Détenteur d'un important arsenal nucléaire et chimique, Israël est responsable de la course à l'armement nucléaire et chimique au Proche-Orient... Qu'attendent nos chères démocraties pour condamner cet état terroriste partisan d'al-Qaïda et le compter parmi leurs ennemis?
Si des nations arabes comme la Syrie ont décidé de se munir d'un arsenal de destruction massive (chimique ou autre), c'était en réaction à la menace très réelle que constitue l'arsenal nucléaire de l'état voyou israélien.
Concernant l'appui d'Israël aux rebelles syriens anti-Assad que l'on sait dirigés par al-Qaïda, l'ambassadeur d'Israël aux États-Unis, Michael Oren, a déclaré qu'Israël "préfère les bandits qui ne sont pas financés par l'Iran aux bandits financés par l'Iran".
Les politiciens sionistes et les groupes juifs et pro-israéliens (AIPAC, ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) poussent ouvertement en faveur d'une guerre contre la Syrie, tout en essayant de dissimuler et minimiser leur rôle dans cette affaire. La Syrie représente la pièce centrale de "l'arc stratégique" Liban-Syrie-Iran que veut détruire Israël.
La Droite conservatrice républicaine en profite pour accuser Obama d'appuyer al-Qaïda, mais omet soigneusement de mentionner qu'Israël appuie ouvertement al-Qaïda et pousse le monde occidental à entrer en guerre (et non l'inverse).
L’ambassadeur d’Israël à Washington Michael Oren a déclaré au
quotidien américain Washington Post que l’intérêt d’Israël réside dans
le renversement du Président Bachar el-Assad, même si c’est al-Qaida qui
va accéder au pouvoir à sa place!
« Israël est intéressé par la
chute du Président Assad. Il a toujours voulu le renverser, avant même
la crise syrienne. Nous préférons les méchants qui ne sont pas soutenus
par l’Iran aux méchants qui bénéficient de son appui. Nous avons voulu
toujours le départ d’Assad », a-t-il dit.
Et d’ajouter : « Nous réalisons qu’il existe des gens très méchants
parmi les rebelles, mais le plus grand danger pour Israël est représenté
par l’axe stratégique qui s’étend de Téhéran à Beyrouth, en passant par
Damas ».
« Nous trouvons que le régime d’Assad est la pierre angulaire qui
maintient debout cet axe et telle est notre position avant même
l’éclatement des événements en Syrie », a-t-il dit.
« Pour Israël, la ligne rouge est la possibilité que l’Iran ou la
Syrie transporte des armes chimiques ou des armes non conventionnelles
au Hezbollah ou à d’autres organisations terroristes. Dans ce cas,
Israël ne restera pas passif », a insisté Oren, tout en démentant les
rapports médiatiques faisant état du transfert d’armes chimiques
syriennes au Hezbollah.
Dans le même cadre, le quotidien israélien "Maariv" a révélé que
l’ambassadeur israélien à Washington, et avec l'autorisation de
Netanyahu, a mené une série de réunions au Congrès américain pour
convaincre le Sénat et les membres de la Chambre de soutenir une frappe
militaire en Syrie.
Citant Oren, le journal a dit: "Evidemment, une série de réunions a
été tenue", soulignant qu'il n'avait pas pris l'initiative, mais qu’il
"était au service de ceux qui ont cherché à connaître la position
d'Israël en la matière."
Oren n’aurait pas tenu ces réunions s’il n’avait pas reçu le feu vert du Premier ministre israélien, poursuit le journal.
Aux efforts d’Oren s’ajoute une campagne assidue menée par le lobby
sioniste à Washington, à la demande de la Maison Blanche, pour
convaincre les membres du Congrès de voter en faveur d’une offensive
contre la Syrie.
La radio de l’armée israélienne a rapporté mardi que
les responsables du gouvernement israélien préfèrent que la Syrie soit
dirigée par l’organisation d’al-Qaïda à la victoire du président syrien,
Bachar al-Assad, sur les rebelles qui combattent pour la chute de son
régime.
Selon la radio militaire de l’Etat hébreu, relayée par arabic-upi,
"une crainte règne au sein du gouvernement israélien envers la force
grandissante de Bachar al-Assad dans les batailles opposant l’armée
syrienne aux insurgés". A ses yeux, "la gouvernance d’al-Qaïda en Syrie
serait meilleure que la victoire de Bachar al-Assad".
