Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Israel's Next Target: Syria

Expand Messages
  • Islamic News and Information Network
    The New World Order and the Stone Age Israel s Next Target: Syria http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html The retiring and the designated Israeli
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 15 10:46 AM
      The New World Order and the Stone Age

      Israel's Next Target: Syria


      The retiring and the designated Israeli Chiefs-of-Staff sound like twins:
      both Shaul Mofaz and Moshe Yaalon insist that the next war is inevitable.
      Yet another war? Yes: the re-occupation of the West Bank has not satiated
      the junta's desires at all. In fact, the on-going war on the Palestinians,
      with its clear genocidal features, is no real challenge for the Generals.
      Using one of the world's strongest armies to chase amateurish combatants
      armed with outdated revolvers and home-made explosives is a General's
      shame, not fame.

      So what is Israel up to? Although incitement against Iran, Iraq and even
      Egypt never ceases (Hebrew Ha'aretz says [2.7] "Recent reports about
      Egyptian intentions to develop nuclear weaponry WERE APPARENTLY THE RESULT
      OF ISRAELI PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE and do not match intelligence information
      in Jerusalem, according to a senior Israeli official"; typically, the
      capitalised words were omitted in the English edition), Israel's most
      immediate target is undoubtedly Syria.

      How It All Started

      Since 1967, Israel has been holding the Syrian Golan Heights. As revealed
      in a posthumous interview by Moshe Dayan, Israel's celebrated Defence
      Minister of the 1967 War, this occupation was an unprovoked act of

      'At least 80% of the skirmishes there [prior to the War] started by us
      sending a tractor to plough inside the demilitarised zone, knowing in
      advance the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not, we would tell
      the tractor to go on until the Syrians got nervous and did start shooting.
      Then we would use cannons and later even air force.' Dayan added that the
      decision to occupy the Golan was taken by PM Levi Eshkol, among other
      reasons, under pressure of a delegation from the Kibbutzim [...], whose
      true motivation was the desire for more land" (Yedioth Achronot,

      The occupied Golan has formally been annexed, settled by Israelis, and,
      contrary to international legislation, Israel has been extensively
      exploiting its nature resources: "Mey Eden", an Israeli-based mineral
      water producer, is pumping in the occupied Golan. Typically, even the
      Yizchak Rabin Monument in Tel-Aviv is made of black basalt from the Syrian

      Barak's Syrian Fraud

      Opinion polls repeatedly show that "in a referendum, 60% of Israeli Jews
      would support returning the entire Golan Heights and evacuating all the
      settlements there for full peace with Syria" (Yedioth Achronot,
      10.3.2000). But contrary to the prevailing myth, there is no evidence that
      any Israeli PM, including Barak, was ever ready to return the Golan to
      Syria. In the Shepherdstown Protocol leaked from the latest peace talks
      under President Clinton, the Syrian proposal

      "The location of the border has been agreed upon by the parties, based
      upon the line of June 4th, 1967. The State of Israel will withdraw all its
      military forces and civilians behind this border"

      was met by the following Israeli version:

      "The location of the border has been agreed upon by the parties, taking
      into account security considerations and other considerations essential to
      the parties, as well as legal considerations of both parties. The State of
      Israel will re-deploy all its military forces behind this border."

      So Barak's "generous offer" to Syria offered no withdrawal but just
      "redeployment"; no eviction of Israeli civilians; and did not even mention
      the 1967 border. (Document published in Ha'aretz, 13.1.2000).

      War with Syria Why?

      Nevertheless, the Israeli-Syrian cease-fire line has been Israel's most
      quiet border since the 1973 war: not a single shot in almost thirty years.
      Since Israel withdrew from Lebanon two years ago, the Lebanese border has
      been fairly quiet too. There is limited fighting in a disputed small piece
      of land that Israel holds, probably just to keep the border warm (how else
      can one explain Israel's insistence to keep this disputed area, on the
      absurd grounds that it wasn't occupied from Lebanon but from Syria?), and
      the flak fired by the Hezbollah often portrayed as a potential casus
      belli is provoked by repeated Israeli military flights in Lebanese air

