The New Middle East; The Keyword for the Cognitive Warfare of Zionism in West Asia
Zionism, rooted in the notion of the “chosen people,” is a racially-based ideology of self-segregation and supremacy. This ideology justifies the displacement of Palestinians and other non-Jews from their homeland as a necessary step in the formation of a Jewish state and a new Middle East. From its inception, Zionism has pursued expansionist goals, aiming not only for the establishment of a state in Palestine but also for a “Greater Israel” that extends far beyond its current borders. Past achievements, such as the creation of Israel, are merely strategic steps toward this larger territorial objective, fueled by the ideological concept of “Eretz Israel.” This vision of a “Greater Israel” involves destabilizing and dissolving Arab states, actively working to create sectarian divisions and supporting the establishment of proxy states that would be dependent on and subservient to Israeli interests.
Furthermore, specific strategic plans, such as the “Yinon Plan” and the “Clean Break” document, are evidence of a deliberate long-term effort to achieve this regional dominance. The United States is a partner in this endeavor and the US involvement serves not only Israeli interests but also potentially aligns with the imperial ambitions of the US itself and the building of a new world order. Additionally, British policies played a crucial role in the initial stages of the Zionist project by actively supporting the development of a protected and segregated Zionist economy in Palestine, thereby allowing it to thrive at the expense of the local Palestinian population. This segregated economy, shielded from outside competition, served as a foundation for future Zionist expansion.
Finally, Israel’s actions in the Middle East contradict its stated objectives of combating terrorism and promoting peace. Instead, Israel’s alliances are a strategic means of securing access to vital resources, particularly water, as well as a way to further the “Greater Israel” project, sow discord among Arab countries, and form a new Middle East. Israel seeks regional dominance by building ties with various Middle Eastern states, not out of a genuine desire for stability but as a means to achieve its expansionist agenda and solidify its position as the primary power in the region. This strategic approach aims to ensure Israeli hegemony over the new Middle East, utilizing both direct and indirect means to expand its influence and control.
Racial Identification and Territorial Expansion in the Zionist Ideology
Zionism, rooted in the concept of racial identity and segregation, promotes the establishment of a separate Jewish state to safeguard the notion of the “chosen people.” This ideology also envisions a “Greater Israel” agenda, which entails territorial expansion strategies in the context of a new Middle East and the new world order.
“Chosen People” and Racial Ideology in Zionism
Racism is not an accidental aspect of Zionism, but rather a core element embedded within its ideology and goals. Zionism is fundamentally based on racial identification, defining Jewishness through a perceived common ancestry rather than religion or language. This racial basis leads to three central tenets: racial self-segregation, which aims to gather Jews into a separate state for “national self-realization” and fundamentally rejects integration; racial exclusiveness, which prioritizes the preservation of a distinct “Jewish identity” and views “assimilation” as a threat; and racial supremacy, which idealizes supposedly “Jewish” characteristics and sees a “special mission” for the Jewish state. Zionist leaders, viewing assimilation as the primary threat, have consistently promoted this self-segregation, seeing it as a path to national “redemption” and fulfillment [1].
Following the same reasoning that vehemently opposes the integration of Jews into non-Jewish societies, the core Zionist principle of racial self-segregation also requires racial purity and exclusivity in the territory where Jewish self-segregation is sought. Therefore, the Zionist belief in racial self-segregation inherently denies the possibility of Jews and non-Jews coexisting in the area designated for Jewish regrouping. The presence of non-Jewish communities, including the indigenous population, in the territory where Jews are to gather, is seen as a stain on the concept of pure Zionist racism, similar to Jews residing in what is considered the lands of the Gentiles, known as the lands of “Jewish exile” [2].
Zionists justified their claim to the land of Palestine by asserting an exclusive right of nationhood granted by divine will. Early Zionist thinkers strategically employed biblical terms such as “chosen people” and “the Promised Land” to reshape Jews as an ethno-nationalistic group striving for political self-determination. This narrative aimed to establish a territorial space, namely the new Middle East, where Jewish “emancipation” could be realized through land control and the formation of a nation-state. The Zionist principle of racial self-segregation mandates the departure of all Jews from their “exile” lands and the expulsion of non-Jews from the designated “Jewish destination” in Palestine and other parts of the Middle East. These actions are considered essential for attaining “Zionist fulfillment” and Jewish “national redemption.” It is within a context of complete self-segregation that “Jewish superiority” can manifest, aligning with Zionist beliefs that the “Chosen People” can only achieve their “special destiny” when united and isolated from others [3].
