Richard Melson

February 2005

Muslims & Jews in the Evolving World-System






"A US citizen, Richard Melson, an op-ed writer and columnist has kindly sent me his articles and letters published in and Arab Times etc.with proper links

Here I am circulating his writings against Bush

policies.I have also uploaded some of them on my Home page as below.

I will upload and circulate more of his articles in future.

Wassalam, Thanks and Regards,"

Hussain Khan (Japan)


Please visit my home page


----- Original Message -----

From: richard melson

Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 1:09 AM

Subject: Melson to HK Articles in Aljazeerah.

From: Richard Melson


The Israelization of Washington Policy: Part V: The AICE

Richard Melson

Al-Jazeerah, 10/2/03

A definite milestone in the takeover of the White House and Congress by the Zionist/neo-con network can be dated to 1986 when President Ronald Reagan set off for the Global Summit of the G-7 in Tokyo, Japan. Nakasone Yasuhiro was Prime Minister of Japan and the famous Ron-Yasu relationship was started.

As Reagan boarded Air Force One to go to Tokyo, White House aides gave him a book by Benjamin Netanyahu, "Terrorism: How the West Can Win". This Netanyahu book is the original bible for a US/Israel marriage to "save the West" from terrorism. Reagan imbibed this one book on his way to Tokyo and read nothing else.

In fact, when Reagan reached Tokyo in that 1986 episode, everyone was puzzled at the Summit that he talked only of terrorism and nothing else and this signalled the Zionist/neo-con group that their move to frame the world as an America/Israel fight against terrorism and thus "throw a net" over the childish American leadership, was a "home run". Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan was completely baffled and pledged that "Japan would be an unsinkable aircraft carrier for America’s fight".

Netanyahu and his neo-con associates, Perle and Feith, etc had hereby conceived of a strategy that continues to this day: move heaven and earth to provoke violence and destabilize the whole world—the Iraq War was a neo-con/Zionist episode in this mode—and then accuse the world of terrorism. In other words, cause the problem for which an American/Israeli co-hegemony of the world would be the logical answer. Since people do not understand this framework and its history, a "wide angle" comprehension of this Israelization phenomenon eludes them.

The founding of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) should be seen in this Netanyahu-seduces-Reagan-in-1986 coup.

AICE, founded in 1993, and headquartered in Chevy Chase Maryland, is a key player in the Israelization of Washington Policy, as a quick glance at the key backers shows. Notice the AICE Sharon/Bush blurb right after the listing below.

Honorary Committee

Rep. Gary Ackerman Rep. Tom Lantos

Rep. Howard Berman Rep. John Linder

Marshall Breger Rep. Nita Lowey

Rep. Ben Cardin Rep. Michael McNulty

Sen. Richard Durbin Rep. Carrie Meek

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Sen. Barbara Mikulski

Douglas Feith Rep. Constance Morella

Rep. Robert Filner Rep. Michael Pappas

Sen. Charles Grassley Rep. Ed Pastor

Rep. Ralph Hall Dr. Daniel Pipes

Rep. Aloe Hastings Rep. John Porter

Richard A. Hellman Esq. Sen. Rick Santorum

Rep. Sue Kelly Rep. Jim Saxton

Rep. Peter King Sen. Charles Schumer

Hon. Paul Simon

There exists a deep friendship between Israel and the U.S. - between our peoples and countries. The basis of this friendship is common values, a commitment to democratic values, freedom, peace, and common interests, including the drive toward regional stability and preventing terrorism and violence. "Ariel Sharon We will speak up for our principles and we will stand up for our friends in the world. And one of our most important friends is the State of Israel. "George W. Bush

The careful reader will have noticed the names of Daniel Pipes and Doug Feith in the listing of names"hese are neo-con Zionists who were part of the Netanyahu takeover of Reagan in 1986 and then Washington, via groups like this AICE.


Why did Bush invade Iraq?

By Richard Melson



What the Bush family wants is to establish a kind of Bush dynasty that would outshine other dynastic families such as the Kennedys. Their central stance, the way they see themselves, is "Tory dynastic".

His father, Bush I keeps saying, "watch the Bush boys"!

Thus, Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, would perhaps run for President in 2008.

