[wvns] JONATHAN COOK: Why Did Israel Attack Syria?
Hillary Clinton yet again supports bombing, this time of Syria.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907662.html
===
An Opening Shot for War on Iran?
Why Did Israel Attack Syria?
By JONATHAN COOK, Nazareth
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09272007.html
Israel's air strike on northern Syria earlier this month should be
understood in the context of events unfolding since its assault last
summer on neighboring Lebanon.
From the leaks so far, it seems that more than half a dozen Israeli
warplanes violated Syrian airspace to drop munitions on a site close
to the border with Turkey. We also know from the US media that the
raid occurred in close coordination with the White House. But what was
the purpose and significance of the attack?
It is worth recalling that, in the wake of Israel's month-long war
against Lebanon a year ago, a prominent American neoconservative,
Meyrav Wurmser, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney's recently departed
Middle East adviser, explained that the war had dragged on because the
White House delayed in imposing a ceasefire. The neocons, she said,
wanted to give Israel the time and space to expand the attack to Damascus.
The reasoning was simple: before an attack on Iran could be
countenanced, Hizbullah in Lebanon had to be destroyed and Syria at
the very least cowed. The plan was to isolate Tehran on these two
other hostile fronts before going in for the kill.
But faced with constant rocket fire from Hizbullah last summer,
Israel's public and military nerves frayed at the first hurdle.
Instead Israel and the US were forced to settle for a Security Council
resolution rather than a decisive military victory.
The immediate fallout of the failed attack was an apparent waning of
neocon influence. The group's program of "creative destruction" in the
Middle East -- the encouragement of regional civil war and the
partition of large states that threaten Israel -- was at risk of being
shunted aside.
Instead the "pragmatists" in the Bush Administration, led by Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice and the new Defense Secretary Robert Gates,
demanded a change of tack. The standoff reached a head in late 2006
when oilman James Baker and his Iraq Study Group began lobbying for a
gradual withdrawal from Iraq -- presumably only after a dictator, this
one more reliable, had again been installed in Baghdad. It looked as
if the neocons' day in the sun had finally passed.
Israel's leadership understood the gravity of the moment. In January
2007 the Herzliya conference, an annual festival of strategy-making,
invited no less than 40 Washington opinion-formers to join the usual
throng of Israeli politicians, generals, journalists and academics.
For a week the Israeli and American delegates spoke as one: Iran and
its presumed proxy, Hizbullah, were bent on the genocidal destruction
of Israel. Tehran's development of a nuclear program -- whether for
civilian use, as Iran argues, or for military use, as the US and
Israel claim -- had to be stopped at all costs.
While the White House turned uncharacteristically quiet all spring and
summer about what it planned to do next, rumors that Israel was
pondering a go-it-alone strike against Iran grew noisier by the day.
Ex-Mossad officers warned of an inevitable third world war, Israeli
military intelligence advised that Iran was only months away from the
point of no return on developing a nuclear warhead, prominent leaks in
sympathetic media revealed bombing runs to Gibraltar, and Israel
started upping the pressure on several tens of thousands of Jews in
Tehran to flee their homes and come to Israel.
While Western analysts opined that an attack on Iran was growing
unlikely, Israel's neighbors watched nervously through the first half
of the year as the vague impression of a regional war came ever more
sharply into focus. In particular Syria, after witnessing the
whirlwind of savagery unleashed against Lebanon last summer, feared it
was next in line in the US-Israeli campaign to break Tehran's network
of regional alliances. It deduced, probably correctly, that neither
the US nor Israel would dare attack Iran without first clobbering
Hizbullah and Damascus.
For some time Syria had been left in no doubt of the mood in
Washington. It failed to end its pariah status in the post-9/11
period, despite helping the CIA with intelligence on al-Qaeda and
secretly trying to make peace with Israel over the running sore of the
occupied Golan Heights. It was rebuffed at every turn.
So as the clouds of war grew darker in the spring, Syria responded as
might be expected. It went to the arms market in Moscow and bought up
the displays of anti-aircraft missiles as well as anti-tank weapons of
the kind Hizbullah demonstrated last summer were so effective at
repelling Israel's planned ground invasion of south Lebanon.
As the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld reluctantly
conceded earlier this year, US policy was forcing Damascus to remain
within Iran's uncomfortable embrace: "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
finds himself more dependent on his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, than perhaps he would like."
Israel, never missing an opportunity to wilfully misrepresent the
behavior of an enemy, called the Syrian military build-up proof of
Damascus' appetite for war. Apparently fearful that Syria might
initiate a war by mistaking the signals from Israel as evidence of
aggressive intentions, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, urged
Syria to avoid a "miscalculation". The Israeli public spent the summer
braced for a far more dangerous repeat of last summer's war along the
northern border.
It was at this point -- with tensions simmeringly hot -- that Israel
launched its strike, sending several fighter planes into Syria on a
lightning mission to hit a site near Dayr a-Zawr. As Syria itself
broke the news of the attack, Israeli generals were shown on TV
toasting in the Jewish new year but refusing to comment.