      (Let's drop the "terrorism" demagoguery. Sure, Hezbollah is "a terrorist
      group". It holds one Israeli civilian and several soldiers hostage, and it
      used to bomb Israeli civilians and civil infrastructure. But Israel too
      has been holding several Lebanese citizens hostage for years, it has
      terrorised south Lebanon for decades, bombed Lebanese civilians, turned up
      to half a million of them into refugees, repeatedly destroyed Lebanon's
      civil infrastructure, and breaches Lebanese sovereignty on a regular

      But in the present quiet atmosphere, why go to war? The answer seems to be
      part of the logic of the New World Order. In the Cold War period,
      conflicts were contained by balance of power and mutual deterrence. The
      ABM Treaty between the US and the Soviet Union was a good example. You
      didn't have to destroy your enemy: it was enough to make sure he had no
      interest to attack you. With the collapse of the Eastern Block and the
      emergence of the US as the sole super-power, the rules have changed. The
      New World Order rejects the idea of balance of power: every threat should
      be physically eliminated, and reducing whole nations to dust is not too
      high a price. Only military forces that serve as proxies of the US are
      allowed to exist. All other forces should be destroyed. Not negotiations,
      but dictates are the means; not hegemony, but absolute control is the end.
      Thus, power-intoxicated governments gamble away public money in the
      lubricated roulette of the booming weapons industry.

      Israel is following the example of its American patron. Even though
      Hezbollah has been a reliable partner for agreements based on mutual
      deterrence, the mere fact that it possesses missiles that can reach
      strategic targets in northern Israel is intolerable for Israel. Yes: for
      the very Israel that now boasts a "capability to launch, by means of a
      missile, a payload to any location on the face of the earth" (Ha'aretz,
      26.6). Obviously, the existence of a rather strong Syrian army cannot be
      tolerated as well, no matter how unlikely it is to attack Israel. If Syria
      does not act as an Israeli proxy and dismantle the Hezbollah, it should be

      War with Syria When?

      Geoffrey Aronson, writing for the Los Angeles Times (21.6), warns: "For
      the first time since then-Defence Minister Ariel Sharon, under a
      benevolent American eye, led Israel's star-crossed invasion of Lebanon in
      1982, there are growing indications that a US president has given Israel a
      green light to attack targets on Syrian soil if the on-again-off-again
      battle between Israel and Hezbollah intensifies."

      Alex Fishman of Yedioth Achronot (28.6) believes that "the political
      echelon does not want to open the northern file as long as the Palestinian
      file has not been closed [...] When the Americans launch part II of their
      war on terror against the Iraqi regime Israel will pay its share."

      I am not sure Israel will wait that long. As Geoffrey Aronson says: "Prime
      Minister Sharon's government did, indeed, contemplate such a strike this
      year. According to Eyal Zisser, an Israeli analyst, hostilities between
      Israel and Hezbollah failed to trigger war in April not because of
      American opposition but because Sharon has learned that precipitous
      military action without a broad public consensus is a recipe for defeat."

      War with Syria How?

      Though it is difficult to predict what exactly the junta has in mind,
      there are some hints.

      "This week, the Head of the Military Intelligence Agency held an obscure
      speech in the Knesset's Committee for Security and Foreign Affairs, saying
      Israel was going to give Syria a hit of a totally different kind." (Ofer
      Shelach, Yedioth Achronot, 7.6).

      "The days in which Israel was confining itself to hitting power generators
      in Beirut and a few Syrian radar stations are over. In coping with the
      threat, only a massive punitive operation will do." Alex Fishman, Yedioth
      Achronot, 28.6)

      The New World Order now enables the US and its allies to reduce peoples to
      dust. For the richest nation on earth, even cutting food supply is not out
      of range. Noam Chomsky, in his 911, quotes the New York Times of September
      16th: "Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel
      supplies [...] and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of
      the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population".

      In World War II, one of the plans considered by the Allies was to send
      Germany after the war, as a punitive measure, back to the Middle Ages. It
      was ruled out for fear that it might push Germany to the Soviets. There is
      no such danger nowadays. In the New World Order, Sharon is reported to
      have told Colin Powell that Israel might act "in a way that would send
      Syria back to the Stone Age". (Shimon Shiffer, Yedioth Achronot, 7.6) And
      it might happen very soon.

      ININ List Archives Found Here: http://www.egroups.com/messages/inin

      TO SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE PLEASE VISIT: http://www.inin.net/subscribe.htm



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.