Greater Israel
Nearly a century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state encompassed a significant territory, including historic Palestine; South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River; Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain, and Deraa; and control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan, as well as the Gulf of Aqaba. As shown in Fig. 1, some Zionists, however, envisioned an even larger state, stretching from the Nile in the west to the Euphrates in the east, incorporating Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria, and Southern Turkey [4]. This way they aimed to form a new Middle East solely under the control of Zionists and their allies.
The “Greater Israel” project involves the strategy of weakening and potentially dividing neighboring Arab states as part of a collaborative expansionist effort between the US, Israel, NATO, and Saudi Arabia. The growing alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel, according to Netanyahu, is seen as a way to enhance Israel’s influence in the Middle East and counter Iran. This project aligns with the imperial ambitions of the United States which has always planned to set up a new world order. The vision of Greater Israel envisions the creation of proxy states encompassing territories in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai region, along with portions of Iraq and Saudi Arabia [5].
Fig. 1. The Map of Greater Israel
“Eretz Israel”: The Ideological Basis for Active Zionist Expansion
Anyone studying the Zionist Movement’s behavior and the methods of the Zionist state will recognize that any achievements made are merely temporary steps toward their ultimate goal, which is the foundation of a new Middle East. These achievements should not be mistaken as final destinations, regardless of any assurances to the contrary from Zionist and Israeli leaders. For instance, from 1897 to 1942, while Zionist leaders publicly denied seeking statehood, emphasizing a desire for only a “home,” internal documents and leaders’ diaries reveal that statehood was indeed the underlying objective of Zionism throughout that period, despite public disclaimers [6].
Similarly, until 1948, Zionist leaders consistently assured the world they had no intention of dispossessing or evicting the Arabs of Palestine from their homeland. However, ample evidence indicates their goal was the complete Zionization and de-Arabization of Palestine from the outset. When the opportunity arose in 1948, they quickly displaced the Arab population [7].
A third element of the Zionist agenda, territorial expansion, has likewise been pursued under a guise of public disavowal. Unlike the goals of statehood and the eviction of Arabs—which have now been achieved, exposing the true intentions behind them—the goal of territorial expansion and shaping a new Middle East is only partially complete, and the veil of secrecy surrounding it remains only partially lifted [8].
After consolidating its state, Israel initiated a new phase of expansionism, aiming for a “Greater Israel” with maximum land and minimum Arabs. This ambition fueled the 1967 war against its Arab neighbors, which resulted in a swift Israeli victory and the extension of its control over remaining parts of Palestine, along with the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. The occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip was viewed as fulfilling the Zionist goal of a greater Israel over historic Palestine, a goal perceived as essential for completing the “Zionist dream” [9].
On two occasions since its establishment, the Zionist state has demonstrated a consistent pattern of territorial expansion, mirroring the methods employed by the Zionist Movement in the preceding decades regarding statehood and the displacement of Arabs. First, in 1948 and early 1949, Israel occupied areas beyond those allocated to the “Jewish state” in the UN partition plan, despite earlier assurances to the UN that it was satisfied with those proposed territories. Second, in late October and early November 1956, exploiting Egypt’s preoccupation with the Anglo-French invasion, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and parts of the Sinai Peninsula. For four months, Israel rejected repeated UN calls for withdrawal, claiming these territories as part of its “historical homeland” and “national heritage” [10].
The Zionist settler-state has, through both its ominous actions and its similarly ominous words, made clear its intent to seize additional territories that fall within its claimed national heritage when opportune [11]. David Ben Gurion, on at least two occasions, officially affirmed that the state was created “in a part of our small country” [12] and “in only a portion of the Land of Israel” [13] This is reinforced by the state’s own proclamation that “the creation of the new State by no means derogates from the scope of historic Eretz Israel [land of Israel]” [14]. Fig. 2 vividly portrays Israel’s strategic endeavor to redraw the map of the “New Middle East,” signaling a deliberate effort to redefine the geopolitical contours of the region and shape a novel vision for its future trajectory.
Given the well-established pattern of the Zionist Movement, the traditional Zionist concept of “Eretz Israel,” with even its “moderate” version including double the area now controlled by the Zionist state, and the unequivocal warnings from leading Zionist voices regarding the continued determination to seize additional Arab territories, it is implausible to assume that Zionism will indefinitely remain confined to its current territory. This current area is just a fraction of what it considers its “national heritage” and has consistently planned to occupy [15].
Fig. 2. “The New Middle East”: Unofficial Map by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters
Israel and the Plan for Arab Countries
Israel has had two primary objectives in the Middle East. Firstly, it has planned to establish itself as the predominant regional power, and its policies in the Middle East clearly reflect its imperialistic ambitions. Secondly, Israel has aimed to fragment Arab states along ethnic and religious lines. The goal is to weaken Arab states by Balkanizing the region and creating proxy states, thus forging its new Middle East [16].
The Dissolution of Arab Countries
The concept of Israel breaking down Arab states into smaller units is a recurring theme in Israeli strategic thought. Notably, this element of the plan is not new [17]. Oded Yinon, a former advisor to Ariel Sharon, presents his plan for the Middle East in an article titled “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” known as the Yinon Plan. The Yinon Plan aims at securing Israeli dominance in the region and advocates for the fragmentation of surrounding Arab states into smaller and less powerful entities to reshape Israel’s geopolitical landscape and create a new Middle East.
The size of these states would be determined by their ethnic or sectarian composition. The Zionist aspiration is for these sect-based states to become satellites of Israel, serving as both supporters and a source of moral validation. The document Kivunim, published in February 1982, underscores that Palestinians have always been a primary focus of Zionist strategies, as their existence as a distinct and independent people challenges the fundamental premise of the Zionist state. However, it is crucial to recognize that while Palestinians have been a central target, every Arab state, particularly those with strong nationalist orientations and unity, inevitably becomes a legitimate target in the eyes of Zionist planners over time [18].
Moreover, Yinon holds the idea that the entire Arabian Peninsula is seen as a likely candidate for dissolution due to both internal and external pressures, with this outcome considered particularly inevitable in Saudi Arabia. Whether its oil-based economic power remains strong or diminishes over time, the internal conflicts and potential for collapse are viewed as natural developments given the current political structures in the region [19].
The “Yinon Plan,” while modified, appears to be materializing through a strategy known as “A Clean Break.” This strategy is outlined in a 1996 policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” written for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by Richard Perle and the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000. Richard Perle, a former Pentagon official and later advisor to U.S. presidents, played a key role in developing this strategy. The study group was made up of scholars with strong connections to both the US and Israeli establishments [20].
The “Clean Break” paper is interpreted as a plan for securing a “realm,” a term that implies the Middle East being under the indirect control of a dominant power, potentially Israel. This is supported by the paper’s authorship including a high-ranking US military advisor, raising questions about whether the strategic goal is primarily to secure Israel’s position or to further US interests in the region, or both. The US is seen by the author as implementing some of the objectives outlined in the 1996 strategy document from Tel Aviv [21].
The following section will present case studies of select countries that faced considerable instability to facilitate the execution of the proposed Israeli geopolitical plan, that is the creation of a new Middle East and new world order.
Iraq
Israeli strategists identified Iraq as a significant strategic adversary among Arab nations. Consequently, the plan focuses on Iraq as the linchpin for the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In accordance with the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists proposed the division of Iraq into distinct entities, including a Kurdish state and separate Arab states designated for Shiite and Sunni Muslims. This approach calls for initiating conflicts, such as the war between Iraq and Iran, as a means to advance these objectives [22].
In a part of his article, Yinon states:
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 than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon… It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. [23]
Beyond Iraq, the Yinon Plan envisions the partitioning of Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria, aligning with proposed divisions in Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan. The plan also anticipates destabilization in North Africa, starting in Egypt and extending to Sudan, Libya, and neighboring regions [24]. In this regard, following the invasion of Iraq, Israel, under Arial Sharon, reportedly urged Washington to also attack Syria, Libya, and Iran [25]. The document also promoted the concept of pre-emptive war as a way to shape Israel’s geostrategic environment and to carve out a “New Middle East” [26].
Libya
Since the 2011 NATO-led intervention that toppled Muammar Gaddafi, Libya has been mired in instability. The removal of Gaddafi’s government created a power vacuum, which was exacerbated by the ineffectiveness of subsequent governments and the rise of militias. Following uprisings in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt, a revolt began in Libya, leading to the formation of the National Transitional Council under Mustafa Abdul Jalil. Despite Gaddafi’s death and the election of the General National Congress (GNC) in 2012, the country descended into civil war [27].
During this conflict, Islamic militias became prominent, leading General Haftar to launch “Operation Dignity” against them. By 2014, Libya was essentially divided between two factions: one led by Al-Sarraj, which held the internationally recognized government, and the other led by Haftar, who controlled large territories. The ongoing military conflict between these two factions has become a constant. Although ISIS also emerged in Libya for a period, their presence was short-lived [28].
The situation in Libya is also fueled by a proxy war between regional and international powers, with each side supporting different factions for their own political, economic, and ideological gains. Haftar receives support from nations like Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Russia, and France, while Al-Sarraj has the backing of Qatar, Turkey, the UN, the US, and Italy. This external involvement further complicates the internal conflict, making Libya a battleground for competing global interests [29] and great powers’ idea of setting up a new world order.
Syria
“A Clean Break” document advocated for a strategy to weaken Syria, aiming to “roll back” its influence in the region. This strategy involved pushing Syrian forces out of Lebanon, which occurred in 2005, and destabilizing the Syrian government, which was seen in 2011:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. [30]
A crucial part of this strategy was to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, not only as a goal in itself, but as a means of undermining Syria’s regional ambitions. The document envisioned a “New Middle East” dominated by Israel, with Syria encircled. To achieve this, the plan called for a strategic alliance including a Sunni Muslim entity in “Central Iraq,” working against Syria. This scenario, the document suggests, would leave Syria isolated, squeezed between this alliance and an axis with Israel, creating an environment where a redrawing of the Middle East map would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity. Essentially, destabilizing Iraq was seen as a key move to destabilize Syria and weaken their regional influence [31].
Oded Yinon also outlined in his book how Arab conflicts align with Israeli interests. He elaborated on the situation in Syria and its role in advancing Israel’s vision of Greater Israel. The contentious email from Hillary Clinton to Israel proposing the instigation of a civil war in Syria is noteworthy. In another email, Hillary Clinton’s remarks serve as evidence of Israel’s preconceived strategy, suggesting that the dismantling of Syria would weaken Iran [32].
Access to Resources
From the very beginning, the British government actively supported the Zionist project by encouraging economic self-sufficiency and granting Zionists control over natural resources in Palestine. This policy resulted in the creation of a segregated Zionist economy, distinct from the Palestinian economy, with separate land and labor markets. This “economic enclave” was protected by the British Empire, which acted as a classic colonial power. Natural resources in Palestine were not exploited by rival colonial powers, and the finance and real estate markets were shielded from external profiteers. Britain pursued a protectionist policy that enabled the Zionist economy to flourish at the expense of local economies and interests [33].
Moreover, while Israel claims to be focused on eliminating terrorist groups, its actions suggest a different agenda: It does not actually desire stability or unity in the Middle East, as this is perceived as detrimental to its interests. Furthermore, Israel opposes any nuclear program within the region. The stated reason for building bilateral relationships with Middle Eastern states is to gain access to water resources and to facilitate the goal of a “Greater Israel,” as well as fostering divisions among Arab countries. Israel believes that gaining recognition from Muslim countries will pave the way for regional dominance and the creation of the new Middle East. Thus, Israel is pursuing closer ties with countries such as the UAE, Egypt, Qatar, and Oman [34].
Conclusion
This analysis has revealed Zionism as more than a pursuit of Jewish self-determination; it is an ideology intricately bound to racial supremacy and a relentless drive for expansion. The evidence challenges conventional narratives, showing the displacement of Palestinians is not merely a consequence of conflict, but a calculated outcome of an ideology prioritizing self-segregation and territorial acquisition. The ambition for a “Greater Israel” emerges as the enduring goal, transforming past achievements into steps toward regional dominance and the creation of a new Middle East. This involves not only territorial claims, but also a strategic agenda requiring the destabilization of Arab states, the creation of proxy regimes, and the perpetuation of dependency.