Bush II's greatest fear is that the Bushes might be "jinxed" by means of conflicts with Israel and the Zionist pressure groups. The Bush family analysis is that "dad" lost in 1992 to Clinton not because of the economy but because of the loan guarantee flap with Moshe Arens, Shamir, and Ehud Olmert, (Olmert is now Sharon's vice Prime Minister) because he then "lost" the Republican base.

Before the 2000 election, Sharon flew Bush Jr. around Israel in a helicopter and explained he could never give up the West Bank since Iraq is a danger "on the flank".


President Bush invaded Iraq because:

1.he thought he could solve the "dynastic"/Bush reelection problem while simultaneously being the strong leader who solved the Middle East problem. Invading Iraq gets him the neo-con/Jewish/AIPAC/JINSA (Zionist pressure groups) on his side by giving them what they want (American crushing of an Arab country) in combination with fulfilling Sharon's security needs, as explained on the helicopter ride. Sharon would then feel secure and engage in peace negotiations. Bush felt this was the way to "cut the Gordian knot" on several fronts simultaneously.

Bush never understood and still is blind to the fact that Sharon is interested in nuclear domination of the Middle East and a "collapsible" bantustan for the Palestinians, which would eventually "evaporate" and wind up in a "Jordan is Palestine solution", no bantustan, no Abdullah Peace Plan, no nuclear weapons other than Israel's in the Middle East, "till the end of time", enforced by America.

2. as a secondary matter, it would perhaps give the US more leverage over oil/oil prices, ie the Cheney vision. The Feith/Cheney/Netanyahu/Perle/Woolsey group has been strategizing for a while about a wished for Caspian/Russian oil supply/oil pipeline system to replace OPEC.

3. It would satisfy the Perle/Netanyahu/Feith/Kristol vision of a "permanant campaign" against Arabs, Moslems, Third World nations so that the world becomes an American empire dominated by an Israel/neo-con wire-pulling group, themselves and their successors, "till the end of time." In other words, a "clash of civilizations", a global civil war, leading to neo-con domination of the American global empire and Israel de facto annexing every inch of the territories and the Golan and winding up with the option of "transfer" for the Palestinians.

They also foresaw that this would "break" the Palestinians, once and for all and they would be forced to accept the "collapsible bantustan", the prelude to "Jordan is Palestine", discussed above in 1.

4. Perle/Netanyahu/Feith/Kristol also hoped that the current "security architecture" of the world: US/UN, US/EU, US/NATO would be shattered and replaced by a new architecture, America plus Israel.

Richard Melson, Cambridge MA, USA


Neo-Con Zionist Media Operatives

Richard Melson

Al-Jazeerah, 9/20/03

A normal tv-watcher or radio-listener or periodicals-reader senses a neo-con anti-Arab, anti-Moslem, slant and distortion by a certain "repetitive" gang of neo-con or neo-con-subjugated journalists, whether broadcast or print or both.

One of the "home bases" of this grouping is to be found at the Jewish World Review whose web-site is which is interlinked with the other Zionist pressure groups such as AIPAC and JINSA and the neo-con groupings already alluded to in previous "letters" such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy with William Kristol as main conceptualizer.

Two quick points should be made to elucidate this world:

The difference between the Zionists and the neo-cons can be expressed as follows: A Zionist wants Israeli hegemony and hates the Third World. A neo-con hates the Third World and wants Jews to prevail over the Third World. There is a strong overlap but the "causal chain" is not identical.

The Zionist/neo-con alliance is extremely tricky: though it desires as many dead Arabs and Moslems as possible and as many square miles for Israel as possible, it uses "gentility tricks" or "pseudo-gentility tricks" to hide its aims from Bush and the Cheney/Rumsfeld catspaws by constantly wrapping its recommendations in three misdirection layers: they simply want to implement Woodrow Wilson’s credo, "make the world safe for democracy". their actions—such as the Iraq invasion—are really calculated to advance the Palestine/Israel peace process. they’re really friends of the Arabs and Moslems, fellow-Semites, and only oppose the fanatics. In fact, the Zionist/neo-con alliance represents a radical revolutionary movement which wants to shatter the existing world-order and replace it with an Israel/America hegemonic "new world order". This is what Bush can’t or won’t understand.

Go to:

On the left-hand side, you will see the familiar Arab-basher/Moslem-basher names such as Mort Zuckerman, George Will, Krauthammer, et al.


