If you haven’t read the important Introduction yet, then we encourage you to read it first:
The Palestinian death toll has reached more than 30,000 with more than 70,000 wounded. About 70% of these casualties are women and children. Almost 80% of the housing infrastructure has been destroyed and so have scores of hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, cultural sites, businesses, and UN offices.
This obviously goes way beyond “self-defense.” So we must stop, and ask ourselves “Why?”
What’s really going on in Gaza, in the Middle East as a whole, and with Israel’s 9/11? And what can we learn by comparing Israel’s 9/11 to the United States’ 9/11?
Are there specific geostrategic interests in Gaza driving a depopulation agenda by Israel?
We’ll look at the natural gas fields discovered two decades ago immediately offshore of Gaza worth $453B.
We also examine the $55B Ben Gurion Canal project that Gaza is sitting in the way of. But first . . . an inquiry into the US geostrategic goals in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What are the parallels between 9/11 and Gaza? We found several.
Part 1: Parallel — Previously Established and Geostrategic Goals — Coveting the Natural Resources of the Target Territory [this article]
Part 2: Parallel — A String of Historic and Recent Provocations and False Flag Operations
Part 3: Parallel — Patsies — Politically Useful Foreign Operatives with History of Violence — Developed by the State
Part 4: Parallel — A Triggering Event — An Innovative Attack with Dubious Origins; A Manufactured Invasion from Foreign Operatives
Part 5: Parallel — A Catastrophic Intelligence Failure
Part 6: Parallel — A Military Stand-down — with an Obvious Uncharacteristic Delay in Response
Part 7: Parallel — Foreknowledge of the Attacks
Part 8: Parallel — Dancing Israelis — During the Attacks
B. They Manage the Public REACTION
Part 9: Parallel — Propaganda with Outrageous Slogans from Government and Media to Manipulate Public Emotion; Crisis Actors
Part 10: Parallel — Atrocities Alleged to the Enemy with Ensuing Dehumanization
Part 11: Parallel — Denial of Alleged Atrocities by the Enemy
Part 12: Parallel — OppositionMedia/Journalists Targeted
C. They Offer the Prescribed SOLUTION
Part 13: Parallel — Military Revenge Attack Prepared in Advance with No Investigation
Part 14: Parallel — Occupy Territory of the New Enemy — The Land Grab
Part 15: Parallel — Widening the Conflict to Achieve Original Broader Goals
Part 16: Parallel — Effect Regime Change of Enemy Leadership
Part 17: Parallel — Enact a “Forever War” Policy
Part 18: Parallel — $$ Billions Flow to the Arms, Oil, Banking, and Media Industries
Part 19: Parallel — Extreme Public Censorship by Government, MSM, and Social Media
Part 20: Parallel — Draconian Policies and Surveillance Instituted by Government
Appendix A: Parallel — Malevolent Roots More Than 250 Years Old
We’ve found quite a number of parallels and will be diving into each of them separately in upcoming parts of this series. As you see above, they fall into one of the 3 major elements of “false flag” operations: Problem-Reaction-Solution.
Who are “they”? We will explore the complex set of answers to that question in Appendix A of this series.
Today we dive right into Parallel #1: "A Territory or Country is Targeted for Previously Established Geostrategic Goals."
9/11: Project for a New American Century — NeoCon Think Tank
We start with the 9/11 side of the equation — and find, most interestingly, that the goals of the 2001 Bush Administration were established by the incoming neoconservatives and laid out in their key paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. These individuals founded the Project for a New American Century.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."
Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. [Emphasis added.]
Their goals?
A “defense topline increase of $75 billion to $100 billion. . . level of spending within four years”
Regional hegemony in the Middle East
To “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”
However, PNAC acknowledged in the document that:
“. . . the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Emphasis added.]
President Bush wrote as much in his diary the evening of 9/11/01, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century."
Griffin finds that the very strategic goals sought and documented by the neocons in September 2000 were substantially achieved following the earth-shaking events of September 11, 2001.
9/11: Supreme Allied NATO Commander Revealed “Take Down 7 countries in 5 years”
Bush Administration Goals Publicly
Apparently the Bush Administration had additional geostrategic goals as well. Gen. Wesley Clark, Ret. four-star US Army General, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (during the Kosovo War), revealed these goals publicly in 2007. He said that he had visited the Pentagon just nine days after the events of 9/11/01 and was told by another General, who had himself visited Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, that the decision to go to war with Iraq was already made. In addition, this other general, who had previously worked for Gen. Clark, said: “We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.” [Emphasis added.]
He further clarified which countries they were: “starting of with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.” [Emphasis added.]
To date, the US has attacked, overthrown, and/or undermined most of these countries following the initial overthrow of Afghanistan.
The neocons who were brought in with the Bush Administration in 2000 must have come with these goals in tow. And today the US is still being pressured by the neocons to complete the unfinished dirty work on the remainder of “the list” by going to war with Israel’s arch enemies — Lebanon and Iran. Was the US support for Israel’s inordinate retaliation in Gaza, and the heavy blame that was being heaped on Iran, an effort to incite a broader regional war to take out these enemies of Israel as well?
9/11: Afghanistan — The Pre-9/11 Plan to Attack Taliban
The Bush Administration appeared to have set its sights on Afghanistan — well before September 11, 2001. After all, the Whitehouse agreed to the invasion plan on September 10 — the day before the catastrophic events of 9/11. Why?! Did they have foreknowledge of the attack? Did they have other motivations for invading the country?
So what was the chief strategic goal of the US empire in Afghanistan?
We were told it was to find Osama bin Laden. But it took the most sophisticated intelligence systems in the world more than a decade to find him. It becomes clear that he was used to run cover for a much more profitable operation. Could it have been the coveting of specific resources and geostrategic importance of the country?
