Jewish interventions in Syria
Collection of articles:
Leading Jewish Supremacist Confirms: Zionist Interests Served by Chaos in Syria
David Duke website
June 17, 2013
A leading Jewish Supremacist
closely allied with the Israeli government, has confirmed that
instability in Syria best serves Zionist interests.
Writing in an op-ed piece in the Israeli news service YnetNews,
Israeli-born but US resident attorney Shoula Romano Horing, who
teaches law at Baker University and the Webster University and
who regularly is involved in campaigning for the Israeli
government in Israel, said “Israel and the US’s best
strategy should be to help maintain the status quo where neither
Assad nor the rebels are strong enough to defeat the other
militarily.”
The article, titled “Assad must
not win,” went on to say that:
“neither the Sunni rebels
nor the Assad-led Shiites who are involved in the Syrian
civil war are friends of the United States or Israel. Israel
and the US’s best strategy should be to help maintain the
status quo where neither Assad nor the rebels are strong
enough to defeat the other militarily.
“In this context, the Obama
administration’s decision to finally help arm the rebels was
the correct decision… the main reason to heavily arm the
rebels should be to counter balance Hezbollah and Iranian
involvement and reverse recent Assad territorial gains in
the strategic city of Qusair on the border of Syria and
Lebanon, which has served as the rebels’ supply corridor
from Lebanon.
“It must be clear that both
the US and Israel’s strategic interests would be compromised
if the Americans allow Assad and his allies to win.
“While the Assad regime has
conventional military superiority including jets, ballistic
missiles, and artillery, it also can count on a steady
supply of arms and ammunition from loyal allies such as
Iran and Russia.
“If Assad wins, the US will
lose the remainder of its credibility and its deterrence
power in the Middle East….Iran will become stronger than
ever. A weakened Assad will owe everything to Iran, and
become its puppet.
“Hezbollah will become
stronger by sharing Syria’s dangerous arsenal and by
influencing a weakened Assad to be more militant against
Israel. Syria’s last war against Israel was in 1973, but
since then Israel has had at least two wars with Hezbollah.
“An Assad win over the
rebels will unravel decades of American influence in the
Middle East and endanger Israel in the process.”
Horing is no minor player in the
Zionist Supremacist conspiracy. According
to her own biography, she is a a national speaker for the
United Jewish Communities, and has been a keynote speaker at
many rallies for Israel.
Since 2005, she has been a
national speaker for JNF educating about Israel and the “Negev
Blueprint’ to flourish the desert. In addition she has
been raising funds to send to JNF’s summer camps for Israeli
children.
For 10 years, she was the host
of a weekly radio show called ”Oh Jerusalem”, which aired on
KCXL in Kansas City, Missouri. On the show she
discussed political and cultural issues concerning Israel and
the Middle East. She has interviewed many guests including
Prime Ministers Yitzhak Shamir, and Ehud Olmert, Mr. Bassiouni,
ex Egyptian Ambassador to Israel, Walter Rodgers, ex- CNN
Bureau Chief Correspondent in Jerusalem, Sam Brownback, Kansas
US senator, Kit Bond, Missouri US Senator, former US
Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority
Leader, Trent Lott.
In February,2009, Horing came to
Israel to campaign and vote for the election of the Likud
candidate for Prime, Minister Bibi Netanyahu. As a child,
Shoula’s parents took her to political rallies for then “Herut”
leader, Menachem Begin. When she was 20, she gave a speech about
the peace treaty between Israel with Egypt, at the party’s
convention, in front of then Prime Minister Menachem Begin and
thousands of other delegates and was elected to be a member of
the “Herut” Central Committee.
He comments on the Syrian
situation are therefore likely to be representative of Zionist
thinking on the issue, and confirm what Dr David Duke has been
saying all along: that the Zionist game plan is to divide and
conquer its foes.