Details have remained thin on the ground ever since: Israel imposed a
news blackout that has been strictly enforced by the country's
military censor. Instead it has been left to the Western media to
speculate on what occurred.
One point that none of the pundits and analysts have noted was that,
in attacking Syria, Israel committed a blatant act of aggression
against its northern neighbor of the kind denounced as the "supreme
international crime" by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.
Also, no one pointed out the obvious double standard applied to
Israel's attack on Syria compared to the far less significant
violation of Israeli sovereignty by Hizbullah a year earlier, when the
Shia militia captured two Israel soldiers at a border post and killed
three more. Hizbullah's act was widely accepted as justification for
the bombardment and destruction of much of Lebanon, even if a few
sensitive souls agonized over whether Israel's response was
"disproportionate". Would these commentators now approve of similar
retaliation by Syria?
The question was doubtless considered unimportant because it was clear
from Western coverage that no one -- including the Israeli leadership
-- believed Syria was in a position to respond militarily to Israel's
attack. Olmert's fear of a Syrian "miscalculation" evaporated the
moment Israel did the maths for Damascus.
So what did Israel hope to achieve with its aerial strike?
The stories emerging from the less gagged American media suggest two
scenarios. The first is that Israel targeted Iranian supplies passing
through Syria on their way to Hizbullah; the second that Israel struck
at a fledgling Syrian nuclear plant where materials from North Korea
were being offloaded, possibly as part of a joint nuclear effort by
Damascus and Tehran.
(Speculation that Israel was testing Syria's anti-aircraft defences in
preparation for an attack on Iran ignores the fact that the Israeli
air force would almost certainly choose a flightpath through
friendlier Jordanian airspace.)
How credible are these two scenarios?
The nuclear claims against Damascus were discounted so quickly by
experts of the region that Washington was soon downgrading the
accusation to claims that Syria was only hiding the material on North
Korea's behalf. But why would Syria, already hounded by Israel and the
US, provide such a readymade pretext for still harsher treatment? Why,
equally, would North Korea undermine its hard-won disarmament deal
with the US? And why, if Syria were covertly engaging in nuclear
mischief, did it alert the world to the fact by revealing the Israeli
air strike?
The other justification for the attack was at least based in a more
credible reality: Damascus, Hizbullah and Iran undoubtedly do share
some military resources. But their alliance should be seen as the kind
of defensive pact needed by vulnerable actors in a Sunni-dominated
region where the US wants unlimited control of Gulf oil and supports
only those repressive regimes that cooperate on its terms. All three
are keenly aware that it is Israel's job to threaten and punish any
regimes that fail to toe the line.
Contrary to the impression being created in the West, genocidal hatred
of Israel and Jews, however often Ahmadinejad's speeches are
mistranslated, is not the engine of these countries' alliance.
Nonetheless, the political significance of the justifications for the
Israeli air strike is that both neatly tie together various strands of
an argument needed by the neocons and Israel in making their case for
an attack on Iran before Bush leaves office in early 2009. Each
scenario suggests a Shia "axis of evil", coordinated by Iran, that is
actively plotting Israel's destruction. And each story offers the
pretext for an attack on Syria as a prelude to a pre-emptive strike
against Tehran -- launched either by Washington or Tel Aviv -- to save
Israel.
That these stories appear to have been planted in the American media
by neocon fanatics like John Bolton is warning enough -- as is the
admission that the only evidence for Syrian malfeasance is Israeli
"intelligence", the basis of which cannot be questioned as Israel is
not officially admitting the attack.
It should hardly need pointing out that we are again in a hall of
mirrors, as we were during the period leading up to America's invasion
of Iraq and have been during its subsequent occupation.
Bush's "war on terror" was originally justified with the convenient
and manufactured links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as, of
course, those WMDs that, it later turned out, had been destroyed years
earlier. But ever since Tehran has invariably been the ultimate target
of these improbable confections.
There were the forged documents proving both that Iraq had imported
enriched uranium from Niger to manufacture nuclear warheads and that
it was sharing its nuclear know-how with Iran. And as Iraq fell apart,
neocon operatives like Michael Ledeen lost no time in spreading rumors
that the missing nuclear arsenal could still be accounted for: Iranian
agents had simply smuggled it out of Iraq during the chaos of the US
invasion.
Since then our media have proved that they have no less of an appetite
for such preposterous tales. If Iran's involvement in stirring up its
fellow Shia in Iraq against the US occupation is at least possible,
the same cannot be said of the regular White House claims that Tehran
is behind the Sunni-led insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few
months ago the news media served up "revelations" that Iran was
secretly conspiring with al-Qaeda and Iraq's Sunni militias to oust
the US occupiers.
So what purpose does the constant innuendo against Tehran serve?
The latest accusations should be seen as an example of Israel and the
neocons "creating their own reality", as one Bush adviser famously
observed of the neocon philosophy of power. The more that Hizbullah,
Syria and Iran are menaced by Israel, the more they are forced to
huddle together and behave in ways to protect themselves -- such as
arming -- that can be portrayed as a "genocidal" threat to Israel and
world order.