9/11: Afghanistan Opium Cultivation
Before the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in 1996, the profits from opium poppy cultivation through the “Chain of Dope” netted $400B to $500B, which exceeded the profits from all the oil companies combined1. Afghanistan had exported an average of 3,300 metric tons per year according to the UN Office of Drug Control (UNODC). The Taliban then shut down the poppy cultivation in favor of food cultivation, reducing the 2001 poppy crop yield to just 185 tons — a decrease of 94%.2
The next year, under the pretext of going after Osama bin Laden, who was purportedly the “architect” of the 9/11 attacks, the US-led invasion of Afghanistan removed the Taliban from power along with its restrictions on opium production. The yield skyrocketed back 3,400 tons in 2003 (profits exceeded $180B per year) and then rocketed to 6,100 tons in 2006.3
1. Alfred McCoy exposes the CIA’s drug monopoly in a stand-out article in The Progressive in 1997, “Drug Fallout: The CIA’s 40-year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade” and his landmark book “The Politics of Heroin.”
Don Paul and Jim Hoffman also document all of this quite well in their powerful little book Waking Up From Our Nightmare — The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City. In that book they describe the “Pop” — an exponential increase in profits going to corrupt Wall Street companies and banking institutions from the narco-dollars.4These profits put the oil business profits to shame.
So why did we really invade Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11? Could it have been those billions of dollars in heroin profits flowing into a corrupt banking industry? Or was it something else still?. . .
9/11: Afghanistan — The Gas Pipeline Project
In the late 90’s Afghanistan found itself caught up in the middle of a massive geostrategic pinch that developed when countries to the north became rich from newnatural gas discoveries, whereas countries to the south were starved for natural gas.
NewsMax summarized the opportunity that the Taliban turned down, to its ultimate misfortune.
[A] U.S. company, Unocal, (since acquired by Texaco) along with several partners, including an Argentine and a Saudi oil company, signed agreements with Turkmenistan to build gas and oil pipelines in 1995.
In 1996, this agreement got further extended to include building a 36-inch natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, via Afghanistan. This line was to be extended later to India to serve a huge market with hundreds of millions of energy-starved people.
This required an agreement with the Taliban, the then effective rulers of Afghanistan. Unocal invited a Taliban delegation to their corporate head quarters in California. This resulted in an agreement signed in January, 1998 to allow the pipeline to pass through their country.
In March, 1998 however, Unocal announced a delay in the pipeline project due to an ongoing civil war in Afghanistan. This tempted the Taliban — on April 30, 1999 — to conclude their own deal with Pakistan and Turkmenistan, thus excluding the U.S.
This led the U.S. government to retaliate, placing sanctions on Afghanistan.
In a final meeting with the Taliban, a U.S. delegation delivered an ultimatum…[E]ither you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." [Emphasis added.]
The late Michael Ruppert discusses this threat on page 108 of his treatise Crossing the Rubicon:
And yet it was at this time that the American representatives delivered a reported ultimatum to the Taliban to surrender bin Laden, stabilize, and negotiate, or the choices would be between a carpet of gold and a carpet of bombs.[18] This ultimatum, widely reported in the European press, evoked a number of equivocal explanations from meeting participants. Pakistani Ambassador Niaz Naik, who attended the fateful meetings, agreed that the statement was made but denied that pipelines were the subject of the negotiations. This seems unlikely, because one is compelled to ask where the “gold” for the Taliban was going to come from if not from the pipelines. [Emphasis added.]
Apparently the Taliban chose the “carpet of bombs” offered to them in Germany by US diplomat Richard Armitage, because that is exactly what the Taliban was hit with in October shortly after the 9/11/01 “attacks.”
Following the “attacks” of 9/11/01, the US had threatened the Taliban with war if they did not turn over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban offered to do that only if given evidence of his guilt.
So why did we really invade Afghanistan? Why did we keep Osama bin Laden alive and on the run for a decade following 9/11? Indeed, Osama was the perfect boogeyman, keeping the $6.5 Trillion Global War on Terror — alive. But there was a better boogeyman — Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, mortal enemy of Israel — right on the other side of their other mortal enemy Iran. Iran would be almost surrounded by such a new regional US dominance.
9/11 afforded the opportunity to surround Iran with US military power - a goal of the neocon think tank Project for a New American Century.
But the invasion of Iraq would also require a pretext. Surely Saddam Hussein could be fingered for the attack on the World Trade Center! Afterall, he had provable ties to Osama bin Laden — because they were so very well acquainted. (Not). And surely he had weapons of mass destruction (Not!) OK, well, Sadam did have 140 billion barrels of oil reserves.
9/11: Iraq — How Did Our Oil Get Under Their Sand?
Everyone seems to realize, in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein possessed neither weapons of mass destruction nor ties to Osama Bin Ladin. So what was the driving force to invade Iraq?
[In] a February 2002 address, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called that oily assertion "utter nonsense."
"We don't take our forces and go around the world and try to take other people's real-estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does," Rumsfeld said. "We never have, and we never will. That's not how democracies behave."
Nonsense aside, the sands of Iraq in 2003 held oil... lots of it.
According to data from US Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the time, "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil — the world's second-largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues."
In 2014 the EIA reported that Iraq held the fifth-largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, and was the second-largest crude oil producer in OPEC. [Emphasis added.]
Even the Deep State mouthpiece CNN acknowledged the obvious — more than ten years ago:
Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.
It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom’s bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West’s largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush’s running mate in 2000.
The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.[Emphasis added]
So was oil the prime strategic goal of the US empire in Iraq under the false front of the invasion of the “coalition of the willing”?
Some may be surprised to learn that Israeli history didn’t start on 10/7, just like US history didn’t start on 9/11. In the final article of this series we will go back more than 250 years to look at much deeper roots, including the roots of the cabal that has come to infiltrate Western banking, governments, and religions. In that upcoming article we will familiarize ourselves with the British Colony of Palestine and the Zionists’ goals for the artificial creation of the nation of Israel.
Primarily Muslims and Christians, and a much smaller number of Jews lived in Palestine relatively peacefully under the rule of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th century to the early 20th century.
Those three religious groups in the area eventually developed a loose affiliation as “Palestinians” beginning more than 1800 years ago, ever since the Romans had originally named the land “Palestine” during their occupation of the territory.
Following World War 1 the Ottoman Empire fell and the British became the controlling power of “The British Mandate for Palestine.” As the force of Zionism — the desire for a national homeland for the Jewish people — grew, along with tens of thousands of Jews emigrating to the area, violent conflicts between local Arabs and Jews also grew.