The ‘Israeli Puppets’ against Syria
November 26, 2011
Turkey’s top daily,
Milliyet,
has reported that French military forces are training Syrian
rebels belonging to the US-Israel sponsored ‘Free Syrian Army’
in Turkey and Lebanon. The daily has also claimed that France,
Britain and Turkey have agreed to send arms into Syria to bring
a regime change in Damascus.
The Turkish daily also stated that the governments of the
three countries have received green light from Washington to
support the Syrian rebels in every possible way.
The influential French Israel-Firster Jew,
Bernard-Henri Levy
is running a
vicious anti-Bashar campaign and putting pressure
on the Crypto-Jew French President Nicolas Sarkosy to eliminate
Assad like Qaddafi earlier. Levi ran a similar anti-Muslim
campaign against Pakistan in 1971 which resulted in the
dismemberment of the country and creation of Bangladesh. Levi is
one of the founders of the Libyan rebel National Transitional
Council (NTC). Levi had convinced Sarkozy to become the first
head of state to recognize NTC in exile. Later, Levi met Israeli
Prime Minister Benji Netanyahu and informed him that
NTC leaders had promised to recognize Israel. On
July 2011 – Bernard-Henri Levi organized a conference of
Syrian rebel groups which was attended by Israeli
officials and a member of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood.
In a revealing installment of his weekly column at Le
Point magazine titled “Endgame in Syria,” Bernard-Henri
Levy claims that Syrian opposition figures he’s in touch with
are increasingly coming around to the view that military
intervention, Libya-style, may be the only way to get rid of the
regime in Damascus.
Levy, who bragged in his last book about the strong influence
he has over French President Nicolas Sarkozy, confessed that the
two conspired together to marginalize the French foreign
ministry so that it would not impede NATO’s intervention in
Libya.
In his recent column, Levy reveals secret efforts he has
undertaken in the past few months to convince Syrian opposition
figures to support him in what he calls the “Gaddafi theory.”
In the column, Levi admits that what is holding back France,
Britain, the US and NATO to conduct Libyan-style direct military
intervention in Syria – is because Syrian opposition leaders
whom he met told him that “they would prefer to die than say
the word ‘intervention’ or ‘international intervention’.”
Zionists Chair
Syrian Opposition Meeting in France
|
|
Local Editor, Al
Manar News
06-07-2011 |
|
Key Zionist philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy; former
French Minister of Foreign Affairs, and major advocate
of the war against Iraq Bernard Kouchner; member of the
youth movement in the Israeli right wing Likud party
Frederick Ansel; and former Knesset member and Israeli
Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s advisor Alex Goldfarb who
was not questioned by anyone for claiming to be a Syrian
opposition member and spokesman of “Democratic change in
Syria” assembly; were basic participants in the Syrian
opposition conference in Saint-Germain in France.
This “Zionist” atmosphere did not bother the
attendees, which Muslim brotherhood representative in
Paris, Moulhem Droubi, was among. One young Syrian girl
“Souraya” interposed saying: “In this hall there is not
one Syrian. In this hall, I only see Zionists.” However,
she was immediately interrupted and dragged out by the
French security under the eyes of the police.
According to the Lebanese daily As-Safir reporter in
France Mohammad Ballout, Frederick Ansel responded to
the young girl saying: “Unfortunately, some Arabs still
regard Zionism as an insult, although it is a source of
pride and honor.”
The Syrian opposition conference on Monday included
speeches that called for toppling down the regime, and
attacked Iran and Hezbollah, while completely ignoring
occupied Palestine and the occupied Golan Heights.
Some speakers condemned “Iran and Hezbollah’s
interference in Syria.”
However, representative of the so called “Salvation
Front” headed by former Syrian vice-president Abdul
Halim Khaddam, Ashraf Al-Moqdad called for “urgent
assistance of Western countries,” and defended the
participation of racist Zionist figures saying: “We are
ready to meet with anyone in order to stop the bloodshed
in Syria. The Syrian regime had conducted negotiations
with Israel directly and indirectly. Then why can't
we meet with French officials who want to help the
Syrian people? "
 For
his part, Zionist Journalist Bernard Henri-Levy called
in a statement the Security Council to refer the
Syrian regime to the international tribunal. While
Bernard Kouchner went further by saying that the
international community should intervene militarily in
Syria.