"Si la résistance de Bachar al-Assad se poursuit dans la
confrontation avec les rebelles, et s’il continue à gouverner la Syrie,
il serait très attaché à l’Iran et lui sera reconnaissant, ce qui est de
nature à renforcer la place de l’Iran comme une puissance régionale
menaçant Israël", estiment les responsables israéliens.
"La relation entre la Syrie, l’Iran et le Hezbollah sera renforcée
et sera plus dangereuse pour Israël", ajoutent-ils, selon la radio.
"Il existe un seul Etat qui dit que son but est de supprimer Israël
c’est l’Iran. Assad est l’Iran, n’importe quel pouvoir en Syrie est de
ce fait préférable, même s’il s’agit d’al-Qaïda et de l’Islam radical,
tout est moins pire qu’un Assad faible qui sera une marionnette entre
les mains des Iraniens", considèrent les responsables israéliens.
Le ministre de la Défense israélien, Moshe Ya’alon, avait déclaré
lundi lors de la réunion de la commission des Affaires étrangères et de
la sûreté, relevant de la Knesset, que "les forces de l’armée syrienne
contrôlent 40 % seulement des territoires syriens, et que seuls quatre
quartiers à Damas sont sous leur contrôle".
Selon ses dires, Israël suit avec inquiétude la possibilité que la
Russie ravitaille la Syrie par le dispositif S-300. "Conformément à ce
qui a été publié, ces missiles n’ont pas été encore acheminés, et s’ils
venaient à être transférés, ils ne le seront qu’en 2014", a-t-il
indiqué.
Moshe Ya’alon a encore dit qu’"Israël n’interviendrait pas dans la
guerre en Syrie, tant qu’elle ne touche pas nos intérêts, y compris le
transfert des armes développées, des missiles et de l’armement chimique
au Hezbollah, et tant que le front n’est pas chauffé".
L’Egypte se transformera en chaos comme en Irak, c’est encore Mordechai Kedar qui le déclare à un journal israélien. M.Kedar est un politologue qui a réalisé sa thèse sur la Syrie de Hafez El-Assad. Il a été pendant 25 ans officier des renseignements israéliens, spécialisé dans le contre-terrorisme et l’analyse des médias arabes. Maîtrisant cette langue, la télévision des Frères musulmans, Al-Jazeera le sollicite régulièrement pour « éclairer » l’opinion arabe. Il déclare publiquement préférer Al-Qaïda au régime actuel, pronostique une implosion de la Syrie en plusieurs entités, un chaos en Egypte et la division des palestiniens en plusieurs tribus. (...)
Israel
has finally admitted publicly (what has long been known): Israel would
prefer rebels aligned with the al Qaeda terror network seize control in
Syria, rather than the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad retaining
power.
This eye-opening revelation will shock those who perceive Israel as America’s closest ally, particularly in the “war on terror” (aimed at al Qaeda) waged in the 12 years following the 9-11 attacks which the United States government claims were al Qaeda’s doing (despite profound evidence to the contrary).
Returning American troops—who fought against al Qaeda—and families of the dead will now rightly have some serious doubts about Israel. And troops still abroad will surely ask why they are fighting al Qaeda if America’s “best friend” supports that terror network’s ambitions in Syria.
Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, told The Jerusalem Post why Israel supports the al Qaeda-aligned forces.
While noting—of the rebels loyal to al Qaeda—that while Israel understands “they are pretty bad guys,” Oren told the Post
for an article published on Sept. 17 that Israel views Assad’s regime
as “the keystone” in “the strategic arc” between Lebanon and Iran, the
nation Israel is eager to destroy.
“We
always wanted Assad to go,” he said. “We always preferred the bad guys
who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”
So
Israel believes al Qaeda-allied forces are useful for its own ends,
America’s interests in the “war on terrorism” notwithstanding.
This
eye-opening revelation will shock those who perceive Israel as
America’s closest ally, particularly in the “war on terror” aimed at al
Qaeda waged in the 12 years following the 9-11 attacks which the U.S.
government claims were al Qaeda’s doing, despite profound evidence to
the contrary.
Returning
American troops—who fought against al Qaeda—and families of the dead
will now rightly have some serious doubts about Israel. And troops still
abroad will surely ask why they are fighting al Qaeda if America’s
“best friend” supports that terror network’s ambitions in Syria.
From
an American perspective, the toll in the Afghan and Iraqi wars has been
staggering: 2.5 million Americans were deployed, about half of them
more than once. Some 6,650 died. Another 106,000 were wounded in action
or evacuated for injury or disease. Some 675,000 veterans of the war on
terror applied for disability. Suicides and other deaths among returning
troops—drug overdoses, car crashes etc—are unusually high.
