05/02/16 – Eric Margolis – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Click the book in the right margin at scotthorton.org or thewarstate.com.
All right y'all, Scott Horton Show.
I'm him.
Check out the archives, more than 4,000 interviews, 13 years worth at scotthorton.org.
Going back to 2003 there.
And follow me on Twitter, at Scott Horton Show.
Oh yeah, sign up for the podcast feed too.
And follow me on Twitter, at Scott Horton Show.
Okay, introducing our good friend Eric Margulies, foreign correspondent, author of War at the Top of the World and American Raj, Liberation or Domination.
And he writes regularly, of course, at his own website, ericmargulies.com.
Spell it like Margolis, ericmargulies.com.
And he also is rerun all the time at lourockwell.com and at unz.com.
That's U-N-Z, unz.com.
And I'm pretty sure this one's going to be our spotlight on antiwar.com tomorrow.
Remember the Golan Heights?
Welcome back to the show.
Eric, how are you?
Thank you, Scott.
I'm glad to be back with you.
Very happy to have you here.
Yeah, the Golan Heights.
Well, I know where they are, sort of northern tip of Israel's southwest corner of Syria.
Belongs to one, occupied by the other.
But you know, I can't say I'm very sure how high they are.
How high are the Golan Heights, Eric?
You got me stuck, Scott.
I was thinking I should have put that in my column.
Let me just say that they're high.
Standing on top of Golan, you can practically see the Mediterranean from there, across all of northern Israel.
But I can't give you feet.
I'm not good with...
But it's some kind of gigantic mesa or plateau or cliff height kind of thing.
It's a basalt mesa made during the volcanic era that just rises straight up from the ground around Syria and Israel.
And it terminates in the north at Mount Herma, which is a very high mountain.
I think it's 9,000 feet.
So it's very prominent, and it dominates the entire region.
Okay, now, so take us back in history.
This obviously was not part of the original United Nations partition mandate.
This was Syrian territory up until when?
67 or 73?
The 67 War, when Israel made a point of storming the Golan Heights, which were incompetently defended by the Syrian army, and seizing them.
And this had been a long-term Israeli strategic objective, was to seize Golan.
All right, and then you talk about in the 1973 war, then the Syrians struck back and tried to take it back.
Is that it?
They did.
The Syrians, in conjunction with the Egyptians on Yom Kippur, launched a very, very heavy offensive.
They threw about five or six divisions to attack the heights.
And they came within a whisker of driving the Israelis off the heights.
The Israelis were taken by surprise.
And it was at this point that, as I mentioned in my article, that the Israelis panicked.
They thought the wolf was coming down on the foal, and they began to activate their nuclear weapons.
And you say that they basically began arming their airplanes and readying their missiles, and the Soviets informed the Syrians that you guys better look out, because they're about to start splitting atoms over your head here.
Exactly.
And now were they just bluffing, or they were really going to nuke Damascus over this?
Oh, I think they were going to do it.
The Israeli government, normally level-headed, but had panicked.
And they took a worse view of the situation than was the case.
The Egyptians were advancing in Sinai, and even though that advance quickly ground to a halt, the Syrians were not an effective army, but there were a lot of them, and they had a lot of tanks.
There were huge tank battles on the Golan Heights.
There was one area called the Valley of Death, where the Israelis dug in tanks, picked off Syrian armored vehicles by the hundreds.
It was a heroic battle on the part of the Israelis, a real thermopoly where they held off the Syrian army, but gradually the weight of the Syrian Air Force began to tell.
I mean, I'm sorry, the Israeli Air Force.
And then, as you're saying, when the Soviets made the call to Damascus, at that point they made the political decision that, well, hell, I guess we better just stop resisting and go ahead and let them have it.
The alleged target of the Israeli nuclear missiles was going to be military headquarters in Damascus.
Damascus is a taxi ride away from the Golan Heights.
I've been over, I've walked the entire Golan Heights of both the Israeli and Syrian side.
Everything is within range.
Israeli long-range artillery could shell Damascus, could do it today.
So the Syrians got a really big scare, and the Soviets who supported their military got a big scare and said, stop.
And I guess that's an important point, too, that the Heights don't just overlook all of Israel, but they look down on Damascus as well then.
That's correct.
And there's that strategic factor.
You can see from the Heights, Israeli electronic intelligence can see everything that moves in the plain around Damascus and north of Damascus or south.
So the Israelis are really watching the Syrians in a goldfish bowl, intercepting their communications, and dug into this marvelous fortress in the mountains.