Jewish political activist Theodor Herzl (1860—1904) is credited as the father of modern Zionism and he influenced many jews to emigrate to Palestine.
Theodor Herzl (1860 –1904) was an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and political activist. Herzl formed the Zionist Organization and promoted a Jewish state.
“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country.” Theodor Herzl [Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, the territorial ambitions of the Zionists far exceeded that of Palestine alone. According to Zionism’s founder Herzl, "[T]he area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates." [Emphasis added] 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.” [Emphasis added.]
The ruling Brits attempted to resist the increasing numbers of Jewish emigres to Palestine in the early 1900’s, on the basis that the result was out-of-control sectarian violence. Jews comprised only about 2% of the half-million Palestinian population at the end of the Ottoman Empire before the turn of the century, their ranks climbed to about 11% by 1917, and rose to about 30% by 1945. The British Monarchy eventually yielded to the increasing international pressure calling for a Jewish homeland and signed the Balfor Declaration in 1917.
Eventually in 1947, exhausted by the many acts of sectarian violence and terrorism against the military rule, by, but not exclusively, Jewish groups (such as the Irgun, Lehi, and Hagenah) from 1938 to 1946 (see forthcoming Part 2: “A Rich History of Historic and Recent Provocations and False Flag Operations.”), they sought in earnest to fulfill their 1917 promise made to the Zionist Congress.
The late 80-year-old Rothschild said in an interview last year that his ancestors “helped pave the way for the creation of Israel”, forcing the British government to sign the Balfour Declaration in 1917.
The Rothschilds are commonly believed to have engineered WWI and waited until 1917 when Britain showed signs of trouble. The Zionist-oriented family then offered the British Government their assistance in funding the war and also convincing the US to formally engage in order to help Britain’s victory over Germany — in exchange for the British paving the way for a new nation of Israel in Palestine. [Emphasis added.]
Thus the Balfour Declaration was an official letter from the British Government Foreign Secretary James Balfour to Baron Rothschild:
Importantly, it stresses that, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. . .” [Emphasis added.]
The following interview of Lord Jacob Rothschild (formerly “Bauer”) was conducted by Daniel Taub, former Israeli ambassador, celebrating the 100-year anniversary of the document. (Taub interviewed Rothschild at Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire, a manor bequeathed to the nation by the Rothschild family in 1957, where the Balfour Declaration is housed.)
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 had an immediate and harsh reaction from the Palestinian Muslim community. One representative declared, “[T]his will have as a result, the replacement of the Arabs by the Jews. . . It is opposed by All Arabs in the [Middle] East.” [Emphasis added.]
Al Jazeera spoke with Avi Shlaim, a historian and professor emeritus of international relations at the University of Oxford, about the motivation behind the fateful document and its ongoing legacy:
Shlaim: This shows the absurdity of the Balfour Declaration in denying national rights to the 90 percent majority and granting it to the 10 percent minority. Arthur Balfour knew full well that his declaration contradicted the principle of national self-determination. In short, the Balfour Declaration was a classic colonial document, which completely disregarded the rights and aspirations of the people of the country.
Britain had no moral or legal right to promise Palestine to the Jews as a national home. The concept “national home” does not exist under international law, and one Jewish writer Arthur Koestler, summed it up by saying: One nation, Britain, promised the country of another people, the Palestinians, to a third people, the Jews. [Emphasis added.]
The British approved the 1947 UN Plan to divide British Palestine into two separate states — one for Jews and one for Arabs. This started the 1947—1948 Arab Israeli War in which Israel nearly doubled the amount of territory originally granted by the UN, and which saw tens of thousands of Palestinians forced from the country.
Note that about half of the historic nation of Palestine was carved up and given to Israel, even though its population was 90% Palestinians. The 1947 UN fulfillment of the original English Monarchy Balfour Declaration fulfilled the 1917 promise (for a Nation for the Jewish People) to Lord Rothschild and to the 1899-founded Zionist Federation. This was in return for his promise to pull some heavy strings in order to bring America into England’s war (WW1) which at the time they were losing to Germany.
As you can see by territory colored in black, today, Israel is in control of nearly all of Palestine — nearly doubling the area granted to it under the original UN Plan.
Accordingly, In the subsequent 1967 “Six-Day War”, Israel seized not only the remaining Palestinian territory but a significant portion of Syria to the north and of Egypt to the south.
This left Israel as an occupier of those territories and their people. But since then three-quarters of a million Israelis have illegally moved into and taken over significant portions of the occupied West Bank and Gaza territories (initially granted to Palestinian Arabs as a Palestinian State by the UN). The Israeli settlers were subsidized by the Israeli government and protected by their military, forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their ancestral homes.
Interestingly, in 2005, Israel removed all of its settlers from the Gaza Strip. Senior advisor to Ariel Sharon, Dov Weisglass, noted, “[T]he significance of the [Gaza] disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. You prevent the establishment of the Palestinian State. . .” [Emphasis added]
Had the Israelis already begun their negotiations with those who became Hamas — knowing that within a year Hamas, founded and funded by Israeli and US intelligence (see Part 3 of this series), would win the 2006 Gaza Strip election and become the problem that would provide Israel the enemy it needed?
This 10-minute, fast-paced, graphically-rich, simplified summary of the history of the conflict by Johnny Harris seems to provide an objective assessment for those less familiar with the important facts and historical context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict during the last century:
A deeper dive into the vast set of issues from If Americans Knew, written by Jews sensitive to the indigenous population of Palestine, highlights the absurdity of the Zionist land claim to Palestine. What don’t you know yet?
“Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.”
“The mythic“ land without people for a people without land” was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. [about 90% of the population]. This is the root of the problem…”
“Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes.” Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, “Their Promised Land.”
“The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David’s conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule.” Illene Beatty, “Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan.” [Emphasis added.]
The Greater Israel
We learn from author Israel Shahak of Global Research, that "The 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.”
“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. [Emphasis added.]
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: [Emphasis added.]
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. . .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. [Emphasis added.]
