     And then the -- most of the coverage in the first few years of the
     James Earl Ray case. Both before and after his guilty plea there
     was intensive coverage, as you can imagine.

     And throughout the 60's and into the early 70's, there was quite a
     bit of coverage, and those clippings that I've been able to find
     I've reviewed. Some of the sporadic coverage in the 80's and 90's
     I've also been able to assemble and review, although the level of
     that coverage has decreased very much over the last decade or so.

     Q. What do the congressional reports -- if you can summarize them,
     give some instances, what do the congressional reports tell us
     about the FBI's use of the media in general but then particularly
     as it relates to Dr. King?

     A. Well, in general, the first thing they show is that throughout
     its history, the FBI has made relations with the media a key area.
     Not so much infiltrating employees as the CIA did, but cultivating
     very, very deep connections throughout the American media. They
     had the entire division of the FBI -- the crime reporting division
     was dealing solely with developing friendly journalists,
     developing ways in which you could get what you wanted to appear
     in the papers to be there and what you didn't want not to be there
     on a level that was -- nobody realized until these -- these
     reports came out.

     The crime reporting division was keeping track of virtually every
     journalist in America that wrote anything that had to do with the
     FBI. And whether everything was being classified as friendly or
     unfriendly, it -- of course, it was somewhat complicated because
     it generally meant: Did J. Edgar Hoover like what they wrote or
     not like what they wrote? And practically -- the opinion of nobody
     else at the FBI mattered while Hoover was alive.

     But he kept charts on every significant journalist as to who was
     helpful. And when you look through the reports and the documents
     that have come out, you will see statements by Hoover and his
     immediate subordinates get this information to friendly
     journalists. Get this to our friend at U.S. News and World Report.
     Get this to some friendly reporters in Memphis. And you just see
     all that sort of stuff.

     Interestingly though, this information -- it never mattered
     whether the information was true or false. That was not what it
     was about. You find FBI planting information that's true, you find
     them planting information that's false. The critical thing was if
     they had the friend at that media place, that friend was going to
     run what they wanted without investigating it.

     Q. Could you just cut through -- tell us what the Church Committee
     said about CoIntellPro reports and explain to the Court and the
     Jury what were the CoIntellPro activities.

     A. CoIntellPro was Counter Intelligence Program, and that was the
     -- the major FBI program to counter what it conceived to be
     threats to American democracy. And it was, at least in my opinion,
     rather paranoid in what it considered threats. It had divisions
     trying to operate against communists, against socialists, against
     the New Left, against the Old Left, against what they referred to
     as Black Nationalists, what they referred to as hate groups. They
     had a separate section just on the Nation of Islam. They had a
     separate section on the Civil Rights Movement. They had a hybrid
     program on CommInfil which was to deal with the possibility that
     communists were infiltrating non-communist groups.

     So they had one section trying to disrupt groups they felt were
     communist influence or dangerous, and another one trying to
     infiltrate groups or find out about groups that they thought other
     people were infiltrating.

     Basically they -- and, of course, you have to understand, "counter
     intelligence program" was really a misnomer. Because counter
     intelligence normally means you're trying to find things out.
     Counter intelligence officers in war time and in espionage are
     supposed to be finding out information. But these were active
     committees, not passive. And what counter intelligence programs
     were, were overt attempts -- sometimes very, very complicated
     operations to disrupt organizations which they felt were a threat
     regardless of whether the organizations were committing any

     I mean, the irony of this is that while the FBI theoretically was
     supposed to limit itself to investigating crimes, and federal
     crimes at that, it basically took the position that, you know,
     thinking bad thoughts was a crime. Or if you didn't like the
     current government of that day, that was a crime. And if J. Edgar
     Hoover decided the group should be disrupted, then CoIntellPro
     would sit down and figure out how to disrupt it.

     Q. Where was Dr. King in this constellation? Where did they -- how
     did they regard him? How was he targeted?

     A. Well, he was just about the top of the list in terms of J.
     Edgar Hoover for reasons that are still unclear. Many books have
     been written about J. Edgar Hoover, and I don't think anybody
     quite understands what made him tick. He hated Dr. King. He made
     no bones about it. I mean, he would -- he would send letters using
     -- referring to him as garbage, referring to him as slime.

     When Martin Luther King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he
     wrote a long diatribe about how that was the most ridiculous thing
     he ever heard of in his life, and in fact started a whole thing to
     disrupt the Nobel Peace Prize program. But he and the SCLC, as Dr.
     King's organization, were by themselves a major target of the FBI
     from early on. He certainly was being investigated in the 50's. It
     wasn't until the early 60's that it really intensified.

     But Hoover was much more public about Dr. King than almost any
     other individual. He would be public about "the communists" or
     "the terrorists" or whatever. But Martin Luther King he
     specifically used -- used the most horrendous language to describe
     him. And once went on a -- the only time he ever gave a press
     interview called him -- called Martin Luther King the most
     notorious liar in the history of the United States.

     Q. Okay.

     A. And he was saying that because King had had the temerity to say
     that the FBI agents in the south weren't being terribly helpful to
     blacks who were having problems with the racism there.