Van Creveld once observed that Tehran would be "crazy" not to develop
nuclear weapons given the clear trajectory of Israeli and US
machinations to overthrow the regime. So equally Syria cannot afford
to jettison its alliance with Iran or its involvement with Hizbullah.
In the current reality, these connections are the only power it has to
deter an attack or force the US and Israel to negotiate.
But they are also the evidence needed by Israel and the neocons to
convict Syria and Iran in the court of Washington opinion. The attack
on Syria is part of a clever hustle, one designed to vanquish or
bypass the doubters in the Bush Administration, both by proving
Syria's culpability and by provoking it to respond.
Condoleezza Rice, it emerged at the weekend, wants to invite Syria to
attend the regional peace conference that has been called by President
Bush for November. There can be no doubt that such an act of détente
is deeply opposed by both Israel and the neocons. It reverses their
strategy of implicating Damascus in the "Shia arc of extremism" and of
paving the way to an attack on the real target: Iran.
Syria, meanwhile, is fighting back, as it has been for some time, with
the only means available: the diplomatic offensive. For two years
Bashar al-Assad has been offering a generous peace deal to Israel on
the Golan Heights that Tel Aviv has refused to consider. This week,
Syria made a further gesture towards peace with an offer on another
piece of territory occupied by Israel, the Shebaa Farms. Under the
plan, the Farms -- which the United Nations now agrees belongs to
Lebanon, but which Israel still claims is Syrian and cannot be
returned until there is a deal on the Golan Heights -- would be
transferred to UN custody until the dispute over its sovereignty can
be resolved.
Were either of Damascus' initiatives to be pursued, the region might
be looking forward to a period of relative calm and security. Which is
reason enough why Israel and the neocons are so bitterly opposed.
Instead they must establish a new reality -- one in which the forces
of "creative destruction" so beloved of the neocons engulf yet more of
the region. For the rest of us, a simpler vocabulary suffices. What is
being sold is catastrophe.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He
is the author of the forthcoming "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of
the Jewish and Democratic State" published by Pluto Press, and
available in the United States from the University of Michigan Press.
His website is www.jkcook.net
===
Why did the Jews invade Syria?
bob finch
On september 6, 2007 the jews-only state in palestine (hereinafter
referred to as the jos) sent a number of fighter aircraft deep into
syrian territory. But nobody knows what they hit, or why. The first
section of this article looks at what little is known about the raid.
The second looks at diplomatic responses to this mystery whilst the
final section explores some of the explanations given for this raid.
The Air Raid.
Was anything Hit?
At present, nobody knows what was hit during the raid or even whether
anything was hit. "But a European intelligence official said it wasn't
certain Israel had struck anything at all." (Dan Ephron and Mark
Hosenball `The Whispers of War'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/ September 24,
2007). A jewish commentator believed he'd found the target but his
allegations were later dismissed as lies. "The Arab Center for the
Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD) in Syria called the
reports of an Israeli attack on its facility in Dir a-Zour completely
"made-up" and claimed that it only learned of the purported attack
after seeing satellite images of its property and reading about the
attack in the news. Last weekend, in a Ynet special report, Ron
Ben-Yishai took pictures and interviewed eyewitnesses living in the
small town of Dir A-Zour located next to the research center." (Syrian
'research station' says shocked to hear of attack on its facility'
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3454940,00.html
September 30, 2007).
The latest news is that: "Israel has confirmed that it carried out a
strike on a Syrian military installation last month. On Monday, Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad told the BBC that a Syrian military
construction site was hit in the Israeli air strike on 6 September. It
is still not known why Israel carried out the strike or what exactly
was hit." (`Israel admits air strike on Syria'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7024287.stm October 02, 2007).
Scale of the Attack
Some commentators believe the raid was much bigger than was first
thought. "They were sketchy, but one thing was absolutely clear. Far
from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian
airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair
involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most
ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb
bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer
can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering
aircraft." (Peter Beaumont `Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on
Iran?' http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170188,00.html
September 16, 2007). "From the leaks so far, it seems that more than
half a dozen Israeli warplanes violated Syrian airspace to drop
munitions on a site close to the border with Turkey. It was at this
point, with tensions simmeringly hot (between the jos and syria), that
Israel launched its strike, sending several fighter planes into Syria
on a lightning mission to hit a site near Dayr a-Zawr. As Syria itself
broke the news of the attack, Israeli generals were shown on TV
toasting in the Jewish new year but refusing to comment." (Jonathan
Cook `Why Did Israel Attack Syria?'
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11678 September 28, 2007).
Global Silence about the Attack
Virtually no government condemned the jos's attack on syria. The
americans supported it but there were no condemnations from arab
countries. A syrian official complained, "Arab states have not exactly
rallied in our support." (Quoted in `Syrian official: After IAF raid,
Israel can forget about peace'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906830.html September 24, 2007);
"It is interesting to note, by the way, the resounding lack of
condemnation, either in Europe or even in the Arab world, to Israel's
alleged attack." (Herb Keinon `There's a reason world is quiet on
alleged IAF strike'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1189411422882&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
September 18, 2007). There was no condemnation from turkey, "Third, if
a Syrian nuclear installation can be targeted by Israel without any
international outcry, and with the tacit backing of allies in the US
and Turkey, Iran's nuclear facilities are looking more likely than
ever to be next." (Ilene R. Prusher `Israel sends Middle East a
message with Syrian airstrike'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0919/p06s02-wome.html September 19,
2007). Nor russia. "Even Moscow, a strong backer of Syria in the days
of the Soviet Union, did not directly condemn the Israeli action, in
which Syria says planes bombed an empty area after air defence systems
confronted them. Israel has not disclosed the target." (`Syrian
official: After IAF raid, Israel can forget about peace'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906830.html September 24, 2007).