"We went to Libya, and we feel great injustice for
leaving the Syrians alone," he said, calling on "Arab
spring" countries to end diplomatic relations with
Syria.
Supporters of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s
regime as well as opposition activists protested outside
the conference location, against opposition parts that
do not hesitate to cooperate with Israel to fulfill an
apparently international agenda.
|
|
|
Israeli conference on Syria
Rehmat´s World, July 8, 2011
On July 4, a
conference of Syrian anti-regime groups was held in
Saint-Germain in France. The meeting was attended by 200 people
representing none of the Syrian groups calling for reforms in
Syria – the ‘Democratic change in Syria’. The meeting was
organized by La Regle du Jeu (The Rule of the Game) magazine and
website which is headed by Zionist Jew Bernard-Henri Levy. The
other Zionist Jews who attended the meeting included Bernard
Kouchner, former French foreign minister, Frederik Ansel, a
member of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, Alex Goldfarb, former
Knesset member and adviser to Israeli defense minister Ehud
Barak and Andre Glucksmann, an Islamophobe French writer.
Levy became world famous when in 2009, he ran a campaign
The Polanski Liberation Front against Swiss authorities
for jailing Jewish award-winning director, Roman Polanski, on
charges of raping a 13-year-old girl in the 1970s. Polanski had
fled from the US in 1978 to avoid prosecution.
The symbolic Syrian attendee was no other than Moulhem
Droubi, the Muslim Brotherhood representative in Paris. That
show how much
threat Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria poses
to the Zionist entity.
It seems the US-Israel-Saudia sponsored
Syrian Revolution has lost its main objective, the
regime change in Damascus. For example, the daily death toll has
significantly gone down; many of refugees are returning from
Turkey as sense of security is increasing and Bashar Assad have
promised some cosmetic reforms too.
In April 2011 – Bashar Assad had abolished country’s
emergency law including the state security courts used for the
trials of political and religious opponents. This draconian law
had been in force for the last five decades. What Bashar Assad
should be doing next – abolition of one-party system and holding
democratic election under multiple political parties. This would
increase his support among his neighboring countries Turkey,
Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Not only that, it will help Bashar to
save his country from the current
Libyan scenario. The implications of foreign
interference in the country will be deep. Knowing this, the
Syrian opposition is ready to embrace any functional domestic
approach.
Both Hamas and Hizbullah don’t have to worry about a ‘Syria
after Bashar’ – as a new demoratically elected regime will
always be an anti-Israel until Israel returns Golan Heights and
make peace with its Palestinian victims based on ‘equality and
justice’.
The Israel Lobby and the Organized Jewish Community Want Regime Change in Syria
By Kevin MacDonald
The Occidental Observer, September 1, 2013
President Obama is now saying his
administration has decided to attack Syria but will seek
Congressional approval before doing so. This sets up a really
interesting situation if Congress doesn’t agree, as seems
quite possible.
The idea of Obama ordering an act of
war on Syria without significant international support and without a
Congressional mandate always was a head scratcher. Here’s our far
left president advocating yet another war in the Middle East after
opposing the Iraq war when he was a senator. The same president who
has a
frosty relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu and has repeatedly
fallen short of the demands of the Israel Lobby.
Of course the rationale is framed in
moral terms—like all American wars, but there was more than a touch
of that in the run-up to the Iraq war as well. Here the case for the
hawks is made more difficult because the WMD story turned out to be
false. Lest we forget, this story was manufactured by strongly
identified ethnically Jewish, pro-Israel operatives linked to the
Office of Special Plans in the Department of Defense, including Paul
Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Abraham Shulsky, Elliott Abrams, David
Wurmser, Michael Ledeen, David Schencker, and Michael Rubin, with
the close cooperation of Israeli intelligence (see here, p. 47ff).