     Q. Can you give an example of some of the media operations that
     the FBI and Hoover mounted against Dr. King's organization.

     A. Sure. The first really significant ones were -- were to -- to
     suggest that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was
     communist infiltrated and communist dominated. They -- the FBI had
     prepared dossiers on King and on everybody who was working with
     him and had two people who were close to Dr. King who had at some
     time in the past had some affiliations with communists.

     You should understand, because this came out later, they had no
     evidence whatsoever that either of these two people was at that
     time a communists or that either of these two people was trying to
     impose some communist line on Dr. King, but they decided to say
     that anyway.

     And they prepared dossiers on these two -- one was a white lawyer,
     Stanley Levinson, the other was a black organizer named Jack
     O'Dell. And what they did is they -- the same way, get us a friend
     at this paper, get us a friend there. They started planting
     stories. And I think I've --

     Q. Let me -- let me --

     A. -- given you one of the key ones.

     Q. Yes, let's pull up on the stand one of the stories -- screen
     one of the stories that they planted.

     A. That's the second page. I think the headline is -- right. This
     was a major story about -- about Jack O'Dell and an attempt to --
     I mean, they were attempting to discredit Dr. King and the
     organization. They were not -- they were not trying to just get
     rid of O'Dell because that would be better for the organization.
     But they spread this -- this particular clipping, I believe, is
     from The Atlanta Constitution. But it says in it that -- it makes
     reference to prior articles in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, in
     the New Orleans Times Picayune. The story which was essentially
     based on the FBI spreading this -- this information appeared all
     over the country.

     Q. Other than a general attack, is there anything -- anything else
     significant about this -- this article?

     A. Well, actually, this is a good one because it demonstrates some
     of the techniques they used. The most significant one is being
     fuzzy whenever you can. It has -- in there it talks -- it refers
     to O'Dell and says: "Has been identified as a member of the
     National Committee of the Communist Party."

     And that -- this is sort of the passive tense to avoid saying what
     -- what you know. When you say someone has been -- you don't say
     who identified him. You don't even say whether this identification
     has been confirmed. You don't say whether it's true or false. I
     mean, you know, one person anywhere can say something about
     anybody, and then you say he has been identified as a such and

     That's very important, particularly because we -- that's in the
     present tense. It says: "Has been identified as a member of the
     communist party." We know now that at the time, when the FBI gave
     this information to its friend, they knew that was untrue. Because
     they knew -- whatever might have been ten years before, they knew
     at that time that he was not a member of the Communist Party and
     yet they sent out this information saying he has been identified
     as a member of the Communist Party.

     Q. Was this a part of a broader effort on the part of the FBI to
     discredit the Black Movement and to tie the Civil Rights Movement
     to communists generally and communist infiltration?

     A. Very much so. It was one of the -- the few instances where --
     where Hoover actually testified before Congress and allowed the
     testimony to be public. He -- the line was that the -- the Black
     Movement -- the Civil Rights Movement was being exploited by
     communists. And this particular clipping is another example --
     again, this is from the New York Times -- of this program. These
     are all -- despite the fact that many of them have bylines,
     although this one does not have a byline, these are all based on
     material packets -- press packets almost that were prepared by the
     FBI and given to their -- to their friends in these -- in these

     And in this case, it's even more significant because this was part
     of a campaign that was so organized that Hoover got his friends to
     write stories about it before his testimony became public so that
     when the testimony then became public, as it did for this one,
     people would know about it. One of his very, very close friends
     was Stewart -- Joseph Alsop, who was a syndicated national
     columnist back then. And this was Alsop's column about the
     terribly sad fact that the Civil Rights Movement in America was
     totally being run by the communists.

     This, again, was based on whatever the FBI handed him and asked
     him to publish. This was just one week before the other story
     where the -- where the testimony became public.

     Q. There was an escalating battle between Hoover's FBI and Martin
     Luther King's SCLC and the Civil Rights and then anti-war
     activities. What -- how did it intensify from the standpoint of
     media operations against Dr. King?

     A. Well, the first real escalation was in sixty -- in late '64
     when I mentioned before that Hoover gave a press conference and
     called King the most notorious liar in the country. This was sort
     of a -- it was shocking that he said it, it was shocking that he
     said it in the context of a public meeting with journalists. And
     it appeared all over the country. And the whole conference was
     reprinted in U.S. News and World Report with a short response from
     -- from Dr. King.

     That was the start of -- of a campaign which continued right up
     until -- until King's death. I mentioned before that during the
     Nobel Peace Prize period of time this was in -- the nomination was
     in late '64, and he received it in January of '65. Hoover had the
     FBI do everything they could to minimize -- he couldn't stop the
     Swedish and Norwegian governments from giving him the prize. But
     he did everything that he could to try to stop it from being
     honored here.

     There was a major banquet in Dr. King's honor in Atlanta when he
     came back from receiving the prize. Hoover got the editor of the
     Atlanta Constitution personally to go around and try and persuade
     various people not to attend the banquet. There were also a series
     of articles around this time trying to show that -- that King was
     being influenced by communists which were being -- again, we
     learned this from reports.