It is as if the world is disinterested in any acts of aggression
carried out by the jos and unconcerned about the outbreak of war in
the middle east. As assad rightly concluded. ""The failure of the
international community, including the (UN) Security Council, to
condemn this act of aggression would encourage Israel to persist in
this hostile pursuit, and lead to an exacerbation of tensions in the
region," Moallem (Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem) said." (Yoav
Stern `Assad: Syria won't attend fall summit if issue of Golan not
addressed' http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908674.html October 02,
2007).
More intriguing than the global silence was syria's silence. It has
admitted that a military construction site was hit but has said
nothing about what was being constructed which might help to explain
why it was attacked. Syria's refusal to provide any details
discourages the global community from condemning the attack.
Rationales for the Attack.
1. Did the Jos try and destroy Saddam's WMDs?
It is unfortunate but many seemingly sane, and highly respected,
jewish commentators believe that saddam sent his wmds to syria before
the american invasion of iraq. "This pathological condition was
recently reconfirmed by Johann Hari's account of a National
Review-sponsored cruise to Puerto Vallarta featuring Norman Podhoretz
and Bill Buckley, along with a boatload of neocons and well-heeled
red-state-fascist types on board. The Pod Man and Buckley nearly came
to blows over the war question, when Buckley asked Poddy if it didn't
bother him that the famed "weapons of mass destruction" were nowhere
to be found in Iraq. "There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria,"
snapped the Pod Man. Syria? Is he serious? I'm afraid he is…
Continuing his rant, the Pod Man avers: "This picture of a country in
total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It
couldn't have gone better."" (Justin Raimondo `Tom Lantos, Warmonger'
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11204 June 27, 2007). If
likudnik lunatics like poddy really believe saddam transported his
wmds to syria before the americans could get their hands on them, then
logically these weapons should still be in the country and need to be
destroyed.
Was it possible then that the jos's warmongering leaders were trying
to destroy saddam's non-existent weapons hidden in syria? Perhaps
mossad had intelligence the wmds were being stored in a syrian
warehouse so the jos thought it had better blow up the building just
in case? Perhaps poddy had had an old testamentary vision pinpointing
the exact location of the wmds?
To any normal person the idea of saddam giving wmds to his enemy who
would be willing to look after them whilst the american military
launched its shock and awe campaign on iraq, might seem insane. But,
to hysterical, paranoid jewish warmongers forever fretting about their
existential survival in the midst of a world of potential adolf
hitler's, such an idea seems all too sensible. No wonder the jos
doesn't want to talk about the raid since the absence of any
radioactive material in the atmosphere after the attack would make it,
and its likudnik allies in america, the world's laughing stock.
2. Targeting weapons destined for Hezbollah.
"Others reported that the jets had hit either a Hizbollah convoy, a
missile facility or a terrorist camp." (Peter Beaumont `Was Israeli
raid a dry run for attack on Iran?'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170188,00.html
September 16, 2007); "Did the air strike seek to disrupt arms
shipments to Lebanon's Hezbollah?" (Khody Akhavi `Neocons Tie N. Korea
to Israeli Strike on Syria'
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11641 September 19, 2007).
3. Attacking a secret Syrian Nuclear Weapons site.
It was rumoured that three days before the jos raid into syria, a
north korean ship had docked in the country and unloaded nuclear
components for a secret syrian nuclear weapons' programme. "The New
York Times described the target of the raid as a nuclear site being
run in collaboration with North Korean technicians." (Peter Beaumont
`Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170188,00.html
September 16, 2007); "Feeding the speculation, a familiar clutch of
George W. Bush administration hawks appears to be suggesting that
Israel's apparent air strike may have targeted a joint North
Korea-Syria nuclear venture." (Khody Akhavi `Neocons Tie N. Korea to
Israeli Strike on Syria'
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11641 September 19,
2007); "The North Korea-Syria story started when Andrew Semmel of the
US State Department claimed that Syria "might have" obtained nuclear
equipment from "secret suppliers", adding that "there are North Korean
people there [in Syria]. There is no question about that." There were
reports that three days before the Israeli attack, a ship carrying
North Korean material labeled as "cement" unloaded its cargo in Syria.
That material, the reports said, was believed to be nuclear equipment.
As mentioned above, the North Korea story is not new. It started in
2004 when Bolton, then under secretary for arms control, accused Syria
of harboring nuclear ambitions. This was part of the stream of
accusations against Syria after the invasion of Iraq in 2003." (Sami
Moubayed `Shots in the dark over Syria's skies'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II22Ak06.html September 22,
2007); "Official silence has prompted a broad range of speculation as
to what exactly took place. One former U.S. official, who like others
quoted in this article declined to be identified discussing sensitive
matters, says several months ago Israel presented the Bush
administration with reconnaissance images and information from secret
agents alleging North Korea had begun to supply nuclear-related
material to Syria. Some U.S. intelligence reporting, including
electronic signal intercepts, appeared to support the Israeli claims.