The Weekly Standard’s
usual neocon suspects — — including many of the same people who
promoted for the Iraq war — are pressing for a very large U.S.
involvement in Syria. It’s mind-boggling to read in the statement of
these so-called “experts” that the president must act “to ensure
that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America.” Shades of
how Iraq under Saddam Hussein was going to destroy the U.S. with his
WMD’s. How Assad is going to unleash his chemical weapons on America
is anybody’s guess.
Given the strong support of the
neocons for action against Syria, we must assume that Israel is
entirely on board with a U.S. campaign. So it’s not surprising that,
as in the case of the run-up to the Iraq war, Israeli intelligence
is front and center: “The bulk of evidence proving the Assad
regime’s deployment of chemical weapons – which would provide legal
grounds essential to justify any western military action – has been
provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine
Focus has reported” (see
here). This includes the much-discussed intercepted phone call
between Syrian officers discussing the use of chemical weapons (Ibid.)
and the claim that chemical weapons were moved to the site of the
attack (see
here).
I am unaware of evidence for a heavy
involvement of Israel Lobby operatives on the U.S. side responsible
for verifying this intelligence, as was the case when the Israel
Lobby manufactured the rationale for the Iraq disaster — doubtless
the most treasonous and corrupt such episode in American history.
Nevertheless, one would have to be naive indeed not to be suspicious
of Israeli involvement.
As many have noted, it would make no
sense for Assad to unleash chemical weapons in a conflict he was
winning; no point in killing women and children; no point in
attacking just as UN investigators arrived in Syria; no point in
incurring the wrath of the U.S. moralizers by crossing Obama’s
idiotic red line — idiotic because it is an open invitation to a
false flag operation carried out by the opponents of the Assad
regime.
Uri Avnery
claims that “practically all Israeli political and military
leaders” want the Syrian civil war to “go on forever.” The other
obvious motive for Israel and its fifth column in the U.S. is to
strike a blow against Iran, as many have noted. The anti-Iran motive
is front and center at the AIPAC website ("Syria
proves Urgency to Stop Iran“). This article assumes as true that
Assad did use chemical weapons:
The use of chemical weapons by
the Assad regime highlights the danger of allowing the world’s
most dangerous regimes to possess weapons of mass destruction.
As Israel prepares its citizens for the possible ramifications
of a chemical attack from Syria, the United States must consider
potentially catastrophic ramifications if Iran, who is actively
backing Assad, acquires a nuclear weapons capability. … We
cannot allow Assad to operate with the support of his greatest
ally in Tehran backed by a nuclear weapons capability. The
Islamic Republic is already expanding its influence throughout
the region, moving military equipment and resources into Syria
and Lebanon.
In a statement from June, 2013, the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, like AIPAC,
emphasizes the implications of failure to act in Syria for the
larger question of Iran:
Rather than deterring Syria or
Iran from using or pursuing illicit weapons, the
administration’s red lines appear to be eroding U.S. credibility
and national security. The lesson learned from Syria is that
preventing a nuclear Iran will require an actionable and
verifiable red line. This should include a credible mechanism
for assessing Iran’s progress toward the red line and warning of
its crossing.
An article on the JINSA site by Michael
Makovsky and Blaise Misztal advocates an “asymmetrical” response
in which the U.S. would cause far more damage to Syria than caused
by the chemical weapons attack: “if Washington orders an operation
against the Assad regime, it should not hold back from breaking a
few eggs on the way into Syria to ensure easier access in the
future. This approach would send a credible and menacing message to
the regime to amend its behavior or face further strikes.”
The ADL statement engages in double
talk on who is responsible for using chemical weapons (“Use
of chemical weapons in Syria ‘an immoral crime of the first order‘”).
On one hand, it states that the attack was performed “reportedly by
the Syrian government.” On the other hand, Abe Foxman clearly blames
the Syrian government for “the horrific events of last week,” a
claim that goes much further. And as usual, the Holocaust is invoked
as establishing a special Jewish moral posture useful for achieving
Jewish interests:
For more than two years, the world has been witness to
President Bashar al-Assad’s slaughtering of his own citizens.
Following the horrific events of last week there is no longer
any doubt about the brutal and evil nature of Assad and his
regime.
We welcome Secretary Kerry’s clear statement of condemnation
of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the U.S. commitment
to work with allies to ensure those responsible are held
accountable. The world failed to act during the Holocaust and
stood by through the genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda. It
is a moral imperative that the international community act now
to prevent further atrocities in Syria.
From Foxman’s perspective, it’s hard
to see how “preventing further atrocities” could happen short of
regime change.
Clearly, the organized Jewish
community will not be satisfied with a mere gesture against Assad,
but wants something in the general vicinity of regime change. The
Washington Institute for Near East Policy has numerous
articles with the message that a U.S. attack needs to be linked to
strategic goals. Robert
Satloff (one of the
most despicable neocons) makes a ridiculous
case that regime change in Syria is in American interests:
Given the strategic stakes at
play in Syria, which touches on every key American interest in
the region, the wiser course of action is to take the
opportunity of the Assad regime’s flagrant violation of global
norms to take action that hastens the end of Assad’s regime.
Contrary to the views of American military leaders, this will
also enhance the credibility of the president’s commitment to
prevent Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability, not
erode America’s ability to enforce it.
Likewise, neocons like
Charles Krauthammer (also
high on the list of most despicable neocons) want the
U.S. campaign to change the balance of power — “a sustained campaign
aimed at changing the balance of forces by removing the Syrian
regime’s decisive military advantage — air power.” What the neocons
don’t want is a brief attack that serves little more than to show
U.S. displeasure, leaves Assad in power, and doesn’t change the
military situation
SoSo from the Israeli and (what is the
same) the neocon point of view, it’s win-win. A serious U.S.
intervention would minimally prolong a war that Assad is winning,
weakening Syria and Hezbollah far into the future. And perhaps it
could lead to the fall of Assad and a Sunni government severed from
Iran. Iran and its allies
are seen as a far more dangerous enemy of Israel than the
Arab nations and the mainly Sunni rebels opposing the
Assad government, no matter how fanatically Muslim, Israel-hating,
and in bed with al Qaeda they turn out to be.
The decision by Obama to consult
with Congress may actually benefit the Israel Lobby because it could
quite possibly provide a mandate for much more than a brief attack
that is little more than a gesture—like Bill Clinton
lobbing a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan to protest the
bombing of American embassies in Africa. Without a congressional
mandate and without support from the U.K., Obama would have been
unlikely to carry out the sort of attack desired by the Lobby. Now
there’s a chance.
The delay provides an opportunity
for the Israel Lobby to get into high gear in order to bump up the
poll numbers and exert its power over Congress. At this time, there
is clearly
no popular mandate for a war; only 42% favor a “broad military
response”, and only 16% favor the regime change desired by the
Israel Lobby. A much higher percentage but still far from a mandate
(50%) favor the sort of action detested by the Israel Lobby — a
limited response involving only U.S. naval ships directed at the
chemical weapons.
Congressional approval is also iffy.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) has
stated that the odds are “50/50″ that the House will approve
force, but that the Senate will “rubber stamp what [Obama] wants.”
Others believe that even the Senate will be an “uphill
battle.”
So the Israel Lobby has a challenge
ahead, but it’s certainly doable. Expect a blizzard of propaganda
emanating from the most elite media in the U.S., and a lot of
arm-twisting in Congress. The Israel Lobby sees this as a
preliminary battle prior to the really serious campaign for a war
with Iran. If the Lobby loses this test, it would be a clear
indication that the U.S. lacks the determination to attack Iran.
The pressure will be intense. Don’t
bet against the Lobby.
|
|
|
|
Sanctioning Syria
The Long Road to Damascus
By Maidhc Ó Cathail
Al Manar News, November 16, 2011
In 1996, an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies, prepared “A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm” for incoming Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In that
seminal report, the Richard
Perle-led study group suggested that Israel could
“shape its strategic environment,
in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening,
containing, and even rolling back Syria.” Comprised
mainly of American-based pro-Israel advocates,
the group stressed, “Most
important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest
supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally
Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as
securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into
Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling
elite.”
Although Netanyahu didn’t act on their advice at the
time, Perle and two of his co-authors, Douglas Feith and
David Wurmser, found George W. Bush more receptive to
“securing the realm” – for Israel – after September 11,
2001. Nine days after that “catastrophic and catalyzing
event,” Perle signed a Project for a New American Century
letter to President Bush, urging
the United States to “consider appropriate measures of
retaliation” against Iran and Syria if they didn’t
“immediately cease all military, financial, and political
support for Hezbollah” – whose presumably
unforgivable crime was that it had “humiliated Israel by
driving its army out of Lebanon.” Explaining the Bush
administration’s subsequent decision to invade Iraq in 2003,
Patrick Buchanan
famously wrote in The American
Conservative, “In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser
strategy, Israel’s enemy
remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through
Baghdad.”
Notwithstanding Syria’s initial cooperation with the
Israeli-inspired but
American-fought “war on terror,” the
Israel lobby ensured that there
would be no long-term rapprochement between Washington and
Damascus. A September 5, 2002 document, “Working to Secure
Israel: The Pro-Israel Community’s Legislative Goals,”
declared AIPAC’s intention to “sanction Syria for
its continuing support of terrorism” by working
“with Congress to pass the Syria Accountability Act.”
In October 2003, Representative Eliot Engel, who
sponsored the legislation,
proudly reported the bill’s
imminent passage to the
inaugural Jerusalem Summit,
organized by Ariel Sharon’s government and its diehard
American supporters (including the ubiquitous Perle) “to
work out a joint strategy of resistance to the
Totalitarianism of the Radical Islam, and to the moral
relativism which in vain tries to placate this
Totalitarianism by sacrificing Israel.” Confusing the
ultimate target of the AIPAC-crafted legislation with
Israel’s more southerly bête noire, the Jewish Democrat from
New York informed the summit, “It’s no secret that
the people on Lebanon’s southern border, the terrorists,
Hamas, are wrecking [sic] havoc and causing all kinds of
destruction and could be
stopped tomorrow if Syria wanted it. This is
Hamas, the group which blew up over 200 US marines. This is
the group that goes out not only to destroy Israel, but
would destroy the United States as well.”
With Iraq proving to be less of a “cakewalk” than
America’s
pro-Israel warmongers had breezily
predicted, Syria managed to survive two Bush terms. The
failure of Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon to dislodge
Hezbollah, however, added significantly to the impetus for
regime change in Damascus. When Israel’s friends in
Washington concluded that the Syrian corridor to Iran was
“Hezbollah’s achilles heel,”
Bashar al-Assad’s days were increasingly numbered.
The Arab uprisings of 2011 provided them with their
long-sought opportunity of “rolling back Syria.”
Writing in the Guardian, Alistair Crooke
describes how the “great game” of
“losing Syria” is currently being played out with the
cooperation of the absolute monarchies of Saudi Arabia and
Qatar; the also predominantly Sunni secular Republic of
Turkey; and France, arch-promoters of Libya’s NATO-backed
“revolution” and Syria’s short-lived former colonial rulers,
i.e. “set up a hurried transitional council as sole
representative of the Syrian people, irrespective of whether
it has any real legs inside Syria; feed in armed insurgents
from neighboring states; impose sanctions that will
hurt the middle classes; mount a media campaign to
denigrate any Syrian efforts at reform; try to instigate
divisions within the army and the elite; and ultimately
President Assad will fall.”
Enforcing those
AIPAC-endorsed sanctions has been
the happy task of the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Terrorism
and Financial Intelligence. Created in early 2004 after
intensive lobbying by AIPAC and its associated think tank,
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the TFI unit
has been
aptly described as “a sharp-edged
tool forged principally to serve the Israel lobby.” With
David S. Cohen
succeeding Stuart Levey as Under
Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in
January 2011, a
leading journalist on the Middle
East was later prompted to call the position “a job which
seems reserved for pro-Israeli neo-cons to wage economic
warfare against Tehran.”
In recent days, Cohen’s TFI unit has been
eagerly waging economic warfare
against Damascus. Daniel L. Glaser, the Assistant Secretary
for Terrorist Financing, has just completed a tour of
Lebanon and
Jordan to ensure their support for
economic sanctions against the Assad government. In Beirut,
the U.S. Embassy announced that Glaser was pressing the
authorities to “remain vigilant against attempts by the
Syrian regime to evade U.S. and EU sanctions.”
In a recent
policy alert, WINEP’s executive
director, Robert Satloff, urged that “with the strategic
opportunity of contributing to the demise of Iran’s premier
Arab ally, Washington should be working overtime to act in
defense of the Syrian people.” Considering the long road to
Damascus pursued by Satloff’s
fellow-travelers, it should be
clear for which country regime change in Syria presents a
“strategic opportunity.”
Maidhc Ó Cathail is a political analyst and
editor of
The Passionate Attachment.
|
|
|
Lieberman: ‘Precedent’ for Syrian intervention
By
David Eldridge
The Washington Times,
March 27, 2011
Sen.
Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut independent
Sen.
Joseph I. Lieberman on Sunday said the events transpiring in
Libya should
send a strong message to Syrian dictator
Bashar
Assad.
“If he turns his weapons on his own people, he runs the risk,”
Mr.
Lieberman, Connecticut independent, said on
“Fox
News Sunday.” “There is a precedent now … we’re not going to
allow
Assad to slaughter his own people.”
Sen.
John McCain, appearing on the same program, wouldn’t go as far
as his colleague in comparing the uprising in
Syria with
the pro-democracy movements in
Libya,
Tunisia and
Egypt.
“Every one of these countries is different,”
Mr. McCain,
Arizona Republican, said.
“Let’s give moral support to these (protesters) in
Syria,” he
said, “but let’s not take our eye off
Egypt.
Egypt is the
key.”
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan
Democrat, also stopped short of backing the possibility of another
American-led military intervention, this time in
Syria, where
anti-government protesters are being killed by security forces.
The senator said the intervention in
Libya has the
support of the international community, including the Arab League.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.
Israeli leaders ‘satisfied’ with Miliband’s pressure on Syria
By Anshel Pfeffer
The Jewish Chronicle, November 20, 2008
Israeli leaders have expressed their satisfaction with the
results of Foreign Secretary David Miliband's visit to the Middle
East this week.
They were especially pleased that the Foreign Secretary demanded
the Syrians act to prevent the arms deliveries from Iran to
Hizbollah being transferred through their territory.
Mr Miliband spent three days in the region visiting Israel, the
Palestinian Authority, Lebanon and Syria. In Israel he met Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister
Ehud Barak and Likud Leader Binyamin Netanyahu.
In a show of solidarity, Mr Miliband also visited the town of
Sderot which this week was once again under fire from Kassam rockets
from the Gaza Strip and talked about "the suffering of the Israelis
on the one hand, symbolised here, but the suffering of the
Palestinians as well.
[...]
AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action
Pro-Israel lobby says 250 activists will meet with their senators and
representatives in Washington in a bid to win support Congressional support for
military action in Syria.
Published on Israeli
site Haaretz.com
By Reuters
|
Sep. 7, 2013
The influential pro-Israel
American Israel Public Affairs Committee will deploy hundreds of
activists next week to win support in Congress for military action
in
Syria, amid an intense White House effort to convince wavering
U.S. lawmakers to vote for limited strikes.