Well, and that's interesting.
I had no idea that they were right there within, I guess, howitzer range or whatever, like Seoul is to the DMZ in Korea, where if the war starts, it's right there.
Here comes the rain.
Good analogy, Scott.
It makes the Syrians very nervous.
In 1973 was when the Syrian military was at the height of its fighting capability.
Today, well, even before the civil war began there, it had deteriorated.
It's got obsolete equipment.
Training isn't as good.
And it would be interesting if the Syrians had managed to push the Israelis off Golan and recapture their lost territory.
One wonders if the Syrians would have advanced down the heights and into Galilee, as the Israelis claimed, or would have just sat pat and said, okay, we regained our territory.
It's ours again.
Stop.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, politicians do really stupid things a lot of times, but the fact that they eventually retreated would seem to indicate that they weren't going to, certainly weren't going to go further than just retaking the territory.
But, you know, I can see why the Israelis at least would want to pretend that their doctrine, you know, would base it around the assumption that if they take the heights, they're coming down into the Galilee too.
Well, that's right.
But the Arab armies, both Egyptian and Syrian army, have shown remarkable failure to be mobile.
They're just not good at advancing and supplying the logistics backup of the forces.
I remember President Zia of Pakistan, who had been an advisor to the Iraqi army during the Iran-Iraq war, said neither side could advance because they'd fire off all their ammo and eat all their food.
And then what?
So they'd have to wait another month or two to build up the piles of supplies before they could launch another attack.
And this was the same thing with the Syrians.
And, of course, the Syrians on Golan had covered from their SAM-6 anti-aircraft missiles and anti-aircraft guns.
If they advanced further, and we saw this is exactly what happened to the Egyptians, the minute they got out of the anti-aircraft SAM missile belt along the canal and kept moving into Sinai, they were massacred by the Israeli air force.
And now, so talk to us about the population of the Golan Heights.
And are they just under military occupation in a West Bank kind of a way or in a Gaza Strip kind of a way the whole time too?
Well, it's a much smaller population.
It's mainly Druze tribesmen.
They're small in numbers.
The major part of the population was driven out by the Israelis after 1967.
They were just forced out of their homes.
And the capital city of Golan, Quneitra, was absolutely leveled to the ground by the Israelis, by tanks and bulldozers.
I've walked through it, and the population is just gone.
So you have a sizable refugee population in Syria who nobody talks about.
Now I'm trying to remember back to when, I guess, Ehud Olmert's government was trying to begin negotiations with Bashar al-Assad in, I'm going to say 2007.
Maybe it was 2006.
I think probably 2007.
But the Bush administration shut them down.
Said, we don't want you negotiating with them.
Do you know if, I mean, I guess it would have had to have been some kind of deal about the Golan Heights would have had to have been at the heart of something like that.
That's right, Scott.
Oh, yes, that was the keystone to any agreement between Syria and Israel.
There was long talk about this.
And they came very close to an agreement that Israel would withdraw from Golan.
In exchange for this, they would sign a long lasting peace deal.
But the neocons who were running the Bush administration's Middle East policy didn't want it.
And Israel's right wing absolutely didn't want it.
Their motto was no retreat.
Don't give up any land that we've conquered.
And in fact, let's keep expanding.
Well, and Olmert was from Sharon's party, right?
It's not like he was some kind of commie peacenik or something over there.
No, he was a conservative right wing Israeli, but he was more of a sensible and well balanced than today's right wingers who rule Israel, who are far, far, far to the right.
And Netanyahu and his men had made clear that they are never going to give up the Golan Heights in spite of U.N. resolutions and the United States government and Europe saying, you know, it's illegal to pull out.
He just said recently, he said, we will never, until the end of time, withdraw from the Golan Heights.
The reason, of course, is not only the strategic value, but Golan, because of the high mountains in the north, provides 15 percent, maybe more of Israel's water.
Aha.
Well, and that ain't nothing.
And in fact, well, I don't want to change the subject too much.
Well, I'm taking notes here, so we'll get back to Golan in a second.
I want to ask you about the Litani River.
And I've heard, you know, the Israelis accused basically of what they really hate about Hezbollah is Hezbollah stands between them and the Litani River.
And they would like in Lebanon, they would like very much to have that for their own water supply, as you just described, these other water resources.
And as we know, they almost totally monopolize the water resources on the West Bank as well.
That's right.
So the whole this whole Middle East conflict really has to be seen as part of a struggle for water.
They grabbed Israel, Israel has grabbed all the water, the aquifers and the streams from the on the West Bank.
It's denied them to the Palestinians or taken them from the Palestinians.
And this Litani River now has become like a an Eldorado for Israel that it runs through Lebanese territory.
It is in Hezbollah area.
But the Israelis want the water from the Litani because the Israelis cannot expand their population further until they get more water.
Water is already tight in Israel.
So they've long wanted it that the two invasions of Lebanon by Israel were in fact were partially aimed at grabbing the Litani waters.
Well, and I guess that problem is not going away.
All right.
So now I don't know.
I'm sure you must have saw this back.
What?
Last October in The New York Times, it was a pretty big one.
You know, kind of made went a bit viral, that kind of thing.
As Syria reels, Israel looks to expand settlements in the Golan Heights.
And I just love this where they talk about how this is an appropriate salve.
If America would go along and would finally recognize Israel's 1981 annexation of Golan, that would be an appropriate salve to Israel security concerns in the wake of the nuclear deal with Iran.
Because we went and took a civilian safeguarded nuclear program and we made it double extra safeguarded more than before, Eric.
And so how are we ever going to make it up to Israel?
Well, that's true.
But I mean, Israel has been using salami tactics to advance its size and its borders.
We're always under this claim of security.
We've got to have security.
Even though the Arab states are in a pathetic state, they can't couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.
But and the only possible threat to Israel came from long range missiles with nuclear warheads and nothing to do with the Golan Heights or the Litani River.
But this is a ploy by the New York Times liberal right wing liberals to give a big prize to Israel or to make a lemonade out of a lemon.
Well, give them give them Golan.
And I'll tell you, I think the next administration in the US, which will probably which may be Republican, will probably give its blessing to Israeli annexation of Golan.
Yeah.
Well, whoever the next president is, it's going to be worse than right now, which is really saying something.
So I guess we could expect Hillary or Trump probably to go ahead and move the embassy to Jerusalem, too, at this point.
Oh, I think so, too.
Europe is against it, but Europe really has no say in the matter.
It is the Israel's right wing has completely crushed the center and the leftists peace camp in Israel.
There's no more talk, said Netanyahu, of a two state solution.
Impossible.
We're back to looking at completely annex Golan de facto as well as de jure.
And there's talk in Israel's right wing about ethnic cleansing, driving all the Palestinians out into the desert.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, that's the other thing.
Well, go ahead.
And can you talk more about that?
You're referring to the Bedouin villages.
They keep bulldozing and all that.
Oh, the Bedouin villages.
It's hard to keep track of which refugee population the Israelis are destroying that you are referring to here.
There's so many in so many different directions.
No, the most recent one, in fact, are Bedouins, who Israel wants their land.
So they're driving them off or putting them into settlements.
But there's the big bulk of the Palestinian population on the West Bank that is, you know, millions of people.
And they're living in these terrible camps, which are a little better than open air concentration camps.
And then there's Gaza.
You know, the world's forgotten about Gaza, too.
But there are like two million people, Palestinians in Gaza, who live in the most frightful conditions.
General Sharon was right in the sense that he didn't want these people in Israel.
He would, you know, he wanted them out of Israel.
There were too many to police.
So they just want them cooped up and isolated.
So the Israeli plan on the right wing is to do two things.
Make the Palestinians so miserable that they'll try and leave.
And secondly, if they have to retain populations of Palestinians, bottle them up in little bantustans like these in South Africa, under the apartheid system, which are surrounded by police and troops and settlers.
And just keep them bottled up and under control.
Yeah, and politically divided between each other as well.
Yes.
All right, well, so let's talk about the Gaza-ization of Syria then.
Obama gave an interview to Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic magazine back in 2012, where he said something very close to, that's right, Jeffrey Goldberg, getting rid of Assad would be a great way to bring Iran down a peg.
Because, of course, Assad is, you know, the Alawites are very closely associated with the Shia, and the Baathist government there, of course, is allied with the Iranians.
And so, back to the whole, you know, whiny little Israel, and we have to provide themselves all the time, even when what our government is doing is actually securing their best interests, like with the Iran nuclear deal.
As long as Obama was pursuing it, it was sort of like, okay, well, we'll go along with the Israeli plans for Syria to kind of throw them a bone while we're doing the nuclear deal.
At least it kind of seemed like that.
And, you know, as Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador, put it, that Israel wanted Assad gone from the very beginning.
This was their policy.
They absolutely championed it.
And if you have to choose between even ISIS and al-Qaeda, on the Sunni side, he said, the Shia side is backed by Iran.
And so, therefore, it's better, it's preferable to have al-Qaeda and Islamic State terrorists ruling Syria than Assad, who's allied with Hezbollah and Iran.
And I just wonder, you know, you're a long-time analyst of all of these policies, and, well, firsthand experience in a lot of this, and obviously Qatar and Turkey and Saudi all have roles to play and all that, but, you know, the Israeli angle on America's regime change plans or half-assed regime change plans in Syria the last five years seems to be under-discussed.
So I thought maybe we could help make up for that a bit.
Well, it has been.
In fact, the Atlantic magazine, which is a mouthpiece for Israel's right-wing, the Qud party, has long wanted to get rid of Assad.
And the main reason is this.
In my view, Israel's right-wing, I'm not saying all of Israel, but Israel's right-wing parties have their eye on Syria.
As I said in my last comment, David Ben-Gurion said when he was still alive, the former prime minister of Israel, the founder, father of Israel, he said, don't define our eastern border.
It is not to be defined in our generation.
Clearly a message that Israel, which, remember, has been created by various expansions, the original little U.N.-mandated state has its eye on sections of Syria as well, in my view.
And the chaos in Syria that was created by the U.S. and the Saudis and the French and the British is playing right into that thing.
Israel is no military threat anymore on the ground from anywhere and will become the dominant power in parts of southern Syria as well.
The only question is, how much does Israel want to bite off?
Man, and so I guess I didn't think you were going to say that.
It's not just that they want to weaken Assad and bog him down and bleed him to death and all that, but they're looking at territorial expansion north of the Golan Heights.
I believe so.
At least some members of the Likud party and its further right-wing allies are looking, are talking about expansion.
They're tempted by it.
They want to leave their option open.
And why not?
An attack is being planned against Lebanon.
There's no secret about that, against Hezbollah.
There may be a grab about some land in southern Lebanon.
Jordan by now has become an Israeli protectorate.
And the Egyptians jump when the Israelis say, you know, how high should we jump?
So the Israelis are really in the catbird seats, backed by enormous U.S. power, which looks, with the next election, like it's going to be even bigger.
Man, you know, you and I are going to be having this conversation in 20 years about, you know, how it's amazing now that the Israelis have kicked all the Jordanians and Palestinians out of Jordan and into what we used to call Western Iraq, that, you know, boy, they sure are having a hard time with the occupation going on over there in Transjordan and this and that.
And they're just going to keep expanding and expanding and crying Islamofascist extremism at all their enemies between now and then.
Well, if you're expanding your borders, you'll always have a security threat.
That's the problem.
And it's like NATO screaming that the Soviets are expanding as NATO is moving steadily eastwards towards the Russian borders and claiming that the Russians are a threat.
Different.
The only thing that could change this is Donald Trump.
If Trump carries through in some of his claims, and I'd say the chances are very iffy, that he really wants to impose a peace settlement in the Middle East.
Trump is the only politician in the U.S. who appears to have the capability to do that.
But that remains to be seen.
Yeah.
Well, I would have put, you know, more money on Sanders for the ability to do that, just because.
Oh, I agree.
If only Nixon can go to China.
How about, you know, only Jewish communists from Brooklyn who used to live in Israel can tell Netanyahu to go to hell.
And he's got the personality for it, too.
I'll tell you what I told Netanyahu.
Just, you know what I mean?
I love Bernie Sanders, but I don't think he would possibly be elected.
Yeah, well, that's the problem.
We're looking at horrible Hillary, the Supreme War mongerette, and Trump.
Yeah.
Well, and that's the thing, too, is, I mean, and Sanders is really almost as horrible as them on this.
But, you know, they're, I think, both so much worse that they make him pretty much look good.
But he does not have a sterling foreign policy record.
I think that's why he was too afraid to really try to attack Hillary on foreign policy, even though she's so bad that he really could have differentiated himself.
And I think that's how Obama beat her, is he said, you know, she's probably more likely to get you into war than me, don't you think, everybody?
And they said, yeah.
Well, it's true, but people have forgotten that.
Americans don't really care about foreign policy.
Most of them can't find anything anyway on a map.
So it's like talking about nuclear physics or something to them.
Well, yeah, you've got to make it personal.
Like, you know, you have one son left.
You want to do this again?
You're going to go back and invade Mesopotamia again?
Vote for her.
That would be what I would do.
You know what I mean?
But anyway, it seems like they're also tone deaf.
Rand Paul, too.
Also tone deaf to what good politics it could be if they would try to make a focus on it.
Anyways.
And, you know, in 08 it was a different atmosphere because Iraq War II had a lot worse consequences for America than Iraq War III has had so far, you know, as far as body counts and all that.
So a lot more traumatic in the public imagination and all that kind of thing.
All right.
But anyway, so tell me about Ziv Jabotinsky because, you know, it's pretty well known, I think.
No, maybe not.
But there's a thing called the Yanan Plan that was written by a guy named Oded Yanan back in 1981 about how Soviet communism was going to conquer the entire world and there was nothing but darkness coming for as far as the eye could see.
And so Israel needed to, you know, engage in this, you know, most Spartan kind of overhaul and move far to the right and smash all the Arab allies.
But in your article here, and you've talked about this on the show a bit in the past as well, you refer to this kind of policy.
Maybe you could even call it the clean break or the coping with crumbling states policy of the David Wormser years in the 1990s as well.
But you trace this all the way back to the very foundations of Zionism.
Is that correct?
That's right.
In the 1920s, maybe slightly before, there were some ardent Zionists in Russia, Poland, Eastern Europe, who were advocating a greater Israel.
And one of them, Zev Jabotinsky, was the kind of father of Israel's right wing.
The Israeli right wing parties of the 60s, 70s, et cetera, were Jabotinsky's children in a way and followed his theory.
So he advocated, and with great foresight, he said the Arab world is a fragile mosaic that is barely holding together.
And a few sharp wraps on it, it'll fall into ruins.
And that will leave Israel as the dominant power in the Mideast.
And I think he also advocated expanding into Iraq, into the Fertile Crescent.
So this is still in the blood of Israel's liquid party and all the right wingers.
Some won't admit it, but it's there.
And the idea, and they're right.
Look at Lebanon fell apart.
Look at Syria.
Syria fell apart.
Iraq has fallen apart.
These artificial creations of Western colonialism.
And Syria's right on track to disintegrate.
So old Jabotinsky was right.
But so why should that be true, though?
Because I'm looking at Syria, and it seems like it's been a pretty stable country.
I mean, obviously, the line, the Sykes-Picot line, or the pseudo-revised Sykes-Picot line between Syria and Iraq is pretty artificial, drawn by Europeans with a ruler.
And they carved off Lebanon from Syria and separated it where under, I guess, under Ottoman rule the lines were different.
But you've had all different kind of people, different ethnicities and religions all living next to each other in the Levant for a thousand years and in Syria, in modern Syria since, you know, the World Wars era, right?
So, you know, and really hell, Syria lasted all the way through Iraq War II and did just fine until Obama and the Saudis and everybody started funneling all their mujahideen and guns and money into there.
And then even then, it seems like a lot of factions still back the central state there as opposed to the head-chopping suicide bombers of Nusra and ISIS on the other side and their lackeys in the Arar al-Sham and the Muslim Brotherhood groups and all of that.
But, I mean, it seems like they had to really hit it hard to shatter Syria.
Otherwise, it would still be there, right?
No?
Well, Syria was always fragile because it's made up, as you rightly point out, of so many disparate groups and religions and tribes and villages.
It's a big mishmash.
And there are desert Bedouins and there are Levantine traders.
But a very sophisticated country for the Arab world.
Certainly, it's intellectual center after Egypt went brain-dead under General Mubarak.
But Syria was held together.
A minority government, a minority Shia government led by the Assad clan was kept in power by the Alawi-dominated Syrian army.
And seven different secret police organizations.
And they kept an iron hand keeping Syria together.
But the minute this grip was relaxed, all the pent-up tensions of decades came bursting out.
And the majority Sunni don't want to be ruled by Shia tribes from the north.
And the Christians are worried that they're going to be destroyed like they were in Iraq, thanks to George Bush.
So the Armenians are there.
It's just a crazy quilt.
But the point is that as long as the rule of the iron hand was kept on Syria, things were fine.
But the minute it lessened, all these things started blowing up.
Yeah.
So, I mean, I guess it's hard to quantify these things, right?
I'm from Texas, and I know Uncle Sam is involved in all this, so I blame him.
I know the Israelis are helping al-Qaeda, so I blame them.
I know the Saudis and the Qataris are funneling guns and money.
And I'm thinking, you know, I don't know what Syria would be like if it hadn't been for all this foreign intervention.