Academic estimates say the wars will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers some $5
trillion. And that figure does not include untold trillions Americans
give Israel, much of it for purported assistance in the “war on terror”
that is being waged against al Qaeda.
Now
that Israel has betrayed America and supports al Qaeda, the U.S. should
cut off relations with Israel, expel its diplomats and citizens from
the United States, and henceforth consider Israel an enemy in the war on
terror.
---
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
Although Syria’s weapons of mass destruction—
in this instance, chemical
weapons —are now the focus of global
media attention, what is largely suppressed
in the mainstream media is the “back
story” as to why Syria even has chemical weapons
in the first place.
On April 17, 2003 veteran Washington Post correspondent Walter
Pincus, who happens to be Jewish,
acknowledged in a story relating to angry
claims by the George W. Bush administration—relating
to Syria’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”—
that Syria had built its arsenal as an
“equalizer” and that “Israel’s arms spurred [Syria’s]
fears.”
Although, at the time of Pincus’s story, Syria had
asked for a United Nations resolution calling for
nuclear arms inspections all across the Middle
East—including Israel—few expected the United
States would support Syria’s request. And, of course, the United States did not, despite
the official U.S. position that, according to
then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, the United
States wanted to see the entire Middle East free of
weapons of mass destruction.
Pincus’s article regarding Syria’s drive for a military
arsenal designed to counter Israel’s nuclear
weapons cache was instructive. Pincus wrote:
Syria’s current arsenal of chemical warheads
and Scud missiles to deliver them was started
more than 30 years ago to counter Israel’s development
and possession of nuclear weapons, according
to present and former U.S. intelligence
officials.
“They have been developing chemical weapons
as a force equalizer with the Israelis,” a former
senior intelligence analyst said yesterday.
“Hafez al-Assad, the present president’s father,
saw chemicals as a way to threaten the Israelis
and an equalizer for their nuclear program.”
Assad knew, the former analyst said, that “military
aid from the Soviets would never be able to
match what Israel developed in the nuclear field
and received from the U.S.”
Syria’s possession of chemical weapons was an
important part of the Bush administration’s recent,
week-long verbal offensive against Damascus.
But it also has brought attention briefly to
another highly sensitive issue: the impact that Israel’s
nuclear arsenal has had on its enemies in
the Middle East.
The consensus from Middle East experts is
that almost every country in the region has pursued
weapons of mass destruction programs—
and they have done so primarily because of the
arsenal that Israel has built up, said Joseph Cirincione,
head of the non-proliferation programof the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“You can’t get rid of chemical or biological or
nuclear programs in Arab countries unless you
also address the elimination of Israel’s nuclear and
chemical programs,” Cirincione said.
Now, in recent days—despite overwhelming
American popular opposition to an attack on Syria
in retribution for its purported use of chemical
weapons—we have seen the Jewish lobby in
America loudly banging the drum for a U.S. military
attack on Syria.
On Sept. 3 The Washington Post bared the truth
in a story quite candidly headlined: “Pro-Israel and
Jewish Groups Strongly Back Military Strike
Against Syria.”
Noting that, theretofore, there had been “intense
discussion” among pro-Israel partisans about
whether they should be open about their concerns,
the Post pointed out that that many in the Jewish
lobby were “worried” that critics of the proposed
attack on Syria were casting it “as a move to protect
Israel’s interests rather than an action to defend
U.S. credibility.”
One pro-Israel activist, who spoke in what the
newspaper described as “the condition of anonymity”
admitted to the Post, “There is a desire to not
make this about Israel.” In other words, the Jewish
lobbywould prefer the public not knowIsrael does
indeed have an interest in seeing Syria subjected
to American military might.
Later—even after President Obama’s address to
the nation in which polls show he failed to convince
Americans of the need to strike Syria—the
Postreported on Sept. 9 that AIPAC had nonetheless
mobilized its traditionally influential lobbying
team—some 300 strong—to continue to besiege
members of the House and the Senate demanding
they support the attack.
However, despite the infamous Capitol Hill
clout of the well-funded Jewish lobby groups, the
good news is that public pressure on Congress
against another Middle East war is so overwhelming
that even the pro-Israel forces are being beaten
back.
Now, with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
energetic intervention setting the stage for an
agreement which seems to be undercutting the
Jewish lobby’s push for war, it appears that for the
first time in many years, that powerful lobby will
be defeated.