"We plan a major lobbying effort with about 250 activists in
Washington to meet with their senators and representatives," an
AIPAC source said on Saturday.
Congressional aides said they expected the meetings and calls on
Tuesday, as President
Barack Obama and officials from his administration make their
case for missile strikes over the apparent use of
chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad's government.
The vote on action in Syria is a significant political test for
Obama and a major push by AIPAC, considered one of the most powerful
lobbying groups in Washington, could provide a boost.
The U.S. Senate is due to vote on a resolution to authorize the use
of military force as early as Wednesday. Leaders of the House of
Representatives have not yet said when they would vote beyond saying
consideration of an authorization is "possible" sometime this week.
Obama has asked Congress to approve strikes against Assad's
government in response to a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 that
killed more than 1,400 Syrians.
But many Republicans and several of Obama's fellow Democrats have
not been enthused about the prospect, partly because war-weary
Americans strongly oppose getting involved in another Middle Eastern
conflict.
Pro-Israel groups had largely kept a low profile on Syria as the
Obama administration sought to build its case for limited strikes
after last month's attack on rebel-held areas outside Damascus.
Supporters of the groups and government sources acknowledged they
had made it known that they supported U.S. action, concerned about
instability in neighboring Syria and what message inaction might
send to Assad's ally, Iran.
But they had generally wanted the debate to focus on U.S. national
security rather than how a decision to attack Syria might help
Israel, a reflection of their sensitivity to being seen as rooting
for the United States to go to war.
Ya’alon: I would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria
Defense minister says jihadists
don’t ‘have capabilities’ of Islamic Republic, which he brands
Israel’s ‘greatest enemy’
By Judah Ari Gross, The Times of Israel, January 19,
2016
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Tuesday that Iran poses a
greater threat than the Islamic State, and that if the Syrian
regime were to fall, Israel would prefer that IS was in control
of the territory than an Iranian proxy.
“In Syria, if the choice is between
Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State. They
don’t have the capabilities that Iran has,” Ya’alon told a
conference held by the Institute of National Security Studies in
Tel Aviv.
“Our greatest enemy is the Iranian
regime that has declared war on us,” the defense minister said
of the threats facing Israel.
“Iran tried to open a terror front
against us on the Golan Heights,” he said in reference to
efforts by Iranian proxy Hezbollah to plan attacks on Israel.
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon speaks at the INSS conference
on January 19, 2015 (Youtube screenshot)
With its nuclear deal and recent
lifting of sanctions, Tehran “has escaped international
isolation” and become a “central player” in Syria, he continued.
Both the US and Russia are treating Iran as “part of the
solution” to the Syrian civil war, Ya’alon said.
“Iran determines future of Syria and
if it leads to perpetuation, Iranian hegemony in Syria will be
huge challenge for Israel,” he said.
The defense minister also
characterized the conflict in Syria and Iraq as the “height of
the clash of civilizations.”
“Many in the West refuse to
acknowledge this — won’t even say ‘radical Islam,'” Ya’alon
said. “Of course not every Muslim is a terrorist, but most
terrorists in the world today are Muslim. We can’t ignore that.”
[...]
Syria will be divided into six distinct
regions: Israeli Chief of Staff
Gadi Eizenkot says Syria will never return to its previous state, may be
permanently divided into six distinct regions after Putin's announcement of
withdrawal
Editor, http://www.yenisafak.com, March 15, 2016
Israel's Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot said Israel was caught off-guard by
Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement on Monday that Moscow's forces
will begin withdrawing from Syria.
“Syria will never return to its previous state, and may be permanently divided
into six distinct regions," Eizenkot said during a speech at the Knesset Foreign
Affairs and Defense Committee, according to The Times of Israel news portal.
[...]
[See also
The Times of Israel of the same day...]