But other U.S. officials remain skeptical about any nuclear link
between Syria and North Korea." (Dan Ephron and Mark Hosenball `The
Whispers of War' http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/
September 24, 2007).
4. Attack designed to stop the further Spread of Nuclear Weapons in
the Middle East.
"First of all, if indeed the alleged IAF sortie over Syria had to do
with a nuclear shipment from Pyongyang, then Israel's stock has to go
up because it will be seen in a few key capitals as the force that
will not allow nuclear proliferation in the region. The alleged
Syrian-North Korean connection could move Syria from being just an
unpopular state to being a pariah regime. And Damascus doesn't want
pariah state status. Syria, which has shown that it does want contact
with the outside world, has no desire to be quarantined and ostracized
as North Korea has been." (Herb Keinon `There's a reason world is
quiet on alleged IAF strike'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1189411422882&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
September 18, 2007); "Second, Israel might take steps to fulfill one
of its ultimate security objectives, which is to prevent other
countries in the Middle East from obtaining nuclear capability,
especially those overtly hostile to Israel." (Ilene R. Prusher `Israel
sends Middle East a message with Syrian airstrike'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0919/p06s02-wome.html September 19, 2007).
Jonathan cook disputes the accusation that north korea has been
helping syria to develop nuclear weapons. "The nuclear claims against
Damascus were discounted so quickly by experts of the region that
Washington was soon downgrading the accusation to claims that Syria
was only hiding the material on North Korea's behalf. But why would
Syria, already hounded by Israel and the US, provide such a ready-made
pretext for still harsher treatment? Why, equally, would North Korea
undermine its hard-won disarmament deal with the US? And why, if Syria
were covertly engaging in nuclear mischief, did it alert the world to
the fact by revealing the Israeli air strike?" (Jonathan Cook `Why Did
Israel Attack Syria?'
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11678 September 28, 2007).
It's interesting that whenever the jos carries out a pre-emptive
strike and is then condemned by many countries around the world, it
almost invariably responds by saying that america was told about, and
thus sanctioned, the attack. The jos uses america as a shield to
protect it from global criticisms despite the fact that this
undermines america's international prestige and reputation. The
americans seem willing to absorb any global condemnations to protect
the jos from any adverse consequences that might otherwise have ensued
from the jos's illegal and belligerent military actions. "Israel's
decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site
set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel
shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that
North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, U.S. government sources
said. The Bush administration has not commented on the Israeli raid or
the underlying intelligence." (Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright `Israel,
U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092002701_pf.html
September 21, 2007).
Hillary clinton supported the jos's attack on syria even though she
knew nothing more about it than anyone else. "New York Senator Hillary
Clinton said on Wednesday evening that she supports what she said was
the Israel Air Force's "apparent" action against a nuclear facility in
Syria. However, she went on to say, "We don't have as much information
as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean
help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians
apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of
years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly
support that." The senator from New York also backed up reports, first
exposed by The Washington Post two weeks ago, that that the IAF
targeted a North Korean shipment of nuclear material that arrived in
Syria three days before the strike. "There was evidence of a North
Korea freighter coming in with supplies. There was intelligence and
other kinds of verification," Clinton said. She went on to emphasize
that she had no other information on the incident because of its
"highly classified" nature." (`Hillary Clinton says she supports
'apparent' IAF action in Syria'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907662.html September 28, 2007).
It is extraordinary that clinton, a leading presidential contender,
could give the jos such open-ended support to the jos even though she
knew nothing about its possible impact on america's foreign policies.
It is as if she's saying that it doesn't matter what damage might be
done to american interests. Her priority is supporting whatever the
jos does, not protecting america from the adverse consequences of the
jos's warmongering.
5. Undermining a peace agreement between America and North Korea.
Joseph cirincione believes the jos's air raid had less to do with
syria than with north korea. He argues the neocons exploited the
attack in order to undermine negotiations between america and north
korea. "Some U.S. analysts have been very dubious of an actual Syrian
nuclear threat, describing the speculation surrounding the incident as
a manufactured stunt aimed at advancing a neoconservative agenda.
"This story is nonsense. The Washington Post story should have been
headlined 'White House Officials Try to Push North Korea-Syria
Connection.' This is a political story, not a threat story," said
Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Washington-based
Center for American Progress, according to an interview with Foreign
Policy. "Once again, this appears to be the work of a small group of
officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted 'intelligence' to key
reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda. If this
sounds like the run-up to the war in Iraq, it should. This time it
appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that
administration hardliners think is appeasement. Some Israelis want to
thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria," he said." (Khody
Akhavi `Neocons Tie N. Korea to Israeli Strike on Syria'
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11641 September 19, 2007).