But, you know, we have been intervening.
We've got even CIA-backed factions fighting military-backed factions.
And, in fact, even Shia factions.
We, back in Iraq, like the Baata Brigade, have been in Syria fighting with Hezbollah against the CIA-backed terrorist bin Ladenites who are also fighting against the DOD-backed Kurdish YPG types.
Anyway, so, but I don't know.
I guess you're saying, hey, it's a hell of a mix, and the Americans and their allies got in it.
Once Assad's authority was really called into question in 2011, it was on anyway, is what you're telling me.
Well, it was, but of course it was encouraged by outside forces.
The Americans, but also the French and the British.
French have played a very nefarious role in Syria, which used to be a French colony.
And the French are trying to reassert their influence in both Lebanon and Syria.
And the Saudis, who are scared to death of Iran or anybody who's backed by Iran.
You know, you've got to remember that America is not a Johnny-come-lately to this.
In 1948 was the CIA's first coup that weared over through the Syrian government of General Hosni Saim.
And the U.S. has been stirring the pot there ever since.
The problem is, as always in the Middle East, we do things, we're so powerful that we don't even know what we're doing.
And we don't understand the situation, and we don't have a long-term policy.
We just create messes as we go along.
Right.
Yeah, it all does seem very ham-handed.
And of course, hey, that's useful.
It's not like we can fire them and hire a different security force.
So they get to just keep failing upwards and all of that.
But, I mean, some of these things are really obvious, too.
You've got to wonder.
I mean, when you're dealing with Condoleezza Rice, you don't have to wonder very hard.
But, you know, they decided.
And I don't know what your position is on who you believe assassinated Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, in 2005.
But they certainly exploited it by blaming it on Hezbollah and on Syria.
And they used it as the excuse to force the Syrian army out of southern Lebanon.
Because, I guess, you know, hey, we hate Assad, and we hate his army, and we don't want it there anymore.
But, of course, all that did was just make Hezbollah that much more powerful.
And who's more difficult for the Israelis to deal with?
Nasrallah or Assad?
I mean, these are pretty elementary and stupid kind of things, where all you have to do is ask a question.
Well, what's going to happen when we get rid of the Syrian army?
Is that going to weaken Hezbollah, or that's going to strengthen Hezbollah?
How about if we give them al-Qaeda targets to fight against in Syria next door for five years?
Is that going to weaken Hezbollah, or is that going to strengthen Hezbollah?
Which is apparently what they're most worried about, you know?
These are dangerous questions that you're asking.
Nobody did in Washington.
The people who asked these questions were shunted aside.
Journalists like me who wrote about these things were also blacklisted.
We did this in Iraq with the Iraqi army.
Now they're doing it in Syria and different places, creating permanent instability in the region.
I sure am glad that you write things and come on my radio show, Eric.
Thank you, Scott.
Thank you for allowing me to discuss them.
I'm very happy to have you here.
Everybody, that is the great Eric Margulies, War at the Top of the World and American Raj, Liberation or Domination.
Those are the books.
Find them at ericmargulies.com, spelt like Margolis, and lourockwell.com and unz.com, unzunz.com.
This one is called Remember the Golan Heights.
Thanks again.
Cheers, Scott.
All right, y'all, thanks for listening.
I'm Scott Horton.
Check out the archive, 13 years' worth of interviews there, 4,000 of them at scotthorton.org.
Sign up for the podcast feed, especially the interview feed.
I still will be putting out some commentaries onto the full show feed as well, so sign up for both of them at scotthorton.org.
And if you like what you hear, and especially if you want me to eat enough to live long enough to finish writing this book, which is going to take me a while, feel free to drop by scotthorton.org slash donate and find out all the great ways that you can help support.
Thanks a lot.
See ya.
Hey, I'll check out the audio book of Lou Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton, at audible.com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty.
From medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution, Rockwell blasts our statist enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes, and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism vs.
Capitalism by Lou Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at scotthorton.org.
This part of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by audible.com.
And right now, if you go to audibletrial.com slash scotthortonshow, you can get your first audio book for free.
Of course, I'm recommending Michael Swanson's book, The War State, the Cold War Origins of the Military Industrial Complex and the Power Elite.
Maybe you've already bought The War State in paperback, but you just can't find the time to read it.
Well, now you can listen while you're out marching around.
Get the free audio book of The War State by Michael Swanson, produced by Listen and Think Audio at audibletrial.com slash scotthortonshow.