The Israelization of Washington Policy: Neo-Con Mechanisms

By Richard Melson

Al-Jazeerah, September 22, 2003

One of the main Israel-to-Washington "think tanks" is the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS). IASPS has very strong ties to Richard Perle and Douglas Feith and the Washington branch office is a major neo-con hub today. This IASPS cooperated with Perle and Feith on the "A Clean Break" document that was published with IASPS in 1996 and became the basis for the Bush Iraq War in 2003.

If you read the following IASPS mission statement below, you will see mention of this quite clearly" have emboldened the relevant paragraphs:

The Institute’s Mission "Apparent and Actual in a Nutshell

The apparent aim of IASPS is to develop strategic and allied policies dedicated to maintaining the existence of Israel. But this conflicts with the main policies of Israel "all founded in socialism. Israel and Jews are anti-capitalist and anti-nationalist "in principle but also in historical experience. Whether it is the principle against national existence or creating the factors that incapacitate nations, Jewish history is the history of a non-national people.

IASPS’s attempts to change this, in Israel by programs and policies favoring markets, and in the U.S. by pointing to the anti-Semitic effects of socialism, have realized substantial success. Still, the fact is Israel is on the path of national extinction. This fact is most notably evident in the peace process.

Conclusion: IASPS should intensify its market policy program in Israel. But this will not be enough.

To maintain Israel’s existence in the face of the points above, IASPS has adopted an indirect approach: to develop strategic policies world-wide and particularly for the U.S., effecting reform of Israel and maintaining the existence of the U.S.

What helps the U.S. strategically helps Israel. For example, IASPS devised IEDC in 1991-1994, and crafted the Mideast "vision the Bush administration"oned at least since 1996, with the writing of a paper entitled ’A Clean Break,"#034; which became U. S. policy in 2003. (Bryan Bender, Janes)

But note what all the newsmen missed: IASPS encouraged its Iraq strategy based on Israel doing the fighting in exchange for the U.S. forcing Israel to abandon socialism by ending aid. In these two vital respects, fighting and aid, the U.S. did not do what is best for Israel and itself.

Conclusion: Israel is the Advanced Case of U.S. decline. Israeli policies in support of democracy "which in its purpose and effect means anti-capitalism and anti-nationalism, a World State "now undermine America’s national existence. These policies in favor of a world-wide democracy " multiculturalism, Muslim immigration, diversity, and others linked to these, all rooted in the equality of murder and killing "in effect to suicide-bombing, are among the nine candles of American Jews.

Conclusion: the actual aim of IASPS is the reform of America in the interest of Western societies or what can sustain nations in Judeo-Christian foundations.

This shows you how pathological the Israel/Washington/neo-con triadic relationship has become.

Some IASPS principals describe themselves as follows:


IASPS-Jerusalem was founded in 1984 by its president, Professor Robert J. Loewenberg. Loewenberg founded IASPS after making aliyah to Israel from the U.S., where he remains a citizen. Loewenberg took his Ph.D from Yale University in 1972 after several years of teaching at Hotchkiss Prep School in Lakeville, Connecticut. Prior to that, he attended Columbia University (BA 1962), which he attended after three years in the U.S. Navy. Before immigrating to Israel, Loewenberg was a tenured professor at Arizona State University. His published books and monographs include The Peace Process: An Introductory Essay (part 1); The Israeli Fate of Jewish Liberalism (with Edward Alexander); Emerson, An American Idol; Freedom's Despots; and Equality on the Oregon Frontier. He has edited other books and contributed to collections on a wide range of subjects including SDI, foreign aid and economic policy, and has also published numerous articles in scholarly journals as well as opeds in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, The Los Angeles Times and elsewhere. He oversees all IASPS activities. William R. Van Cleave is the director of the Division for Research in Strategy. Professor Van Cleave is currently the Head of the Defense and Strategic Studies Department at Southwest Missouri State University. Prior to arriving at Missouri he was Professor of International Relations and Director of the Defense and Strategic Studies Program at the University of Southern California from 1967-87. Professor Van Cleave is a Senior Research Fellow in National Security Affairs at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University and a Member of the Board of Trustees of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. His past professional experience includes being a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the USSR, Special Assistant for Strategic Policy and Pla! nning in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, member of the "B-Team" effort to review national intelligence on the USSR and to produce a competitive National Intelligence Estimate and a Member of the Executive Committee of the Committee on the Present Danger. He has also been a consultant to numerous government agencies. From 1979 to 1981 he was Senior Advisor and Defense Policy Coordinator to Ronald Reagan and Director of the Department of Defense Transition Team. Professor Van Cleave is the author of numerous scholarly books and journal articles. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from the California State University and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the Claremont Graduate School