Cirincione makes no comment about whether the neocons instigated the
jos's attack on syria in order to acquire ammunition to undermine
american-north korean negotiations. But such a conspiracy was possible
given that the neocons were stovepiping jewish intelligence directly
to the bush regime without america's own intelligence services being
consulted – just as was done in the run up to the invasion of iraq.
"JTA also noted the week-earlier Washington Post report that within
the preceding month the Israelis had provided Stephen Hadley,
President Bush's National Security Advisor, "dramatic satellite
imagery" of a facility under construction in Syria which led "some" of
the very few administration officials allowed to see the imagery "to
believe the facility could be used to produce material for nuclear
weapons." Here we go again! Raw foreign "intelligence," withheld from
our zillion-dollar multi-agency intelligence community, chock-full of
skilled professionals who evaluate satellite imagery for a living,
stovepiped directly to the White House where "some" members of the
Cheney Cabal, proven neophytes when it comes to evaluation of
satellite imagery of any industrial process, have concluded the
facility under construction could be used to produce material for
nuclear weapons." (Gordon Prather `Israel's Right of Self-Defense'
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11655 September 22, 2007).
6. A North Korean Military Shipment through Syria to Iran.
These days, the zionist dominated media throughout the western world
takes whatever opportunity presents itself to blame iran. "One
European security source told NEWSWEEK the target might have been a
North Korean military shipment to Iran that was transiting Syria."
(Dan Ephron and Mark Hosenball `The Whispers of War'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/page/0/ September
29, 2007).
7. Attacking a Syrian Facility installing Chemical Weapons on Missiles.
Larisa alexandrovna hypothesized that the jos attack was more likely
to have been on a site where syria was attempting to install chemical
weapons on north korean missiles. "Vincent Cannistraro, Director of
Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council under
President Ronald Reagan and Chief of Operations at the Central
Intelligence Agency's Counterterrorism Center under President George
H. W. Bush, said Sunday that .. "Syria has a chemical weapons
capability and has been trying to chemically weaponize war heads on
their existing stocks of North Korean originated missiles,"
Cannistraro added. According to intelligence sources familiar with the
events leading up to the raid, an explosion on July 20 at a Syrian
facility near the city of Halab, in the Northern part of Syria, caused
Israel's retaliatory strike on Sept. 6. North Korean scientists
working with Syrian military and intelligence officials attempted to
load a chemical warhead onto one of the North Korean missiles, likely
the No-dong 1 model, according to intelligence current and former
intelligence officers interviewed for this article. The result was an
explosion that killed a few of those present and, according to some
official reports of the blast, as many as 50 civilians." (Larisa
Alexandrovna `Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility,
intelligence officials say'
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Intelligence_officials_say_Israel_received_flawed_0924.html
September 24, 2007).
Alexandrovna wonders why the jos's raid was suspected to be about
syria's non-existent nuclear ambitions. "By most accounts of
intelligence officials, both former and current, Israel and the US
both were well aware of the activities of North Korea and Syria and
their attempts to chemically weaponize the No-Dong missile (above
right). It therefore remains unclear why an intricate story involving
evidence of a Syrian nuclear weapons program and/or enriched uranium
was put out to press organizations." (Larisa Alexandrovna `Israeli air
strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say'
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Intelligence_officials_say_Israel_received_flawed_0924.html
September 24, 2007).
8. An attack on a Syrian-Iranian Chemical Weapon Missile site.
Jane's defence weekly provides another opportunity to condemn iran. It
believes iranian technicians were helping the syrians install chemical
weapons on their north korean missiles. "Proof of cooperation between
Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass
destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly,
which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers
were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria. According to the report,
cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to
mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion
occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve
gas." ('Dozens died in Syria-Iran missile test'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411428847&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
September 19, 2007).
9. Testing Syria's Defences.
Syria recently bought an air defence system from russia so perhaps the
jos wanted to know how effective it was or perhaps even neutralize it.
"Imad Fawzi Shoaibi, a Syrian political analyst, speculated that
Israel may have been probing Syria's new air defense systems, provided
by Russia, at a time when tension was running high between the two
countries." (Yaakov Katz and Herb Keinon `Israel 'prepared' for
possibility of conflict after Syria alleges IAF violated its airspace'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392553869&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
September 06, 2007); "An anonymous Israeli source reportedly told the
Arab daily Al Arabiya Saturday morning that Israeli fighter jets that
flew over Syria on Thursday were on a mission to neutralize
Russian-made surface-to-air missile (SAM) anti-aircraft batteries
recently deployed by Syria along its Mediterranean coast." (`Jets were
on mission to destroy Russian SAM batteries'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392563184&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
September 07, 2007).
10. Testing Syria's Defences for an attack on Iran: Sending a message
to iran.
"Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton said Sunday that
Israel's reported military operation inside Syria earlier this month
should be regarded as a 'clear message to Iran' that its nuclear
efforts will not be ignored by the international community." (Barak
Ravid, Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel `Ex-UN envoy: IAF action in
Syria is 'message to Iran' over nukes'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/903949.html September 16, 2007);
"Was it a dress rehearsal for a possible future strike on Iranian
nuclear facilities?" (Khody Akhavi `Neocons Tie N. Korea to Israeli
Strike on Syria' http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11641
September 19, 2007).