     The FBI, as the CIA, was actually writing the articles anonymously
     and then trying to get their friends in papers to print the
     article under somebody else's name. And there were a whole series,
     some of which actually did get printed, some of which didn't.
     There were also -- I won't go -- I mean, there are big -- hundreds
     and hundreds of pages of reports detailing all the things that the
     FBI did.

     They -- one of the most outrageous was a doctored tape recording
     that was prepared that purported to -- to be a recording of Dr.
     King engaging in raucous and possibly sexual activities with
     various people. It turned out to be -- most of it was totally
     fraudulent. And what wasn't fraudulent did not have to do with
     anything torrid going on. It was all put together. And the tape --
     in fact, the tape was originally used -- and this is one of the
     things that the House Committee found the most outrageous -- in an
     attempt to try and drive Dr. King to commit suicide.

     Shortly before he went to get the Nobel Prize, the tape was mailed
     to him with a long letter basically saying, if you don't kill
     yourself, we're going to make this public. Nothing ever happened
     because he was getting so much mail that this thing that somebody
     thought was -- somebody made a tape of one of his speeches. And
     they put it in the back room, and they didn't get to look at it
     until about nine months later, long after he had come back.

     And then they saw the note trying to get him to commit suicide.
     And then, ten years later, we discover that it was the FBI who
     wrote that note and made that tape and mailed it to Dr. King.

     THE COURT: Let's take a few seconds and stretch.

     (Brief break taken.)

     THE COURT: Bring in the Jury.

     (Jury In.)

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, you've described an awesome power
     that exists in government influenced and controlled, sometimes
     owned, media -- print, audio, visual media entities -- and how
     that infrastructure gets focused on opponents of the United States
     such as Martin Luther King.

     Do you see how this incredible power was brought against Dr. King
     and intensified against him during the last year of his life?

     A. Yes. I think the -- the main reason for that was very, very
     specific. There was one speech that Dr. King gave in April of 1967
     at Riverside Church in New York City where he came out against the
     war in Vietnam. And if you remember back to that period of time,
     this was a fundamental debate gripping every aspect of this
     country, the pros and cons of the involvement in Vietnam.

     And when Dr. King came out against the U.S. involvement there,
     this was immediately accepted by J. Edgar Hoover as proof that he
     was a communist, proof that he was a terrible person.

     Q. But didn't this have the effect of unifying all the forces --
     all of the intelligence forces of the United States, and so now
     just -- it was not just an FBI matter, but it -- it seemed to
     spread to military intelligence, central intelligence and other
     areas too, didn't it?

     A. Absolutely. Once Dr. King made that statement, the CIA in
     particular considered him and his movement fair game. Even to the
     extent that their operations were limited to foreign policy, the
     -- again, because of the congressional investigations, we know
     that the CIA, which people thought did not operate domestically
     within the U.S., had a huge domestic program called Operation
     Chaos which was designed to counter opposition to the Vietnam War.

     And even though they later admitted it was illegal and later
     admitted they shouldn't have been doing it, there have been whole
     books of congressional reports about all the Operation Chaos
     activity in the United States, and what they called Black
     Nationalists were a specific target of that -- that campaign.

     Q. Did this continue into 1968 in his activities with the
     Sanitation Workers' Strike in Memphis and planning for the Poor
     People's Campaign in Washington?

     A. Absolutely. The campaign against Dr. King's activities went up
     to the very last day of his life. In particular, on the -- his
     involvement with the strike in Memphis, the FBI decided at that
     point to try to spread stories that he was encouraging violence.
     One of the -- the key articles was in the Christian Science
     Monitor at the end of March of '68 and, again, gives all of the --
     the themes that the FBI wanted -- wanted planted, particularly
     about violence.

     The article uses bizarre language for something about a small
     strike in a medium-sized town that, you know, was something but
     was not like an earth-shaking event. This was the Sanitation
     Workers' Strike. And this story refers to it as a potentially
     cataclysmic racial confrontation. Not quite World War III, but
     along that kind of language.

     And stories that began to appear -- and this was just before Dr.
     King was killed -- were -- were suggesting that he was closely
     allied with violent forces.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, this Court and Jury has heard testimony from a
     former New York Times reporter who was told by his national editor
     -- Times reporters in this courtroom notwithstanding -- told by
     his national editor, Claude Sitton, to go to Memphis and nail Dr.
     King. Those were the words Earl Caldwell used in his testimony
     here. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

     A. Oh, absolutely. Hoover was -- you see from the memos in the
     report -- and Lord knows what we don't know and haven't seen --
     was sending people out everywhere to talk to all of their friendly
     media contacts to get King. And they would usually deliver packets
     of information, much of it false, to be used as part of the -- of
     the campaign. They also were -- used a lot of interesting tactics.

     And you see in these stories a lot of fuzzy -- I mean, the story
     that's on the screen, for example, has a sentence in it near the
     end where it says: "Many blacks have mixed feelings about Dr.
     King." I mean, this is a -- they teach you in Journalism 101 not
     to use sentences like that. What does it mean "many blacks"? Many
     -- everybody had mixed feelings about everything. If you want to
     do it, you say who has what feelings.