Go to:

Note: The Committee on The Present Danger, highlighted above, from the 1970’s, was an incubator of the neo-con movement and was peopled largely by erstwhile Jewish "lefties" who became "righties" to bend the world for Israel. (Ben Wattenberg of the TV talk show "Think Tank" is an examplar-RM.)


How did the Neo-Conservatives Insinuate Themselves into Power?

Richard Melson, USA

September 14, 2003

I mentioned in my previous article (Aljazeerah, September 13, 2003), "Why Did Bush Invade Iraq?" that the Bush family "imagines" itself as a political dynasty with a kind of "Tory mandate" or mission.

The neo-conservative Zionists like William Kristol, founder-editor of "The Weekly Standard", a neo-con "bible", realized this Bush hunger early and set out in the mid-nineties to "capture" Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, as well as other influential players, in advance. Kristol established PNAC ("Project for the New American Century") in 1997 and you can see, by simply reading the names below, how these neo-cons built their political gang in advance of 2000.

Read the PNAC statement of purpose below. Notice the date. Look at the names at the end of the declaration and you will see how the neo-con clique was positioned in advance of Bush II’s presidency and "ready to roll". Notice the names of Jeb Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney.

The PNAC statement of purpose

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

"we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

"we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; "we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

"we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz


By: Richard Melson

Postal: PO Box 390270 Central Square Cambridge MA 02139-0019 USA




Essay Number 1 by: Richard Melson

Date: November 30, 2003

Mr. Hirsch versus Hadji Murad in the Year 1904

In 1904, Joseph Conrad published his classic "Nostromo" and Tolstoy his "Hadji Murad".

"Nostromo" is set in the South American Republic of "Costaguana" and the basic story is one of political struggles in and around "Costaguana" getting entwined with mineral wars, in this case the struggle not for oil or sugar or diamonds, but for silver.

Hirsch the Jew is caught in a complex triangular struggle between Charles Gould, the Western silver magnate, Nostromo, the head of the dockworkers, and various generals and their factions and cabals. Hirsch is murdered in the vortex of imperial/local moves and countermoves.

Hadji Murad, Tolstoy’s Muslim creation, is caught in imperial/tribal struggles in the Caucasus with Chechens fighting Russian overlords (Chechnya-Russian struggles of today are part of this long fight). Hadji Murad is also murdered.

A central historical question of 1904-2004 is: How have the Jews (Hirsch) wound up in the role as neoconservatives, trying to take America into "superimperialism", engineer a clash of civilizations, bring about a Hirsch/Charles Gould anti-Arab, anti-Third World, anti-Moslem coalition against over a billion Hadji Murads?

What is the world system?

The world system refers to the coercion system and the image system that frames the money system: the US military, backed by Hollywood movies, maintaining a world economy, using the latest technical means. (electronic eavesdropping by the NSA, for example).

What do the Neoconservative/Zionist Jews Want at the world system level?

What the Netanyahu-Sharon/Perle-Feith grouping wants at the level of the whole sytem is:

1. Take a leftwing idea "permanent revolution" and modify it to mean "permanent hostility" against Arabs and Moslems and Third World aspirations.

2. In a "regime" of "permanent hostility, the key idea is: war is peace. One constantly attacks, creates new "facts on the ground" whether in Palestine or Iraq, maintains an aura of unanalyzability. Thus Netanyahu now wants to create a rival to the Suez Canal on the Israel side; Sharon hopes to create an America/Israel/India anti-Moslem "axis;" Israel’s nuclear-armed submarines are a veiled threat to Blair and Bush that they’re not going to risk London and Washington for Ramalllah; the Arabs and Moslem worlds are to be subjugated "forever" by Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the area, its endless ability to flummox and defy the UN, the US, and the whole world, and basically to make Israel Washington’s controller.

3. David Wurmser, the neo-con Zionist, Cheney’s new main advisor, one of the architects along with Perle and Feith of the Iraq War, believes that Arabs don’t really "deserve nation-states" and should be rolled back to tribal formations. This is a reincarnation of course of the Hitler "idea" for Poland and Czechoslovakia and even Russia.

4. To "flip over" the current "coercion" dimension of the world system, the US/EU, US/NATO, US/UN "security archictecture", to be replaced by an Israel/USA "new world order".

5. While points 1 through 4 above are explored, the creeping annexation of all 1967 Arab territories should go forward with a collapsible bantustan for the Palestinians as the worst-case scenario.

6. Conceal via tactical moves and "gentility tricks," the fact that Israel is now the world’s main "transnational crazy state".

Arabs and Moslems in the world system

The tasks of Arabs and Moslems are therefore:

1. To understand points 1 to 7 above clearly and unblinkingly.

2. Realize that they can only "take the ball away" from the neocon/Zionist by beating them at their own game.

3. This would mean world economic development as the new world order, as an alternative to "clash of civilizations."

4. In other words, an Arab/Moslem-led change in the world system, with the White House itself as the main ally in this "structural break".

5. The task is to capture the White House conceptually, replacing the neocon/Zionists.

Richard Melson


December 1, 2003

Essay Number 2: How Jews Became the "Court Prophets" for the New American Imperium

Richard Melson

In the recent book KARL POLANYI IN VIENNA,

Samir Amin, the Egyptian economist says:

"In the 1968-1971 period, the world economy entered a zone of crisis which crisis continues to this day

(Amin essay, "Relaunching Development")

We will accept this basic intuition and consider the present era to comprise the years 1968-2003 and beyond.

Since we are interested in the world system the global "arrangement" that contains the world economy as a component we would also add to other facts in the penumbra of the world economy: Britain left Aden in 1968 and the Gulf in 1971 (leaving the UAE behind) and this means that Samir Amin's 1968-1971 is part of a larger story: the departure of the Brits from the Middle East, leading to the subsequent arrival of the Americans as replacement If we posit an "Anglo-American macrohistorical pattern", we should see British imperial history as a prelude to an American echo. (No one reading about the Churchill/Gen. Maude invasions of Iraq (Mesopotamia) from 1917-1920 can fail to see the Bush/Rumsfeld analogue. Gassing Iraqis from British airplanes was Churchill's 1920 version of "shock and awe", say)

With this backdrop, let us then ask directly:

what is the fundamental nature of the present era, 1968-2003?

To answer this question as simply as possible but not simpler, we would say:

The world system is undergoing some kind of "rotational correction" and faces two historical gateways:

Neo-liberalism. Neo-conservatism.

The first embodies the Thatcherite doctrine that the poor have too much money; the second wants to re-colonize the Third World by force and undo the era of decolonization from Ghana 1957 through Hong King 1997, replacing it with re-colonization.

Both of these doctrines to be blunt were created by economically neoliberal and politically neoconservative Jews for Anglo-American "ruling groups".

Jewish economists Milton Friedman and the recently deceased Peter Bauer were two important progenitors of neo-liberal economic theory. This theory governs West/Third World economic relations today and harkens back to 19th century Gladstonian policies. (we see again the Anglo-American patterning here) . The so-called Washington Consensus of free enterprise/free trade everywhere pushes this doctrine on the whole world.

Unlike economic neo-liberalism, which actually has deep roots in Western social thinking, neo-Conservatism can fairly be characterized as a movement with "post-war American/Jewish roots". It began in the early 70's, partially in response to OPEC and the 73 Arab/Israeli war, and should not be confused with the "new right" which arose in the late 50's and early 60's because of Republican/Conservative disaffection with the internationalist Eisenhower administration.. (Although neo-conservatism has won a considerable number of converts from the former "new right")

The neo-Conservative thrust derives from Jewish notables such as: Kristol, father and son, Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Wattenberg, etc. This line surrounds anti-Arab, anti-Moslem, anti-Third World programs with a "gift wrapping" of Wilsonian idealism.

Contrary to the name "conservative", the neo-conservatives are anything but conservative. They are actually radical revolutionaries who plan to overturn the current world order/world system and replace it with a US/Israel binary coalition that will conquer and subjugate the Third World, with the thwarting of the Palestinians as the main symbol of this. The demonization of Arafat is part of this desire to delegitimate and marginalize Third World aspirations to nationhood, sovereignity, and development. For these revolutionaries, a Jerusalem (ethically cleansed of Palestinians) should direct Washington.

In other words, neo-conservatism is ultimately an attempted coup d' monde in the world system which attempts to redirect world history in a right wing Zionist direction.

In the neocon vision, America would dominate the world and the neocon Jews in Washington/right-wing Zionists in Israel would dominate America and hence America would implement their visions for the future.

How did this situation arise in the first place? After all, many groups would love to hold the steering wheel of Washington policy in their grasp Why these neo-liberal and neo-con Jews?

The simplest possible answer is this: the ruling wasps (Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld) visualize these Jewish groups as a kind of Manhattan Project II, a Teller/Oppenheimer secret weapon grouping, that will give them "new weapons" in the fight for American hegemony and their own domination. These Jews are seen as an internal think tank of futurologists that bolster ruling groups.

In the case of the UK, Thatcher's advisors during her years 1979-1990 were all neo-liberal Jews: Keith Joseph, Nigel Lawson, David Young, etc. Thatcher and these Jewish advisors called Third World proposals for a New International Economic Order "a letter to Santa Claus" and pushed neo-liberal doctrines under the slogan of TINA ("there is no alternative"). Their other slogan was of course, "there is properly speaking no such thing as society". This slogan implies of course, "there is no global society".

In other words: simply stated, the 1970's lead to a semi-collapse of Anglo-American self-confidence. It is this historical panic which lead to a "farming out of policy to Jews", whether neo-liberal or neo-conservative.

The world faces the neocon and neoliberal "gateways to the future" because traditional WASP/Anglo-Saxon ruling groups in America and England are bewildered by the complexity of the current global situation, and they fear the future. The pseudo-scientific certainties of neoliberal economics and the immense domestic political influence of neocon pressure groups provide a tempting "security blanket".

The assignment for Moslems worldwide becomes: take the ball away from these "false prophets" and promote the "rotational correction" in the world system in the direction of Third World development and the replacement of these neocon Jewish worldviews with developmentally oriented Moslem ones.

Richard Melson


The Deep Structure of the Perle/Frum book, "An End To Evil."

By: Richard Melson

January 27, 2004

Two leading Jewish neo-conservatives, Richard Perle and David Frum, have co-published their new book, "An End to Evil,"in recent weeks. Perle/Frum were the speechwriting team that coined the term "axis of evil"and the world "evil"is their main tag for Islamic movements.

This then pits the West against Islam, a "clash of civilizations,"to replace the Cold War. Arafat is depicted as an Islamist, a key player in this Islamic international movement, their code for terrorist threat to the West. America and Israel must defeat this challenge and the future of world history is a Manichean struggle between Islam and the America/Israel West.

Since Perle and Frum are clever neo-cons who have learnt "gentility tricks"such as throwing sops to "lovely moderate Moslems" and speaking in pseudo-analytical tones, it is hard for the reader to see through their deep manipulative venom.

To put Perle/Frum-ism in context, let’s make a "cartoon of world history theorizing"to see their trick.

Here are some basic themes of "recent"world history writing together with the main books that present them:

1. From empire to nation. (name of early-1960’s book by Rupert Emerson, Harvard)

2. From kings to people. (name of book by Reinhard Bendix, Berkeley)

3. rise of the West. (William McNeil classic, Chicago)

4. technology causes history. (MIT Press book by that name)

5. farm to factory. (Industrial Revolution)

6. challenge and response of empires. (Arnold Toynbee’s "Study of History"

7. world saved from Muslim threat. This is the basic subtheme of all standard Western high school history books. The two pinnacles of this rescue are:

a. the Battle of Poitiers, 732 when Charles Martel "stopped"the Muslim advance north of the Pyrenees. (the word "European"has its roots in this period of warfare)

b. the Battle of Lepanto, October 7, 1571 when Ottoman/Islamic naval power was defeated by Christian fleets.

Thus there is a tremendously "juicy"tradition of anti-Muslim us-against-them history that Perle/Frum are now trying to revive by linking Islamism to Communism and fascism and pitting Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld against Islam.

Contrary to Perle/Frum, Islamic movements are neo-medieval "Mahdi"movements, puritan and "gynephobic"but absolutely not in line with Communism and fascism.

To get a "pop"understanding of these 1880’s Mahdi precedents, the reader should rent and view the 1966 movie "Khartoum" (Olivier plays the Sudanese "Mahdi"or "guided one"Islamic revivalist-savior) and Charlton Heston plays General Gordon. (British Tommy Franks of 1885 era). The travel and local geography masterpiece by Alan Moorhead, "The White Nile" 1962, describes Mahdi movements in the Sudan of the nineteenth century. (Moorhead’s "Gallipoli"was the basis for the Mel Gibson movie).

Muhammed Mahdi (1843-1885) was the Sudan-based "Islamic savior" who defeated Gordon.

Osama Bin Laden is far less the son of Hitler and Stalin then he is of Muhammed Mahdi, this time, fused with "kamikaze"tactics against the powerful to conceal, and compensate for, an essential weakness.

What Perle/Frum are trying to do is use the Bin Laden phenomenon to bring about a "clash of civilizations" against the backdrop of a Poitiers/Lepanto longstanding "save the world from Muslims"trend in the West.

If Zionism is a "Jewish national project", then Perle/Frum-ism is an insane "Jewish imperial project", legitimized by a grotesque distortion of world-history.

Former Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia recently tried to point this out before his message (mostly a criticism of trends in the Islamic world) was twisted and demonized in America and the West as an attack against Jews in general..

Muslims should defeat Perle/Frum-ism (which is a recipe for global chaos), and sideline Mahdism (a historical blind-alley), by helping to carry the world into a "world development regime" that transcends the standard neoliberal models, where Islamic banking and Islamic finance could be accelerants.

Richard Melson





From: Richard Melson

February 15, 2004

We have already explained in previous essays how Israel and the neo-cons are trying to bring about a clash of civilizations with Muslims as the target. This would position neo-con Jews "in the catbird seat"vis-"vis the world since the world would become essentially a zone of American occupation based on a new alliance system. At the center of this new world system is Israel+America. This new "molecule" ramifies into places like India to encircle Muslims. It is partly this drive that lead to the current Iraq War.

The latest wrinkle in this anti-Muslim Israel/neo-con lead "alliance politics"on a world scale envisions an Israel-US-India "axis" against the Muslim world.

You will see the details of this in what follows:

Trilateral Indo-Israeli-US Strategic Dialog The International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT) is pleased to announce that, in a joint enterprise with the Harold Hartog School of Government and Policy at Tel Aviv University, that we are holding a trilateral conference on the strategic ties between Indian, Israel and the USA. The conference, the second in an annual series of such events initiated by the Washington-based think tank JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) and inaugurated last year in New Delhi, will debate a wide range of topics relating to the potential synergetic benefits involved in cooperation between the three countries.

Background and Significance

The New Delhi-Jerusalem-Washington axis is assuming growing significance in the global system.

Many view these emerging ties as a crucial to the maintenance of international stability in today's turbulent world. Although the bilateral relations between the respective countries are of undoubted importance, it is the idea of a trilateral entente between all three nations which has particularly intriguing and far-reaching ramifications for a new, and as yet nascent, world order. Recognition of this potential led to the idea of institutionalizing trilateral Indo-Israeli-US meetings on an annual basis. The relations between India, Israel and US are often - and correctly - described as being based on shared values, nourished by mutual interests and reinforced by common threats. Indeed, the region spanned by Israel and India bristle with many of the most virulent sources of threats that menace these shared values and mutual interests. This makes trilateral cooperation in the field of counterterrorism, and the broader strategic issues, such as space, naval activities and ballistic missiles, as well as in economic matters increasing urgent.

Accordingly, these are the topics which the conference agenda will address This series of trilateral meetings plays an important role in promoting the relations between the three nations - not only by reinforcing matters of consensus (such as the war on terror, stability in the Indian Ocean) but also by airing and understanding issues of contention (such as Iran and Pakistan). It also provides a useful venue where the civil society elites and incumbent policy-makers of the respective countries can meet on informal basis and establish person-to-person ties - something which is likely to produce positive inputs and greater understanding in the development of the future relationship.