Jonathan cook suggests this is not plausible. "Speculation that Israel
was testing Syria's antiaircraft defenses in preparation for an attack
on Iran ignores the fact that the Israeli air force would almost
certainly choose a flightpath through friendlier Jordanian airspace."
(Jonathan Cook `Why Did Israel Attack Syria?'
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11678 September 28, 2007).
11. Re-establishing Jewish Dominance in the Middle East.
Merely by sending aircraft into syria no matter whether they attacked
a real target, a mock target, or even no target at all, the jos
restored its military dominance over syria. "Either way, Israel's
chief of military intelligence announced that Israel's deterrence had
"been restored."" (Ilene R. Prusher `Israel sends Middle East a
message with Syrian airstrike'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0919/p06s02-wome.html September 19,
2007). The syrian vice president farouq al-shara believed it was just
a jewish morale booster. "According to Al-Shara, this attack was meant
to raise the morale of the Israeli army after it failed in its attempt
to destroy Hizbullah in the Second Lebanon War." (Syrian 'research
station' says shocked to hear of attack on its facility'
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3454940,00.html
September 30, 2007).
12. Jos Undermines peace with Syria – Jewish Hypocrisy.
President assad has been making efforts to pursue peace with the jews
for a number of years but then finds his country being attacked yet
again by the jos. "All of this comes at a time when there seemed to be
increased signs of hope for an Israeli-Syrian rapprochement. The
possibility of the two countries revisiting the negotiating table,
abandoned more than seven years ago, has been in the offing in recent
months, though the Bush administration has been encouraging Israel to
focus on the Palestinian peace track instead." (Ilene R. Prusher
`Israel sends Middle East a message with Syrian airstrike'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0919/p06s02-wome.html September 19, 2007).
The jos bombs syria and then says it wants to start peace
negotiations. "But whatever happened in the early hours of Sept. 6
does not appear to have soured Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's
efforts to restart negotiations with his adversary. Olmert announced
on Monday that Israel was prepared to hold negotiations with Damascus,
without preconditions and without ultimatums, according to the
Jerusalem Post." (Khody Akhavi `Neocons Tie N. Korea to Israeli Strike
on Syria' http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11641
September 19, 2007); "Olmert made a similar offer during an interview
with the Saudi satellite TV channel Al-Arabiyya on July 11. "I am
ready to sit with you and talk about peace, not war. I will be happy
if I could make peace with Syria. I do not want to wage war against
Syria," Olmert said." (Sami Moubayed `Shots in the dark over Syria's
skies' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II22Ak06.html
September 22, 2007).
The jos has often carried out acts of aggression to scupper any
chances for peace negotiations and then sought to undermine global
criticisms for such attacks by saying it wants to start peace
negotiations. The syrian reaction is not surprising. "An Israeli raid
on Syria has all but finished off chances for resuming peace talks
between the two foes, Syrian officials said on Monday. "After this
raid, you can forget about peace. It is no secret that our forces have
been on alert for some time, but Syria will not be the first to start
a war," said one of the Syrian officials, who asked not to be named."
(Syrian official: After IAF raid, Israel can forget about peace'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906830.html September 24, 2007).
13. Using the attack to Impose Political Conditions on Syria.
A jerusalem post wag suggested. "The allegations of a North
Korean-Syrian connection could make the time ripe, therefore, for
Israel to push the world to place certain conditions on Syria's being
accepted back into the international fold. The conditions are obvious,
and ones that Israel has been demanding, without any success at all,
for years: kicking the terrorist organizations out of Damascus, first
and foremost Hamas and its leader Khaled Mashaal, and an end to the
support and the supply of weapons to Hizbullah. In the past Syria has
just ignored these calls. But now, in order to avoid being seen as
North Korea's kid brother, it may have no choice but to pay a little
attention. The alleged connection to North Korea makes Syria
vulnerable. The question is whether the world will seize the moment."
(Herb Keinon `There's a reason world is quiet on alleged IAF strike'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1189411422882&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
September 18, 2007).
14. Publicity Stunt: Olmert wanted to boost his Poll Ratings.
Jewish people in palestine do not know why olmert ordered the attack
on syria even though it could have led to war between the two
countries causing mass casualties on both sides. Nevertheless, they
supported his warmongering anyway. "A reported Sept. 6 airstrike in
northern Syria that Israel has not acknowledged has led to a big boost
in Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval rating, a new opinion
poll shows." (Mysterious airstrike in northern Syria boosts Olmert's
popularity: Poll'
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/18/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Olmert-Poll.php
September 18, 2007); "The idea of a pre-emptive strike also has
popular support. When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered the raid on
Syria earlier this month, his approval rating was in the teens. Since
then, it has jumped to nearly 30 percent." (Dan Ephron and Mark
Hosenball `The Whispers of War'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/ September 24,
2007); "But the Israeli domestic political equation is worrying:
Olmert has seen his own approval ratings climb out of the toilet as a
result of having bombed something in Syria a couple of weeks ago.