Now, recall the 2001 Wesley Clark revelation, noted above in this article, citing the take-down of seven countries in five years. Let’s connect the dots and ask ourselves, “Who runs US foreign policy?”
Let’s look closer at the 1982 Yinon plan in greater detail:
From early on the Likud Party, ruling Israel today, was not concerned at all with the inherent contradictions of their controversial slogan “from the sea to the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” to their stated aims of peace with the Palestinians:
In fact, major political figures and government institutions in Israel have carried the flame consistently for an expanded Israel. Nation magazine documents that Page 1 of the Likud Party’s founding document (1977) reads:
‘…from the sea to the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.’ [Emphasis added.]
Gaza: Previous Language about flattening Gaza
The New York Times has reported that “it is part of normal Israeli discourse to call for Gaza to be ‘flattened,’ ‘erased,’ or ‘destroyed.’”[Emphasis added.] The newspaper even quoted one retired IDF general as having proclaimed that “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist[.]” Going even further, a minister in the Israeli government suggested dropping a nuclear weapon on Gaza.4 These statements are not being made by isolated extremists, but by senior members of Israel’s government.
In fact, the Finance Minister declared that there is “no such thing as Palestinian people”:
The word “Israel” was first presented in the Bible as a name given to Jacob after he fought an angel. Its meaning was a man who has struggled with God. And is commonly translated as “God Prevails” or “Man seeing God”. Many have argued that the word Israel in the Bible does not refer to a place, but rather a believer or a group of believers in God.
Others believe the land known as Palestine was where the Biblical state of Israel once stood. [Emphasis added.]
Going much, much further, Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel from 1969 to1974 said this about the Palestinians:
So “Greater Israel” is not just an historical aberration that the Israelis outgrew following statehood. It seems rather, that “The Greater Israel” is a goal that has consistently guided their actions of invasion, occupation and annexation — in spite of their words of peace to their international audience.
Gaza: Off-shore Natural Gas Assets Coveted by Israel
First among the several geo-strategic interests of Israel in Gaza may be the 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in fields discovered two decades ago immediately offshore of Gaza — fields that, if not for its Palestinian owners in Gaza, could profit Israel $453 billion as an exporter of natural gas to Europe — especially in the wake of the US-sponsored sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. Oil was found in these fields as well — oil worth an estimated $71 billion.
Writer Tara Alami states in an article posted on the American “Mondoweiss”, that “the ongoing Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip cannot be viewed in isolation from the rich natural gas resources that abound on its shores.” [Emphasis added]
RT covers the story, but Western mainstream media doesn’t touch it, especially now. Russian, Syrian, and Iranian oil has been sanctioned by the West, raising the value of that $71 billion in oil finds even further:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GWymDRWCqmXS/
Dr. Atif Kubursi, an emeritus professor of economics from McMaster University who also worked extensively with the United Nations, writes on the IC911 website, “[T]hese [gas] deposits have gained notoriety and value as Russian gas and oil supplies became less available and accessible by Europe, particularly after Nord-Stream II was blown out last year. . .” [Emphasis added]
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated a mean (average) of 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and a mean of 122 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas in the Levant Basin Province.6 This makes the basin one of the most important gas resources in the world. [Emphasis added.]
With the escalation of energy prices triggered by the Ukraine-Russia war, the values of these deposits in the Levant basin have measurably increased. It is estimated that these deposits are now worth $2 trillion. Only Israel is currently exploiting these reserves. [Emphasis added.]
“However, occupation continues to prevent Palestinians from developing their energy fields so as to exploit and benefit from such assets. As such, the Palestinian people have been denied the benefits of using this natural resource to finance socioeconomic development and meet their need for energy. The accumulated losses are estimated in the billions of dollars.” [Emphasis added.]
“This is not only contrary to international law, but also in violation of natural justice and moral law. To date, the real and opportunity costs of the occupation exclusively in the area of oil and natural gas have accumulated to tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars.” [Emphasis added.]
Peter Myers cuts to the chase:
“But Israel has now started selling exploration rights to fossil fuels which belong to the Palestinians. Within days of October 7th they had sold 12 licenses to six different companies. Presumably, they just happened to have the contracts all ready to sign. Usually, these things take months or years to set up but the Israelis were selling half a trillion dollars' worth of someone else's oil and gas in less time than it takes to buy a washing machine.” [Emphasis added.]
The total oil and gas reserves were valued at a staggering $524 billion in 2019. But Israel does not have sole legal entitlement to the $524 billion, according to a UN reportpublished in the same year. [Emphasis added.]
TRT World reviews the opportunity of the gas fields find for the Palestinian people in this nine-minute report :
Samira Homerang Saunders
“When Joe Biden’s energy security advisor, Amos Hochstein, visited Israel last week to push for the development of Gaza’s offshore gas reserves. He claimed that the move will ‘revitalize’ the Palestinian economy. Israel however has no intention of allowing Palestinians to benefit from any of the commercial opportunities it is so keen to pursue. Its government views the entire population as an obstacle.” [Emphasis added.]
Most all of the Gas finds are inside of the Gazan territorial waters. But since Gaza is now illegally occupied by Israel, including these vast energy resources, there is enormous pressure on Israel to share them with the Palestinians:
The BBC acknowledges the vast opportunity, cites the problems, and interviews Mohammed Shtayyah, head of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction:
“Israelis even had a joke about how Moses led his people through the desert for 40 years to reach the one place in the region with no oil. But in the past few years, there have been offshore discoveries of gas and possibly oil that look set to open up new economic possibilities. In the future, they could also redefine strategic relationships.” [Emphasis added]
"Leviathan is actually the reservoir that can potentially bring Israel to be totally independent from an energy perspective and also position Israel as an exporter of natural gas rather than importer," says Yossi Abu, chief executive of leading Israeli natural gas company, Delek Drilling.
Delek Drilling and Avner Oil Exploration, also owned by Delek Group, own 31% of Tamar and 45% of Leviathan. Its US partner is Noble Energy.
"There are some technical problems but the problems are mainly political - because of the Israeli occupation and the internal Palestinian problems - the need for reconciliation," says Mohammed Shtayyah, head of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction.
"Overall it is extremely frustrating for us as Palestinians. You have that natural resource there that should be a real wealth for the nation and [we are] not using it." [Emphasis added.]
The Jewish News Syndicate provides the Israeli perspective, blaming the Palestinian leader for the lack of progress:
It was 22 years ago that PLO chairman and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat appeared on Palestinian television to announce the discovery of natural gas off the coast of Gaza.
Arafat described the discovery as “a gift from God” to the Palestinian people, smiling from the bridge of a fishing boat. “This will provide a solid foundation for our economy, for establishing an independent state with holy Jerusalem as its capital,” he said. But instead of working to create a Palestinian state, Arafat launched the Second Intifada, and the gas field was closed. [Emphasis added.]
But, economist, Michel Chossudovsky discusses the controversial agreements for the extradition of natural gas from off the shore of Gaza — agreements by Egypt and Israel that have excluded Hamas. He suggests that Egypt may have been bribed with the billions of dollars in natural gas revenue in secret negotiations, to accept Gaza refugees following the current invasion of Gaza by Israel — with projected gas extraction in the beginning of 2024.
Chossudovsky also suggests that it is no accident that Israel is bombing inside of Lebanon and Syria, since there are also natural gas discoveries off their coasts. It’s a fascinating interview. Watch on Rumble:
The decision for the evolution of the project was made….in 2019 when the European governments and Israel decided on the $6 billion pipeline project.
The gas pipeline is expected to initially carry 10 billion cubic meters of gas per year from Israeli and Cypriot waters to the Greek island of Crete, on to the Greek mainland and into Europe’s gas network via Italy. [Emphasis added.]
Given the location of the gas fields down south off shore of Gaza, one can understand why Israel would prefer to route the future Ben-Gurion Canal (see below)through Gaza to meet up directly with the gas field development.
Amos Hochstein, U.S. President Joe Biden’s energy security advisor, is currently visiting Israel to discuss preventing a second front from opening between Israel and Lebanon amid ongoing clashes with Hezbollah, as well as potential economic revitalization plans for Gaza centered around undeveloped offshore natural gas fields.
Biden’s Envoy Hochstein “was most recently in Bahrain, where he discussed the opportunity to develop offshore gas fields on behalf of the Palestinians as part of plans for post-war Gaza.”
“Israel gave preliminary approval for the development of a gas field off Gaza’s coast in June, stressing it would require security coordination with both the PA and Egypt. The Gaza Marine field, nearly 20 miles off Gaza’s coast, has remained undeveloped despite holding an estimated 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This total is hypothetically much more than needed to power the Palestinian territories, and some of it could be potentially exported.” (Haaretz)
Netanyahu’s October 2023 declaration of war against 2.3 million people of the Gaza Strip is a continuation of its 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead.” The underlying objective is the outright military occupation of Gaza by Israel’s IDF forces and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
There are powerful financial interests which stand to benefit from Israel’s criminal undertaking (Genocide) directed against Gaza. The ultimate objective is not only to exclude Palestinians from their homeland, it consists in confiscating the multi-billion dollar Gaza offshore Natural Gas reserves, namely those pertaining to the BG (BG Group) in 1999, as well the Levant discoveries of 2013.
This is what is contemplated. Outright confiscation with the complicity of Egypt
The occupation of Gaza is intent upon confiscating Palestine’s maritime gas reserves, starting in early 2024, as outlined in the Secret bilateral Agreement between Egypt and Israel.
Egypt is in on the game
Cairo is complicit with total disregard for the rights of Palestinians. It’s a criminal undertaking.
Egypt will establish refugee camps in the Sinai desert in coordination with Israel and the U.S., in exchange for a token participation in the exploitation of Gaza’s maritime, which are worth billions and billions of dollars. [Emphasis added.]
This quite controversial claim, implicating Egypt in the abandoning all of the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, is supported by Rasha Abou Jalal of Al-Monitor:
Egypt-Israel “Secret Bilateral Talks”
From 2021 to 2022, Egypt and Israel were involved in “secret bilateral talks” regarding the extraction of natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip.
“Egypt succeeded in persuading Israel to start extracting natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip, after several months of secret bilateral talks.
This development. . .comes after years of Israeli objections to extract natural gas off the coast of Gaza on [alleged] security grounds, . . .
British Gas (BG Group) has also been dealing with the Tel Aviv government.
What is significant is that the civilian arm of the Hamas Gaza government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields:
The field, which lies about 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of the Gaza coast, was discovered in 2000 by British Gas (currently BG Group) and is estimated to contain more than 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The official in the Egyptian intelligence service told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “An Egyptian economic and security delegation discussed with the Israeli side for several months the issue of allowing the extraction of natural gas off the coast of Gaza.” (Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022)
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Egypt and Israel, which had the rubber-stamp of the Palestinian National Authority (PA):
“The Egyptian official explained that Israel required the start of practical measures to extract gas from the Gaza fields at the beginning of 2024, to ensure its own security.” (Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022) [Emphasis added.]
Is Egypt striking a deal with Israel and the West?
It appears so, according to “The Telegraph.”
Of course, the October 7, 2023 events changed everything once again in the gas field extraction project. Israel appears to have adopted a drastically different course with regard to the Gazan Palestinians whose future appears ever more bleak. If they are destroyed and removed from Gaza they will not be a barrier to Israeli gas extraction and profits.
Gaza: A $55B Canal That Wants to Meet the Sea — in Gaza
Let’s examine the $55B Ben Gurion Canal project that Gaza is also sitting in the way of:
The Ben Gurion Canal, named after Israel’s first Prime Minister, has been touted as an Israeli alternative to the Suez Canal that was conceived in the 1960s after Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez.
When the Ben Gurion Canal is completed it is expected to put Eqypt’s Suez Canal out of business, even though it will cost $16B to $55B, many times that of the Suez, and take five years to complete.
“Billion Dollar Builds” takes us on a nine-minute technological and political journey into the mega-project — highlighting the requirement for the “pacification of Gaza.”
The new canal will be a third the length longer (150 miles — depending on the final route) and twice the width (200 meters) of the Suez in order to accommodate bi-directional traffic — or an aircraft carrier. It would be 50 meters deep — twice the depth of the Suez.
Using nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes is not unheard of. Project Plowshare was an official US program organized in 1957 for using nukes for peaceful purposes — “These tests were to demonstrate that atomic bombs can be used for peaceful purposes, that the atomic sword could be beaten into a plowshare”:
However, the Wikipedia article notes, “Negative impacts from Project Plowshare's tests generated significant public opposition, which eventually led to the program's termination in 1977. These consequences included tritiated water and the deposition of fallout from radioactive material being injected into the atmosphere.” Israel may, or may not, have found a way around these significant problems.
A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the Negev Desert in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the Suez Canal.[13][14][Emphasis added.]
The project actually involves the detonation of a nuclear bomb every 1300 feet from the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea (1,500 feet below sea level) almost all the way to the Mediterranean Sea where an even more costly conventional excavation will complete the canal immediately north of, or through, Gaza.
According to H.D. MacCabee of Lawrence Livermore Lab, the 1963 plan would require nuclear blasts exploded along 130 miles of the canal in the uninhabited Negev Desert. Curiously, radiation issues are largely ignored in the analysis.
The document above, published by H. D. Maccabee of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was written under contract to the US Department of Energy and was classified as secret until 1993. “Such a canal would be a strategically valuable alternative to the current Suez Canal and would probably greatly contribute to the economic development of the surrounding area,” the declassified document states.
ANR News provides a bit more depth into the strategically important mega-project:
Even more controversial has been the suggestion that the immense canal maintenance costs could be dramatically reduced by routing the canal parallel and much closer to the Egyptian border, through “the amor rock structure” instead of the desert sand which would eliminate billions of dollars per year in dredging the canal from the frequent sandstorms — an enormous financial burden to the Suez.
Such a route would also benefit by saving 50 miles of initial excavation. But, it would have to go through Gaza, instead of around it. This would not be acceptable, of course, to the people of Gaza — absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a new 9/11, where they were forced out of Gaza. But if it were possible to accomplish the depopulation of Gaza, Israel’s new canal could avoid the risk of attacks on the canal’s publicly documented route (north of Gaza) by Hamas rockets.
Dr. Atif Kubursi, in the article below states, “Given these basic reasons it is difficult to dismiss this Israeli objective as a serious factor in what is driving Israeli genocide in Gaza.”:
Even with the enormous cost of the project, according to Dr. Atif Kubursi (January 11, 2024), the canal would net Israel about $6B annually (twice the budget that the US provides in aid annually). Its major western investors would reap even greater profits — which might even explain the West’s complicity in the massive destruction in Gaza.
Kubursi suggests that the land of Gaza now becomes three to four times more valuable than in recent decades — especially given that “Israel is planning to build small towns and tourist hubs with hotels/restaurants along the canal.”
Richard Medhurst explains in this eight-minute video how the West plans to deepen its control over international shipping and through Arab waters with its mega investment in the Ben Gurion Canal:
Watch this young woman explain the Ben Gurion Canal project in political terms in under two minutes:
George Webb has written much about the “East Med Pipeline” (Mediterranean), which would be positioned at the mouth of the new canal to work in tandem with it. The new scheme would allow oil tankers to empty their loads in Israel (or Gaza) and then turn around and head back down the canal to the oil producing countries where they came from. They would no longer have to sail the tankers across the Mediterranean Sea to the destination countries — as described by Peter Duke and George Webb in this 18-minute discussion:
The new canal project through Israel would also insulate Israel from Egyptian bans on Israeli shipments to and from the country, which had been a major problem with its historic enemy. It would also give Israel and its allies a “huge influence on the international supply chains of oil, grain, and world trade in general,” as noted by Kubursi. [Emphasis added]
But he notes that Gaza is a major impediment:
“On April 2, 2021, Israel announced that work on the Ben Gurion Canal was expected to begin by June 2021. However, this did not happen given the status of Gaza as a Palestinian enclave ruled by Hamas. Many analysts interpret the current Israeli re-occupation of the Gaza Strip as something that many Israeli politicians have been waiting for in order to revive the old project.” 44[Emphasis added.]
Regarding the original published canal route, Kubursi acknowledges the obvious:
“This is not the shortest distance, however, nor is in the optimum geological structure away from the sandy terrain of Negev. Going into Gaza, guarantees the shortest distance advantage as well as the rocky terrain. These advantages are being cited as crucial reasons for the current genocide Israel is perpetrating in Gaza.”
“But even if the canal would not end in the Gaza Strip itself, it is hard to believe that the Israelis would build it near a Palestinian territory such as Ashkelon. The canal’s distance of only a few tens of kilometers from the Gaza Strip would make it very vulnerable and subject to Palestinian rockets, howitzers, drones and other devices. That is why a basic prerequisite for the construction of the canal is the Israeli military control of the Gaza area.” [Emphasis added.]
Also, Kubursi emphasizes the security threat of China and Russia to the West:
The West does not want to depend on a channel controlled by Egypt, with some ties to the Russian Federation and China, which the West consider them major security threats. Earlier this year, Egypt is slated to become a full member of BRICS from January 1st, 2024. The West does not want Egypt directly, nor Russia and China indirectly, to have exclusive control over world trade. [Emphasis added.]
In fact, China’s new Belt and Road Initiative has forced the West to compete:
“The Americans and their partners have treated with suspicion and disapproval the Chinese New Silk Road megaproject, in which Egypt has an important role. In 2014, Beijing and Cairo signed the “Strategic Partnership Agreement,” agreeing to cooperate in the fields of defense, technology, economy, the fight against terrorism and cybercrime. Actually, during Xi Jinping’s visit to Egypt in 2016, another 21 agreements were signed, including a contract for 15 billion dollars of Chinese investment in various projects….Chinese investment in Egypt increased by 317%. [Emphasis added.]
Ghazal Vaisi looks at the bigger picture: “China is now the single largest investor and trading partner to 11 Middle Eastern countries, thanks primarily to its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a global, multi-trillion-dollar project.” [Emphasis added]
“China has significantly increased its economic, political, and security footprint in the Middle East through the BRI during the past decade.
The ‘Belt’ runs from China, through South and Central Asia, and into Europe.
The Maritime “road” connects coastal Chinese cities with Africa and the Mediterranean.” [Emphasis added.]
According to The Brookings Institution, “China’s growing role in the Middle East is positioning the rising superpower in direct confrontation with shifting US interests in the domains of energy security, Israel, and Iran.”49
“Israel aims to push Egypt further into a corner by eliminating Suez in the global trade and energy corridor and becoming a global trade and energy logistics center. Experts are of the opinion that this situation will shake the strategic-energy balance of China’s Belt and Road Project initiative in the Mediterranean, along with the Strait of Hormuz, which is the transfer point of 30 percent of the world’s energy. The Ben Gurion Canal would have the solid backing of the West.” [Emphasis added.]
But a more direct canal route — through Gaza — would save billions of dollars. Marion Fernando of TRT World writes:
Is Israel's brutal assault on Gaza only in retaliation to Hamas's [October 7] attacks?
Or is there a more sinister plan behind what Palestinians believe is the start of the second 'nakba' – a redux of the 1948 "catastrophe" that saw Zionist militias invade Palestine and drive out tens of thousands of people from their homes?
As Israeli bombardment continues to devastate Gaza — before a humanitarian truce — and evict thousands of Palestinians from their homes, online chatter has put the spotlight back on an old plan by the Jewish state to dig a canal to connect the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea through the Gulf of Aqaba.
Some believe Israel might even change course to cut it right through Gaza. [Emphasis added.]
Yvonne Ridley of the Middle East Monitor also weighs in this “more direct route” theme:
Whoever controls the canal will have enormous influence over the global supply routes for oil, grain and shipping. With Gaza razed to the ground, it would enable the canal planners to literally cut corners and reduce costs by diverting the canal straight through the middle of the territory.
As far as Netanyahu is concerned they are standing in the way of the project; a project which may earn him forgiveness in Tel Aviv for the intelligence and military shortcomings on 7 October.
The only thing stopping the newly-revised project from being revived and rubber-stamped is the presence of the Palestinians in Gaza. [Emphasis added.]
Maybe it has to do with the money?
Follow the money with Celine Lilas:
Social media user Celine Lilas, among many others, posted her take on one of the reasons why Western powers tend to support Israel: [GlobalResearch.ca]
"You might be asking yourself, why do they want to build another canal?" she says in her video, before proceeding to explain how "Israel wants to seize Gaza, annex the land, take it over so they can build their canal through it."
"The US, the UK, and France are all for that because it's gonna make them a lot of money at the cost of millions of lives destroyed," she adds.
A comment with more than 7,000 likes under the video said: "In times of war, it's best to never focus on emotions or sides but rather to follow the money because it's always about money." [Emphasis added.]
Sarah Khalil of the New Arab agrees and paints a more dire picture:
Since Israel launched its onslaught on the besieged enclave, it has pushed Palestinians to move south by relentlessly bombing northern Gaza before carrying out a ground invasion weeks later. At least 400,000 Palestinians have been displaced from the north to the south, according to statistics from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).
Some 800,000 Palestinians remained in areas considered "north" - namely past north of Wadi Gaza. Israel's indiscriminate bombing campaign, which has mostly targeted the north - has killed at least 11,470 people in Gaza [now 30,000] - mostly civilians, including women and children.
The death toll has not been updated for days due to Israel's targeting of the largest hospital in Gaza, Al-Shifa, which was a centre for collecting data on deaths and the wounded.
Israel denies it has plans to annex the Strip but it had called for the "voluntary migration" of Palestinians in Gaza amid accusations that it was "ethnically cleansing" the enclave. [Emphasis added.]
And finally, in his discussion on US imperialism at play in the Ben Gurion Canal controversy, Michel Chossoudovsky of Global Research says this additional question should be asked: “Is the US using Israel for Imperial control? Or, is Israel using the US for its territorial ambitions?”
This U.S. plan [for the canal project], first negotiated with Israel in the 1960s, is of utmost relevance to unfolding events in Palestine.
The objective is to achieve US-Israeli Maritime dominance against the people of the Middle East. In the context of a broader US-led Middle East War, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is part of America’s hegemonic military agenda.[Emphasis added.]
What is revealed in Medhurst’s video [above] is the U.S. military-intelligence strategy to use Israel as a “hub” in the Middle East with a view to securing the hegemonic control over strategic international waterways. [Emphasis added.]
We would like to believe that, however, the Israeli statement seems betrayed by their own Intelligence Ministry, which issued a report in mid-October, 2023 calling for the forcible removal of all Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula:
The Israeli Ministry of Intelligence is recommending the forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, according to an official document revealed in full for the first time by +972’s partner site Local Call yesterday. [Emphasis added.]
"Massive population migration from combat zones is a natural and necessary result." Minister of Intelligence, Gila Gamliel, October 3, 2023 (Photo: Haim Goldberg / Flash 90)
The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023, bears the logo of the Intelligence Ministry — a small governmental body that produces policy research and shares its proposals with intelligence agencies, the army, and other ministries. It assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in the framework of the current war, and recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. It also calls on Israel to enlist the international community in support of this endeavor. The document, whose authenticity was confirmed by the ministry, has beentranslated into English in full here on +972. [Emphasis added.]
The Israeli Ministry of Intelligence hosts the following website:
Key excerpts from the official Israeli “Policy paper: Options for a policy regarding Gaza’s civilian population,” published by the Intelligence Ministry, reveal some startling observations:
The document is dated just six days following the Hamas invasion of October 7. Could this detailed 10-page paper, with highly specific recommendations, have been developed and passed through the multiple channels of approval in such short amount of time? Could it possibly have been accomplished while Israel was still enduring and sorting out the aftermath of the attack? Or was this yet another example of foreknowledge? (Note: We will address “Foreknowledge of the Attacks” in detail in Part 7 of this series)
The recommended “Option C”, the most aggressive of the three options presented, favors “Evacuation of the civilian population to the Sinai,” which is, on the one hand, in complete contradiction to public statements from the Israeli government, but is on the other, in concert with Israel’s forced relocation of the population from northern Gaza and is also in concert with the destruction of 80% of the Gazan housing (in addition to a similar percentage of its religious and academic institutions).
Per the document, 2.5 million people are not only forced to evacuate their own territory (an international crime, by any measure) but are expected to then live in the desert in “tent cities.”
“Operational” objectives #1 through #5 below, include:
“operations from the air with a focus on the north of Gaza to allow a ground invasion in an area that is already evacuated”
“a gradual ground invasion of the territory in the north and along the border until the occupation of the entire Strip and cleansing of the underground bunkers of Hamas fighters”
“leaving the travel routes to the south open to enable the evacuation of the civilian population toward Rafah”
Given that these objectives were presented by the Intelligence Ministry as a “concept”, but were in fact executed, within weeks, to the letter, this of course begs the question: “Shouldn’t governments of the world take seriously the remaining objective of the recommended “Option C” — the forced mass evacuation of Gazans across the Egypt border?
And, finally, the point under “International/legal legitimacy”:
“. . .significant population displacement, may present challenges in terms of international legitimacy . . .”
This is the understatement of the decade. In fact, the forcible transfer of populations violates Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and is prosecutable as an international crime.
Since the international crimes of Israel during the past 75 years are so well documented, can we imagine that they will find a way to make it happen in spite of international law and political pressure? I.e., under the cover of an instigated wider war with their Arab neighbors? After all, Israel has done this before.
Under the cover of the regional Six-Day war, pre-emptively started by Israel, they invaded and annexed not only Gaza but the West Bank too, therefore occupying all of Palestinian sovereign territory allocated by the 1948 UN Plan. And they have kept control of it for the last 57 years. They also annexed the Golan Heights in Syria which they still control, and also the Sinai in Egypt which was eventually returned.
Conclusions of our Series on Gaza & Its Astounding Parallels with 9/11: PART 1 — "A Territory or Country is Targeted for Previously Established Geostrategic Goals"
The puppet masters have pulled the strings and the puppets are dancing.
We’ve found that the geostrategic goals of both the US government and of Israel prior to their respective major terror attacks seems to have aligned perfectly with the opportunities provided to them by those attacks.
We’ve seen that the US arms industry, and the oil, banking, and media industries have all benefited enormously from 9/11. Similarly, the territorial goals of Israel are in the process of being met following the attacks of 10/7.
On the 9/11 side of the parallels, we’ve discovered that, prior to 9/11/01, the neocons controlling the US government established far-reaching goals of hegemony in the Middle East and a vast increase in the military budget. Yet the neocons acknowledged that “. . . the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Emphasis added.]
We’ve also learned that Gen. Wesley Clark was dumbfounded when told by another Pentagon general, within two weeks after 9/11, that the US was going to take out seven countries: Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran. It was 9/11 that provided the pretext. The Pentagon is not quite finished yet. It appears to still be working on that plan.
Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded under the pretext of the attacks of 9/11, yet, after the torture and imprisonment of hundreds of “terrorists,” all that has been achieved is more terror and massive profits for the oil and banking industries.
On the Gaza side of our parallels equation we have learned that from the very start, Zionist aspirations for their new homeland did not really include a home for the non-Jewish population of Palestine. Even the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl himself, stated, “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country.” [Emphasis added.] Numerous Israeli leaders have reinforced such statements with their own.
We have exposed that the 1917 Balfour Declaration, a colonialist document that conferred the rights of the 90% Palestinian majority over to a 10% minority, was horrifically flawed from its inception. According to Avi Shlaim, the Balfour Declaration “completely disregarded the rights and aspirations of the people of [Palestine].“ [Emphasis added.]
We have learned too, that many Israeli leaders, particularly in the ruling Likud Party, continue to draw inspiration from the “Greater Israel” as outlined by Theodor Herzl, which quite controversially appears to lay claim to immense territories of Israel’s surrounding Arab neighbors and that Israel has already repeatedly invaded many of these territories in the last seven decades.
We have revealed that the 1982 Yinon Plan for Israel,also a source of inspiration for Israeli leaders, called for a divided Iraq, a divided Lebanon and Egypt and Syria — as well as the partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan.
It is extremely interesting that the above countries slated for infiltration or overthrow parallelquite closely the seven countries that Gen. Wesley Clark’s Pentagon contact, told him (within two weeks after 9/11) would be taken out. We have to ask the questions, “Who is running US policy?” and, “Why were there so many dual Israeli/US citizens in the Bush Administration? Where is their loyalty?”
We have also learned that Israel discovered 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas fields worth a whopping $453B to whoever is left standing after this war. It’s not looking good for the Gazans.
The Gas field discoveries are shown in red.
Similarly, the value of the ambitious Ben-Gurion Canal mega-project is rapidly increasing, as it is slated to replace the Suez Canal and the $9B per year fees charged to the 30% of all the world’s shipping containers that travels through it.
We saw how the route north of Gaza is not a secure one, due to Hamas rocket attacks, and that a route through a depopulated northernGaza would not only save billions in initial excavation as well as dredging maintenance, but is a more strategic route, given the location of the natural gas discoveries.
So, we can more easily understand now, both with the events of 9/11 in the US and with 10/7 in Gaza, that clearly there were highly profitable and other geostrategic interests at play. We will see in future articles in this series that these attacks and the responses to them were, in all likelihood, carefully set up in advance and then carried out in a fashion so as to manipulate the public, and international audience, for support in carrying out not-so-well-hidden objectives.
In Part 2 of Gaza - The Astounding Parallels with 9/11, we look closely at the Series of Historic and Recent Provocations and False Flag Operations, by both the US and by Israel, that they have used to manipulate people and governments, and even trigger wars in order to carry out national and international objectives.
What an incredible well researched and written article, Richard. I figured 10/7 was a false flag, but this gives me a lot more context and evidence. I will look forward to your next post. Thank you so much.
I thought this the minute it happened. Thank you for this.
What an incredible well researched and written article, Richard. I figured 10/7 was a false flag, but this gives me a lot more context and evidence. I will look forward to your next post. Thank you so much.