Participants in Delegations India RAM JETHMALANI, formerly India's Minister of Justice and of Urban Development B. RAMAN formerly Head of the counter-terrorism division at RAW (India's external intelligence agency) from 1988 until his retirement in August 1994. LT-GEN R K SAWHNEY, formerly General Director of Military Intelligence, and Deputy Chief of Army Staff VICE-ADMIRAL K.K. NAYYAR - former Vice Chief of the Indian Navy has the rare distinction of having commanded both the Western and Eastern fleets of the Indian Navy. PROF. M.D. NALAPAT, formerly Coordinating Editor of the Times of India, the largest-language English-language newspaper in India. Currently Professor of Geopolitics and UNESCO Peace Chair at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India's elite private university. DR. JAGDISH SHETTIGAR, Member of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council and Head of Economic Cell of the BJP (currently the ruling party in India) USA STEPHEN J. SOLARZ - served for 18 years on the U.S. House of Representatives International Affairs Committee, serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Africa. He was also a member of the Budget Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, the Education and Labor Committee. He has vigorously promoted better U.S. relations with India and was a very strong supporter of Israel.

Presently he is president of SOLARZ ASSOCIATES, an international consulting firm, which advises foreign governments on relations with the United States THOMAS NEUMANN - Executive Director, JINSA AMB. HARVEY FELDMAN - former deputy Ambassador of the United States to the UN and veteran US diplomat. SHOSHANA BRYEN - Director - Special Projects, JINSA DR. RACHEL EHRENFELD - Director of the American Center for Democracy. She is one of the world's foremost authority on narco-terrorism and an international expert on the Funding of Terror. DR. STEPHEN BLANK - MacArthur Professor of National Security Affairs at the US Army War College and the author of numerous publications and books on military strategy and terrorism Israel Including: SHABTAI SHAVIT - formerly Head of the Mossad; currently Chairman of ICT Board of Directorers PROF. GEN. (RES) ITZHAK BEN ISRAEL Head of Security Studies Program, Harold Hartog School of Government & Policy, Tel Aviv University; former Head of the Israel Defense Forces Authority for Weapons Research and Development. ADM. YEDIDYA YAARI - Commander of the Israeli Navy GEN. (RES) AMOS GILAD - Head of the Political-Military Bureau, Ministry of Defense GEN (RES) EITAN BEN ELIYAHU - former Commander of the Israel Air Force ISI LEIBLER -Senior Vice President of the World Jewish Congress PROF. YOSSI SHAIN Head of Harold Hartog School of Government & Policy, Tel Aviv University. DR. BOAZ GANOR - Executive Director of ICT. DR. MARTIN SHERMAN - Tel Aviv University & ICT The conference will also be addressed by several incumbent ministers and senior office holders including : EHUD OLMERT, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry, Trade and Employment SILVAN SHALOM, Minister of Foreign Affairs (T.B.C.) UZI LANDAU , Minister in the Prime Minister's Office responsible of the Intelligence Services and the Strategic Relations with the US. M.K. DR. YUVAL STEINITZ - Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Further Comment by Richard Melson:

In the current issue of the newly formed India lobby called USINPAC, one reads the following announcement:

**Joint Lobby Day with the AJC**

Usinpac is planning a joint Capitol Hill lobby day with the American

Jewish Committee this month. We want to show unity on US foreign

policy measures supporting democracy and opposing terrorism. With

this event, we will also launch our 2004 legislative agenda. The date

for this event will be announced very soon.

The American Jewish Committee is allying itself with Usinpac (US India Political Action Committee) to help "sandwich"the Muslim world between Washington/Capitol Hill pressure and Israel-US-India meetings in New Delhi as described above.

This is one type of neocon counterglobalization, the creation of a world system based on permanent polarization into opposing blocs, rather than one based on multipolar cooperation.

Charles Krauthammer's recent statements to an AEI conference that "the rising power of China" would be the next "threat to the West" after the "taming" of the "Islamic threat" indicates this viewpoint of "permanent war" in a permanent "Hobbesian world" as opposed to a viewpoint of global cooperation to solve common problems facing all civilizations whether Hindu, Muslim, East Asian, or Western..

In this regard, India is also seen as a counterweight to China.

By: Richard Melson, Cambridge Forecast Group