Moreover, the crucial role of external actors, particularly the United States and Great Britain, whose policies have undeniably furthered Zionist aims, has become clear. These external influences reveal a complex interplay of political and strategic interests, challenging the idea of Zionism as an isolated phenomenon. This suggests that the ambition for regional hegemony transcends national borders, intertwining with the imperial aspirations of other states and their pursuit of a new world order.
Ultimately, this exploration has exposed a stark paradox: a narrative of seeking security juxtaposed with a persistent drive for expansion. The alliances formed within the Middle East are not genuine partnerships, but strategic maneuvers to secure resources, expand territory, and sow division. Thus regional dominance and remapping the Middle East remain the driving forces behind Israeli actions, reframing the conflict within broader power dynamics. The evidence compels a reevaluation of Zionism, prompting a consideration of the implications of an ideology that prioritizes power over coexistence.
References
[1]. Sayegh, Fayez Abdullah. Zionist colonialism in Palestine. Vol. 1. Beirut: Research Center, Palestine Liberation Organization (1965): 21-23.
[2]. Ibid., 23.
[3]. Ibid.; Dana, Tariq, and Ali Jarbawi. “A Century of Settler Colonialism in Palestine.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 24.1 (2017): 3.
[4]. Lendman, Stephen. “What Israel Fears Most: An Encroachment to ‘Greater Israel’?” Global Research, 27 Dec. 2016, www.globalresearch.ca/what-israel-fears-most-an-encroachment-to-greater-israel/5564905
[5]. Shahak, Israel, and Michel Chossudovsky. “Greater Israel: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.” The Infamous” Oded Yinon Plan”. Global Research. https://www. globalresearch. ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815 Erişim tarihi 11.10 (2019).
[6]. Sayegh, 32-33.
[7]. Ibid., 33.
[8]. Ibid.
[9]. Pappe, Ilan. A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2004): 188.
[10]. Sayegh, 34-35.
[11]. Ibid., 35.
[12]. State of Israel, Government Yearbook, 5712 (1951/1952), Introduction p. x.
[13]. State of Israel, Government Yearbook, 5713 (1952), Introduction, p. 15.
[14]. State of Israel, Government Yearbook. 5716 (1955), p. 320.
[15]. Sayegh, 38.
[16]. Masalha, Nur. Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion. London: Pluto Press, 2000.
[17]. Shahak and Chossudovsky, 6.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius. “Preparing the Chessboard for the ‘Clash of Civilizations’: Divide, Conquer and Rule the ‘New Middle East’ – Global Research.” Global Research, 15 Dec. 2024, www.globalresearch.ca/preparing-the-chessboard-for-the-clash-of-civilizations-divide-conquer-and-rule-the-new-middle-east/27786.
[20]. Ibid.
[21]. Ibid.
[22]. Ibid.
[23]. Yinon, Oded. “A strategy for Israel in the nineteen eighties.” KIVUNIM (Directions): A Journal for Judaism and Zionism 14.11 (1982).
[24]. Nazemroaya
[25]. Benn, Aluf. “Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, Feb. 18, 2003.
[26]. Perle, Richard Norman, Douglas J. Feith, and David Wurmser. A clean break: A new strategy for securing the realm. Arab American Institute, 1996.
[27]. Winer, J. M. (2023). “The origins of the Libyan conflict and the path for its resolution.” Escaping the Conflict Trap: Toward Ending Civil War in the Middle East. 9(18) 2023: 177-206.
[28]. Günes, C. “Kurdish Politics across the Middle East during the 1970s.” The Cambridge history of the Kurds (2021): 250-268.
[29]. Lewis, William. “Libya: Dream versus reality.” Mediterranean Quarterly 22.3 (2011): 42-52.
[30]. Perle, et al.
[31]. Nazemroaya
[32]. Khan, Muqaddas Prof Dr. Muhammad. “THE IDEA OF GREATER ISREAL: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MIDDLE EAST,” 33.
[33]. Pappé, Ilan. “Zionism as colonialism: A comparative view of diluted colonialism in Asia and Africa.” South Atlantic Quarterly 107.4 (2008): 629.
[34]. Sela, Avraham. The decline of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Middle East politics and the quest for regional order. State University of New York Press (1998).