     But the whole thing was to try to say he's violent, he's hanging
     around with violent people, and basically the blacks in this
     country shouldn't support him.

     Q. What was this operation like -- this media blitz, this media
     disinformation campaign? What was it like after Dr. King was

     A. Well, for one thing, the attempts to discredit Dr. King --
     particularly the FBI attempts -- did not stop after his death.
     They continued to send out their little dossiers and reports and
     phony information to try and discredit his memory. They also -- in
     the beginning when, of course, the assassin had not yet been
     caught or, rather, no one yet had been caught and charged with the
     assassination, had to give the impression that the FBI was doing a
     great job.

     I mean, one of the criticisms that was unavoidable is when Hoover
     had already publicly attacked Dr. King in all these magazines and
     said he thought he was a liar and thought he was the worst problem
     facing the United States and so on, it became a problem for the
     FBI then to try and convince America that they were doing
     everything in their power to apprehend his killer. And to do that,
     they had to pull out all the stops and get all their friendly
     columnists writing story after story that they were doing
     everything they could. And also subsequently to try and add to the
     stories that they were convinced that James Earl Ray was the lone

     Q. Let me put up this article. This story relates to a Jack
     Anderson column.

     A. Yes. This is interesting for what it reveals later. This was a
     story that came out in 1975. That's actually an interesting
     example of Jack Anderson criticizing a group of people, of whom he
     fails to mention he was one at the time. It's something that
     happens often when columnists decide to clear the -- clear the

     But he was reporting at this time about how the FBI had waged the
     campaign against Dr. King, how he knew about it, how he knew about
     all these gross accusations that were being -- being handed out.
     It's -- I mean, the story is only interesting because why didn't
     he say it at the time is one's first thought. But at least he
     stayed abreast of some of it. He also was able to -- to explain
     that a number of rumors about Dr. King had been proven to be not
     true. What he didn't know at the time because the Congressional
     Report came out a little bit later -- what he didn't know is that
     even the FBI at the time they were spreading the stories when Dr.
     King was alive knew that the stories were not true.

     Q. Now, at the same time they were trying to discredit Dr. King
     and continued to discredit his name after he was killed, they were
     trying to enhance the -- the manhunt and the law enforcement work
     during that time.

     A. Yes. Not only enhance, but use hyperbole that was pretty
     bizarre. Although, of course, you can understand the pressures
     that were on them when no one had been caught. Drew Pearson, who
     was a very close friend of Hoover's, had a nationally syndicated
     column and wrote one basically designed to try and kill the rumors
     that Hoover wasn't trying hard because he didn't like King.

     And in it Pearson says he is convinced that the FBI is conducting
     perhaps the most painstaking exhaustive manhunt ever before
     undertaken in the United States. Why -- how he would know is
     beyond us, but that's clearly what Hoover told him to say. They
     also -- I don't have the clipping here. But they also had another
     one of their very close operatives, Jeremiah O'Leary, who was then
     with the Washington Star, did an article for the Reader's Digest.
     And he went one beyond Pearson and said it was the greatest
     manhunt in law enforcement history in the world. So he was now
     saying this wasn't only the greatest manhunt in America, it was
     the greatest manhunt ever, anywhere.

     There were -- there are a whole -- and, of course, when Ray was
     arrested, then there was a state of sort of self-congratulatory
     columns done by the same friends of the FBI showing what a
     wonderful job they had done.

     Q. Are there any other aspects of this coverage after Dr. King's
     death that were clearly media operations?

     A. Well, there certainly are in my opinion. At this point, once we
     get beyond the things that have been admitted in the Congressional
     Reports, I'm drawing my conclusions based on my own experience and
     expertise. But it certainly seems clear that there were media
     operations around -- not only that the FBI had done a wonderful
     job, but also on the -- the campaign to demonstrate that -- not
     only that James Earl Ray had done it, but that he had acted alone.

     Q. What are the possible operations that you actually see?

     A. Well, there -- you see in stories, again by friends of the FBI,
     statements like: It looks like the theory that there was a
     conspiracy is untrue. The FBI has exploded the theory that there
     was a conspiracy. The -- even people who had -- see, they -- they
     got caught a little bit because in the beginning they were
     planting stories that had conspiracy -- I mean, there was a story
     that the FBI planted at the very beginning saying that Dr. King
     had been killed by the husband -- by an irate husband of a lover
     of his.

     Now, later -- ten years later we saw that this was invented and
     that they had made up this story. But then they were sort of
     stuck. Because if you're saying that Ray was hired by somebody
     else to do it, that's a conspiracy. So then they had to drop that
     story because now the line was there was no conspiracy. Now
     they're saying -- and the same people. Pearson mentioned that
     story and then later on denounced the generally prevalent theory
     that the murder involved a conspiracy without pointing out that he
     was one of the people who were part of the original prevalent

     Even -- particularly, actually, after the guilty plea, when it got
     -- there was no longer a judicial proceeding going on about which
     they could feed the stories they wanted to, they still felt a
     compulsion to periodically come up with stories that there was no
     conspiracy, there was no plot. This one on the screen being
     another one of these -- these examples.

     Q. This is the continuation of the lone killer, lone nut gunman
     that was -- had to be perpetuated throughout the period of James
     Earl Ray's incarceration?