Nobody knows what he bombed, but his numbers have climbed from about
3% a few months ago to over 35% today. That's why the scoundrels to
the left and right of him, Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu, have been
scrambling to claim some paternity over the mysterious Syria raid."
(Tony Karon `Iran: Chronicle of a War Foretold?'
http://tonykaron.com/2007/09/26/iran-chronicle-of-a-war-foretold/
September 26, 2007).
15. Neocon Plot to demonize Iran.
Jonathan cook dismisses the idea that the jos attack was against
weapons being transported to hezbollah or syrian nuclear facilities.
But he believes likudnik propaganda around these two issues is
important for boosting belligerence towards iran. Cook is suggesting
the jos was conspiring with its likudnik allies in america to pressure
bush into launching an attack against iran. "Nonetheless, the
political significance of the justifications for the Israeli air
strike is that both neatly tie together various strands of an argument
needed by the neocons and Israel in making their case for an attack on
Iran before Bush leaves office in early 2009. Each scenario suggests a
Shi'ite "axis of evil," coordinated by Iran, that is actively plotting
Israel's destruction. And each story offers the pretext for an attack
on Syria as a prelude to a preemptive strike against Tehran, launched
either by Washington or Tel Aviv, to save Israel. That these stories
appear to have been planted in the American media by neocon masters of
spin like John Bolton is warning enough, as is the admission that the
only evidence for Syrian malfeasance is Israeli "intelligence," the
basis of which cannot be questioned as Israel is not officially
admitting the attack." (Jonathan Cook `Why Did Israel Attack Syria?'
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11678 September 28, 2007).
16. Jos pressuring Bush into War against Iran.
Another speculation is that the jos raided syria in order to
pressurize bush into attacking iran. "While the Bush administration
appears to have given tacit support to the Syria raid, Israel and the
United States are not in lockstep on Iran. For Israel, the next three
months may be decisive: either Tehran succumbs to sanctions and stops
enriching uranium or it must be dealt with militarily. (Iran says its
program is for peaceful purposes only.) "Two thousand seven is the
year you determine whether diplomatic efforts will stop Iran," says a
well-placed Israeli source, who did not want to be named because he is
not authorized to speak for the government. "If by the end of the year
that's not working, 2008 becomes the year you take action."" (Dan
Ephron and Mark Hosenball `The Whispers of War'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/ September 24,
2007). The assumption here is that bush is reluctant to attack iran
either because of the vulnerability of its military or because there
is no urgency to do so. "In Washington, on the other hand, the
consensus against a strike is firmer than most people realize. The
Pentagon worries that another war will break America's already
overstretched military, while the intelligence community believes Iran
is not yet on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough." (Dan Ephron and
Mark Hosenball `The Whispers of War'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/ September 24, 2007).
17. Cheney testing out his "End Run Strategy"
Whilst bush is supposedly hesitant about an attack on iran, dick
cheney is not. Indeed, in may 2007, steven clemons argued that cheney
was pursuing an "end run strategy" to manipulate bush into a war with
iran. He wanted the jos to attack iran's nuclear facilities in order
to provoke an iranian retaliation which would automatically bring
america into the war. From this perspective the jos's september attack
on syria could have been a trial run for this strategy to assess the
military and political contribution it makes towards pushing bush into
war against iran. "Some believe that the Office of the Vice President
is continuing to battle any attempts at diplomacy made by the US State
Department in an effort to ensure no alternative but a military
solution to destabilize and strike Iran, using Syria's alleged nuclear
weapons program and close relations with Iran as a possible pretext."
(Larisa Alexandrovna `Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility,
intelligence officials say'
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Intelligence_officials_say_Israel_received_flawed_0924.html
September 24, 2007).
18. The Jos Blackmailing Bush into War he does not want. It's the Jos
which is deciding whether America will go to War against Iran. The Jos
is willing to sacrifice the American Military in Afghanistan and Iraq
in order to bring about Jewish Supremacism in the Middle East
The final explanation explored here is that the jos was sending bush
the message that it transgressed into syria but could easily have gone
to iran. If this had happened then america would inevitably have ended
up in a war with iran. The jos is thus blackmailing america into a war
– whether bush wants one or not. In effect, the jos decides on who
america's enemies are and when america will go to war. America's proxy
zionist wars against afghanistan and iraq have benefited the jos but
have proved to be an economic and military catastrophe for america.
The jos is now pushing bush into a war which will boost jewish
supremacism in the middle east but prove to be an even greater
military and economic catastrophe for america and the western world
than their two previous illegal invasions. What this reveals is that
even though the jos knows that the american military in iraq and
afghanistan would be highly vulnerable to iranian retaliation, it is
willing to sacrifice american treasure and lives solely for the sake
of boosting jewish supremacism. "Alternatively, Israel might count on
Tehran to retaliate against American targets as well, drawing in the
superpower. To avoid that outcome, Gardiner believes, Washington must
prevent Israel from attacking in the first place. "The United States
does not want to turn the possibility of a general war in the Middle
East over to the decision making in Israel," he says. Does not want
to, certainly, but might not have a choice." (Dan Ephron and Mark
Hosenball `The Whispers of War'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/ September 24, 2007).
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment