The conspiracy theory structured around the Yinon Plan, like any dangerous untruth, contains its naked inconsistencies and absurdities, but that never seems to trouble zealots. The fact is that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is still around since the 19th century. The Protocols exploits anti-Semitic stereotypes that have roots in the Middle Ages, but were developed following the Napoleonic wars by gentiles who were opposed to Napoleon’s emancipation of Jews and his granting them civil rights. A French Jesuit named Abbe Barruel circulated a forged letter in 1806 in which Jewish leaders discussed a theory for world domination. Barruel had earlier made the Freemasons the target of this theory, but it didn’t catch fire the way accusing the Jews did. The Protocols have been revived now and again in times of civil unrest, including during the Russian revolution and between the World Wars, but they have been a consistent hit in the Middle East since the dawn of Zionism.
In the actual article, “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties,” Oded Yinon begins by addressing the general instability of the world in the 1980s and the threat of Soviet domination. He then discusses the Islamic states which are “built like a house of cards put together by foreigners” and doubts the Arab states as they are would continue to exist in the long run. “All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with conflict,” Yinon writes, and then discusses various states, their factions and the causes of their conflicts. He then discusses the fact that discrepancies in wealth pour more oil on the fire of civil unrest there. “In the course of the 1980s, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in foreign policy, in order to stand up to global and regional challenges in this new epoch.” The loss of the Suez oil fields and the Sinai created an energy drain for Israel, and Yinon blames the Camp David Accords which deprived Israel of the Sinai. He argues that the territories should be returned to Israel, and points out weaknesses in Egypt and how divided the country is. Yinon writes, “Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the 1980s on its Western Front.” He then discusses the possible breakdown of other states, such as Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, along ethnic and religious lines. The article discusses military options with a final section with the heading, “Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?” Yinon writes that “principled opposition within Israel is weak,” and “the Arab world has shown itself so far incapable of detailed or rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society.” In addition, Yinon in 1982 cites the “liberal American press” which consists of “Jewish admirers of Israel,” and when they criticize Israel, engage only in constructive criticism.
Oded Yinon’s sanguine justifications for making the article available for public consumption are almost more damning than if the strategy proposal had been published itself without that final section. The overconfident tone reads almost like satire or as if it were dreamed up by an enemy as a rationale for recklessness. Not only does the statement that the Arabs are “incapable of detailed or rational analysis” sound blatantly racist, but with conspiracy theories abounding on social media thirty years after the article was written, who is to say that such rationality is needed, when wild theories are doing just fine, thank you?