     A. Absolutely. It never -- because Ray insisted virtually from the
     day of the plea that there was a conspiracy, they felt compelled
     to -- to continue to plant these -- these stories. They -- they
     went on for a number of years at a very intense level, and then it
     sort of petered off.

     But in the first year after the plea of guilty, Anderson wrote a
     number of columns saying there just wasn't any conspiracy. Max
     Lerner wrote columns saying Ray was the killer, there's nothing to
     the conspiracy theory. And when -- another example of how they --
     they fuzzied it was even at the time of the plea, there was a
     story on the -- in the Washington Post, which I think I've given
     you a copy of, where they said: No evidence of any plot, Jury is

     Now that isn't really what the Jury was told. But if you read the
     story, it was that the prosecution was not presenting any evidence
     of a plot, which is very different from saying -- of course, they
     didn't present any evidence that there wasn't a plot either. Yet
     if you look at that headline, it looks like something has been
     said and done in court showing a jury there was no -- no plot. And
     that's not what happened. It wasn't -- it wasn't discussed either

     And they -- they -- there was a story I believe the next week in
     the Washington Post where the title of the story was: "Ray Alone
     Still Talks of a Plot." Which, again, journalistically was
     ridiculous. Because there were millions upon millions of Americans
     talking about whether there was a plot. And a story which, you
     know, tries to create the impression that James Earl Ray was stark
     raving mad and was the only person in America who thought there
     might have been a plot.

     That campaign went -- and, in fact, they then said, well, what we
     really meant was that he's the only person who is officially
     involved in the proceedings and thinks there's a plot, everyone
     else doesn't. And even that wasn't true because the next day there
     was a story in the papers that the -- the judge here -- the judge
     at the time, Judge Battle, wasn't sure and thought maybe there had
     been a plot and certainly made it clear that under Tennessee law
     if further -- if co-conspirators came up or were arrested or
     indicted, they would be subject to -- to trial.

     Q. Let me pass this article to you and ask you to look at that,
     Mr. Schaap. That's an article that appeared in the New York Times,
     Column 1 on the 17th of November, 1978, right at the time when the
     -- both Ray brothers were being questioned and examined in public
     before the House Select Committee on Assassination. And that
     article speaks of an independent investigation by the New York
     Times and the FBI and the Select Committee, into an Alton,
     Illinois, bank robbery -- an investigation which never took place
     because it's now been established.

     Is that an example of the type of disinformation that one finds in
     an attempt to train the public minds?

     A. Oh, absolutely. Given the fact that subsequently it was shown
     that they were not suspects in that robbery, it -- the first thing
     it means is that the -- the reporter is saying some things which
     had to have been simply fed to him and not checked. Because if
     you're saying something happened, which in fact very, very basic
     journalism would have proven didn't happen, you are either doing
     it on your own to spread some disinformation, which is extremely
     unlikely, or you're being asked to put a spin on something that
     you know is going to -- to be coming out.

     The -- again, I'm -- I don't know what happened in Alton,
     Illinois. But if, as I understand there's been testimony, it is
     clear that the Ray brothers were not suspects in that case, this
     story is clearly disinformation because it's designed to make it
     appear not only that they were suspects in that case but that they
     did it, and to make it appear that two investigations confirmed
     that whereas, since we know it wasn't true, it's impossible that
     either investigation could have confirmed it.

     Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has been a long road -- how you
     regard -- what is your explanation for the fact that there has
     been such little national media coverage of these -- of this trial
     and this evidence and this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
     which is the first trial ever to be able to produce evidence on
     this assassination -- what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
     is not sounding but is in fact totally silent -- almost totally

     A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be deafening. Disinformation
     is not only getting certain things to appear in print, it's also
     getting certain things not to appear in print. I mean, the first
     -- the first thing I would say as a way of explanation is the
     incredibly powerful effect of disinformation over a long period of
     time that I mentioned before. For 30 years the official line has
     been that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King and he did it
     all by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing like the short
     period when the line was that the Cubans raped the Angolan women.
     But for 30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King, did it all
     by himself.

     And when that is imprinted in the minds of the general public for
     30 years, if somebody stood up and confessed and said: I did it.
     Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's a movie. Here's a video showing
     me do it. 99 percent of the people wouldn't believe him because it
     just -- it just wouldn't click in the mind. It would just go right
     to -- it couldn't be. It's just a powerful psychological effect
     over 30 years of disinformation that's been imprinted on the
     brains of the -- the public. Something to the country couldn't --
     couldn't be.

     Q. Not only -- excuse me. Not only psychological, but weren't you
     also saying neurological?

     A. Yes. I'm not a doctor. But what I understood is that these --
     the brain's patterns of thinking are a physical aspect of the
     human brain. That's how we develop patterns of thought, how we
     develop associations.

     And then, of course, the Mighty Wurlitzer we talked about is still
     there, it's still playing its tune. And even though you might
     think 30 years is a long time, that almost everybody who might get
     in trouble is probably dead by now, that's -- that's how it works.
     People obtain influence, people make vast sums of money through
     this propaganda. Those people pass that influence on to others,
     they pass the money down the line, and all of that can be at risk
     for a very, very long time.

     There are documents from the investigation of the assassination of
     Abraham Lincoln that are still classified. Don't ask me why, but
     they were originally sealed for 100 years. And then in 1965
     President Linden Johnson said, well, it's so close to the Kennedy
     assassination, if people read the Lincoln documents, it might make
     them think funny things about Kennedy, so he classified them for
     another 50 years. So now the grand children of anybody around
     Lincoln was around are long dead, and these documents are still --
     still classified. And we're talking today about a case that's 100
     years more immediate than Lincoln. And the establishment is still
     the establishment.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon.

     A. Thank you.

     MR. PEPPER: Nothing further, Your Honor.

     THE COURT: Just a moment. Mr. Garrison?

     MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I have no questions of this witness.

     THE COURT: You have nothing. Very well. Sir, you may stand down.
     Thank you very much.

     THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

     (Witness excused.)

     (Court adjourned until December 1, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.)

     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.html  (hypertext)
     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.txt   (text only)
     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.pdf  (print ready)

The ISIS "Management of Savagery" in Iraq

Published in World News

This article is written by a former MI6 agent named Alastair Crooke (no pun here) - Voxnews knows little of the history or current affiliations of Mr. Crooke and view most of what is emerging from all western official sources as diversionary and fraudulent. This article fails to point out that the entire text of "The Management of Savagery" plays directly into the hands of the US imperialist aggressors. That The Management of Savagery is yet another in a long line of techniques to decimate target populations from within - getting our targets to kill each other - which is the central strategy of these obvious proxies of western intelligence called ISIS. 

The Management of Savagery.pdf    (Actual Document)

BEIRUT -- These are extraordinary times. Extraordinary events are taking place in Iraq (and in the Muslim World). There is the lightening seizure of "Sunni territory" spanning Syria and Iraq (but imagined as the realization of a Sunni "belt" extending across the region). The symbolism is potent in the context of the early history of Islam. The cold ruthlessness of the ISIS military strategy has dazzled and stimulated the ardor of young Sunni Muslims everywhere.

And it has forced the admiration of many in Iraq and the Gulf States. Yet it frightens, too: the flesh creeps with the "march of the beheaders." It is this heady, adrenaline-laden mix of fear, mingling with the euphoric sense that events somehow are mirroring the very laying down of the Islamic Empire, which is seeding fertile ground.

Across the Middle East and Africa, agrarian distress and the Salafist firing up of a Sunni self-perception of victimhood, usurpation and grievance are making for a wide vulnerability to this new collective fervor for Da'ish (ISIS).

Da'ish (ISIS) is not al-Qaeda; it is not an al-Qaeda franchise, nor is it its affiliate. After brief flirtation, it stands severed and in direct opposition to al-Qaeda, which it views as acting in error. (Though it still follows the writings of Abdallah Azzam who was a key intellectual influence on al-Qaeda).

Al-Qaeda emerged from the "myth" that the USSR was "imploded" by the mujahideen of Afghanistan succeeding in forcing its political and economic overextension. It was Abdullah Azzam's analysis of the USSR's vulnerability to such a process which prompted the notion that the U.S. could be similarly imploded -- by "shocking" it into a global overreach. The outcome would ultimately expose the superpower's frailties and hypocrisy to ordinary Muslims -- and therefore cause them to lose their fear of it.

For this objective to be achieved, however, Bin Laden saw a need for Muslims to be united (i.e. sectarianism was discouraged). At this point, the war of "vexing and exhausting" was directed at the "far enemy" through global acts of "shock and awe," but al-Qaeda's was more a virtual war than a hot war fought on the ground.

Zarqawism (used here, loosely to identify the ISIS ideology) grew from different roots: It was not a grandiose scheme to implode the USA but was all about grievance (heavily grounded in the feelings of a displaced and impoverished rural class). It was about a sense of Sunni loss of privilege, power, possession of the state and claimed rights. It was driven by a deep desire for revenge against "usurpers." It had, too, its overtones of a class war (countryside versus a cosmopolitan, affluent elite), but above all, it was deeply rooted in bigotry: a hatred of the "other," and for the Shi'i and Iran in particular.

Zarqawism took root in Iraq in a hot war (local "blood politics" as it were, and not in Bin Laden-esque global paradigms). It was grounded in the context of bitter sectarian struggle (Baghdad was being ethnically cleansed) and in the humiliation of the Sunnah (ousted from power and summarily dismissed from the army). Subsequently, Sunnis from Syria fighting the occupation of Iraq (most of the Syrian and Palestinian fighters had gravitated to Zarqawi's groups) carried the Zarqawi "idea" back to the already resentful and aggrieved hinterland of Homs and Hama.

What most characterized the Zarqawi doctrine was the absorption of an intolerant Wahhabism that demanded the purging -- by the blade of a sword -- of a "defiled" Islam. It was to be "purified" down to a single voice, a unique authority, and a single leadership for Islam. Through such purification, and in pursuing a course of deliberate ruthlessness, Shariah and the Islamic State would be re-constructed.

What sets Zarqawi apart from al-Qaeda are two elements: Firstly, a radical refusal to accept conventional historical readings about how the Islamic state was formed. In this historical revisionism, it was the "fighting-scholars" and their armed followers, fighting on behalf of Islam, who founded the State (this is NOT the conventional reading).

Thus, whilst Zarqawism adopts Wahhabi "puritanism," it breaks with it in a truly revolutionary way by denying the Saudi Kingdom any legitimacy as founders of a State, as the head of the Mosque, or as interpreter of the Qur'an. All these attributes ISIS takes for itself. In its view ISIS itself is the State. This constitutes a complete refutation of all aspects of Sunni temporal and religious authority.

Although Zarqawism follows Azzam in regarding the implosion of the U.S. as a major aim, in practice, ISIS filters its understanding of contemporary politics through the prism of the Prophet's migration from Mecca, his struggle with the Meccans and through ISIS' reading of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr's, mode of violent warfare.

Symbolically this is very important. Thus, when the Prophet's "Muslim project" was nearly collapsed at the battle of Uhud by the forces of Mecca, today's reversals to the "divine mission" of ISIS in Syria are seen as having symbolic equivalence -- as today's 'Uhud" -- that is, ISIS' setback in Syria is interpreted by many as an existential setback to the Sunni project as a whole.


But who then, stands for the Meccans in this allegory? It is not America; it is Iran. Lip service is paid to the "far enemy," but the symbolism points unmistakably to the near enemy: Iran.

In Iraq today, it is clear that ISIS sees the path toward consolidating the Islamic State to have already passed through the first stage (vexation operations, dispersing the enemy's strength and over-extending its resources).

Here again, the question arises, to which "enemy" does ISIS refer? Well, ISIS does not say; but Gulf leaders make this abundantly clear when they tell Westerners that if only Bashar al-Assad and Nouri al-Maliki were to be removed, all would be resolved, and peace would return to the Middle East (both, of course, bring perceived as obstacles to regional Sunni hegemony).

So today, ISIS regards Iraq (and eastern Syria) to be in the second stage (the "Management of Savagery") in the progress toward the consolidation of the Caliphate (the third stage). What does this mean; and what does it imply for the conduct of next period?

The term "management or administration of savagery," a term detailed in Abu Bakr Naji's treatise, in fact refers to that hiatus which occurs between the waning of one power and the consolidation of power of another. What is being assumed here is that a certain chaos will pertain, and that the disputed territory will be ravaged by violence as power oscillates back and forth between the "old" power and its incoming successor (the Islamic State).


In this period, according to its literature, the ISIS will have limited aims: achieving internal security and preserving it; fixing its frontiers; feeding the population; establishing Shariah and Islamic justice -- and most importantly fixing the establishment of a "fighting society," at all levels within the community.

According to The Management of Savagery, in this stage, security will require the elimination of spies and "deterring the hypocrites with proof and other means and forcing them to repress and conceal their hypocrisy, to hide their discouraged opinions, and to comply with those in authority, until their evil is put in check." In short, we might expect that this will comprise ISIS' aims for the coming period.

In other words, any move on Baghdad, which Da'ish insists will come, is unlikely to be imminent, but will have to wait until the area already seized is 'secured', and its frontiers controlled.


This phase also marks the "plundering the financial resources" for the purposes of the "project." The implication here is that ISIS has as its aim eventually to become financially self-sufficient. Indeed, it clearly has been pursuing this objective in Syria (taking oil fields, seizing the arms warehouses of the SNC, and selling to Turks much of the industrial infrastructure of Aleppo and northern Syria).

This also suggests that, whilst ISIS is not presently contesting militarily the Peshmerga takeover in Kirkuk (with its substantial oil resources), it is only a matter of time before Da'ish seeks to acquire such an obvious source of funding - just as it has fought other jihadist groups in Syria for control of Raqa'a's oil revenue.

But this second phase (administering the violent hiatus until the State is consolidated) -- more ominously -- signals the start of "massacring the enemy and making him frightened." The literature underlines that anyone who has actually experienced conflict (in contrast to those who simply theorize about it) understands that slaughter and striking fear into the hearts of the enemy is in the nature of war.

The point is made by citing the Companions (of the Prophet) who "burned (people) with fire, even though it is odious, because they knew the effect of rough violence in times of need."


The author of The Management of Savagery treatise bluntly states that there is no room for "softness": "Softness" is the ingredient for failure: "our enemies will not be merciful to us, so it compels us to make them think one thousand times, before they dare attack us."

It is here that we see the second key Zarqawrist notion: the reading given by ISIS to the military campaigns conducted by first Caliph. This "reading" highlights (and seeks to legitimize) the need to use "rough violence" during this period of hiatus, when Islamic power was not yet fully consolidated. It was a moment, following the death of the Prophet that several Arab tribes refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr (as they had earlier to the Prophet when he was alive), and held (in accordance with the prevailing Arab tradition) that their tribal allegiance to the Prophet naturally expired with the leader's death. There followed the brutal Wars of the Ridda (or the Wars of Apostasy).

What is significant here, too, is the narrow construction placed on apostasy -- a definition to which Da'ish adheres closely.

In sum, the beheadings and other violence practiced by ISIS are not some whimsical, crazed fanaticism, but a very deliberate, considered strategy. The military strategy pursued by ISIS in Iraq, too, is neither spontaneous nor some populist adventure, but rather reflects very professional well-prepared military planning.

The seemingly random violence has a precise purpose: It's aim is to strike huge fear; to break the psychology of a people -- and, according to reports, this is exactly what Da'ish has already succeeded in doing for many of the residents of Baghdad. They are understandably very frightened.


For now, ISIS is focused on adding to the pressures on the city's population by seeking to seize its sources of fuel (the Baiji refinery) and its water supply (the Haditha dam). Da'ish's explicit purpose -- here with Baghdad as it has been in Syria -- is to polarize the population, explains The Management of Savagery author:

"By polarization here, I mean dragging the masses into the battle such that polarization is created between all of the people. Thus, one group of them will go to the side of the people of truth, another group will go to the side of the people of falsehood, and a third group will remain neutral -- awaiting the outcome of the battle in order to join the victor. We must attract the sympathy of this latter group, and make it hope for the victory of the people of faith, especially since this group has a decisive role in the later stages of the present battle. Dragging the masses into the battle requires more actions which will inflame opposition and which will make the people enter into the battle, willing or unwilling, such that each individual will go to the side which he supports. We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away, so that the two groups will realize that entering this battle will frequently lead to death. That will be a powerful motive for the individual to choose to fight in the ranks of the people of truth in order to die well, which is better than dying for falsehood and losing both this world and the next." -- Abu Bakr Naji, The Management of Savagery

This is the likely strategy facing the government of Iraq. Nouri al-Malaki is busy assembling and preparing a vast Shi'a army. Most likely he initially will concentrate on halting ISIS' momentum, and, by delivering a sharp military defeat, will hope to break Da'ish's magic spell for the many Sunnis who have been dazzled by its bold advance across Iraq.

He has sought to re-take Takrit, leaving the much more difficult task of digging them out from Mosul to a later time. (Those who remember the siege of the Naher al-Barad Camp in northern Lebanon will recall that it took the Lebanese army three and a half months -- at the loss of more than 300 men -- to clear this Palestinian refugee camp from no more than a hundred odd ISIS-type jihadists. Naher al-Barad was utterly destroyed in the process).

The success (or failure) of al-Maliki's defense -- against Da'ish -- will pivot around the issue of polarization. Too much force, too many civilian casualties, too much heavy weaponry will polarize the Sunni population to Da'ish's advantage; but too little -- may risk adding to ISIS' inflated reputation.

There is also a real risk of this conflict metamorphosing into a polarized Sunni-Shi'a conflict -- an outcome that Iran will be urging al-Maliki to avoid. A first priority will be to protect the Shi'i shrines. Iran does not wish to get directly involved in the fighting (and does not see a need at this stage, so to do), but rather will seek to continue to provide Iraq with discreet support and advice.

With customary chutzpah, the mainstream liberal interventionist media are promoting a facile narrative that suggests the Iraqi Shi'i militias' defensive mobilization to be essentially no different to the actions of ISIS.

The adoption of this narrative reflects both just how deeply the Sunni discourse of dispossession and victimhood have been uncritically absorbed by the West and come to be viewed as giving legitimacy to takfiri jihadism; and it reflects how little the dangers which ISIS represents are well understood.

ISIS has just declared war in Lebanon. Its successes (unless quickly halted) will inspire youth across the Muslim world. The ground has been well prepared by the outpourings of 24 hour Salafist television and radio broadcasts and increasingly important social media PR campaigns, beamed throughout the Middle East and into an increasingly receptive Africa. Much hangs on the outcome of events in Iraq.

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

The Infamous "Oded Yinon Plan". Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky


This article was published on Global Research April 29, 2013.

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.

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.”

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention 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 project.

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.

The Zionist 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. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The 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 states.

Israeli strategists 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 discusses.

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.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is directly supportive of the Al Qaeda terrorist mercenaries inside Syria.

The Zionist Project also requires the destabilization of Egypt, the creation of factional divisions within Egypt as instrumented by the “Arab Spring” leading to the formation of a sectarian based State dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, April 29, 2013

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East 

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

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.”


Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)

Table of Contents

  Publisher’s Note1

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.

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982


by Israel Shahak


The 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 ofthis 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 beregarded 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.

Israel Shahak

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, Jerusalem.


At the 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 affairs.


This epoch 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 future.


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

Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.


This 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 timewill 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 withthe 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


Israel 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 lefttherefore, 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 bedriven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11


The 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


The 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, andcertainly 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


Iraq, 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 thanSyria. 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 timesis 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


The 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


Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does notconstitute 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 oughtalso 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 theland 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. Itis 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


Realizing 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


From 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

The 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 inwhich 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.

Israel Shahak

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-Jewin 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 thebook by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

 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,); DrewMiddleton, 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, Syria, 5/6/79.

 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. EitanEisenberg, 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, 1/14/79.

 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 EconomicDevelopments 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 ElHasan 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.

copyright 2012 vox information sciences

Login or Register



User Registration
or Cancel