Nonetheless, many people are still concerned
that an angry Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu,
may engage in some covert measure such as a
“false-flag” terrorist attack on America—to be
blamed on Syria or Iran or groups friendly to Syria
and Iran—designed to redirect American public
opinion.
The bottom line is that recent events have
brought into widespread attention the fact that the
Jewish lobby in America stands in opposition to
the vast majority of the American people, who are
saying, “No more U.S. intervention in the Middle
East.” And many are beginning to see that those interventions
have, in fact, been on behalf of Israel—
not America.
-----
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and
radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi,
Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final
Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My
First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth: Huey
Long vs Wall Street, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target:
Traficant and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb. You can
order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free
at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202-547-5585 to inquire
about pricing and Shipping and Handling fees
The Zionists seem to have loose lips. Michael Oren, Israeli
ambassador to the U.S., admitted in a recent interview that Israel
prefers the throat-slitting Takfiri Jihadist militants over Assad.
This confirms what many political commentators have rightly
postulated — that Israel and its American and British puppets, in
collaboration with Saudi and Qatari kingpins, are covertly supporting
the Takfiri terrorists who are stampeding their way across Syria,
chopping off heads, cutting out hearts, machine-gunning captive
prisoners and unleashing sarin gas on civilians.
Oren’s statement is consistent with the decades-old Israeli strategy
of divide and conquer. Israel’s plans to destabilize and eventually
destroy the nation of Syria was laid out in plain English by the
Neoconservative cabal of Zionist Jews led by Richard Perle and Douglas
Feith in 1996:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in
cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even
rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own
right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. (“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” IASPS, 1996)
After issuing that sinister and deadly “Clean Break” strategy paper
for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, Perle and Feith
would go on to become the two of the three principal architects of the
Iraq war from within the Bush Regime in 2003. The other was Paul
Wolfowitz, a Zionist Jew with intimate ties to Israel.
The Israeli envoy to the United States, Michael Oren, confirmed in a
new statement that the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv fears the alliance of
Syria, Iran, and Lebanon, and the Israeli Ambassador even confirmed that
Tel Aviv prefers al-Qaeda jihadists rather than the secular government
of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Although not Syria has
recently attacked Israel, but the Israeli regime has conducted at least
three airstrikes on Syria in 2013.
The
Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, also said in his
new statements that the alliance of Syria, Iran, and Lebanon would pose
the greatest danger to Tel Aviv and that the regime in Israel prefers
Al-Qaeda linked groups rather than groups that are supported by the
Iranian administration. However, not the alliance of Iran, Syria, and
Lebanon has carried out attacks on Israel, but the Israeli regime has
conducted airstrikes on targets in Syria – at least three airstrikes in
2013, which all have violated international law and were acts of
aggression.
But it seems that the alliance of Iran, Syria, and
Lebanon, the so-called “Resistance Axis”, remains the main enemy of the
Israeli regime in Tel Aviv and the rest simply doesn`t matter. Further,
the statements by the Israeli envoy to the United States confirm that
Israel rather supports the terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda than a
secular government in the Middle East. Although Syria’s President Bashar
al-Assad has never attacked Israel, the regime in Tel Aviv wants rather
Al-Qaeda in power in Syria and the overthrow of the secular-minded
President. And this, although Al-Qaeda should afterwards become a
serious threat for Israel. In a normal world and in the case that the
common information and propaganda about Al-Qaeda is correct.
Therefore,
it is easy to assume that Israel backs the armed terrorist groups in
Syria and even supports the Syrian al-Qaeda offshoots such as the
al-Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra)
in order to topple the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his
government in the capital, Damascus. Further, the regime in Tel Aviv
wants to weaken the axis of resistance in the Middle East by supporting
the terrorist groups and armed jihadists fighting in Syria. Not to
mention that the Saudi regime also supports the Al-Qaeda-affiliated
groups in Syria and that this is less surprising as the support for
Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists by the Israeli regime.
In addition, it is already confirmed that the totalitarian dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is a lackey of the Zionist regime in Israel
and that both are in bed with the leadership of the United States.
However, the Syrian-Iran-Lebanon alliance is certainly a threat for
Israel because the alliance of resistance, including the resistance
movement Hezbollah and other resistance groups in the region, have the
power to destroy the occupation regime of Israel.
In case, it
would come to such a dangerous situation of a new war in the Middle
East. The first victim would certainly be Israel of such a new war by
Western-led military forces (e.g. by the United States) against an Arab
country in the Middle East. There are certainly several persons on both
sides who are waiting for such a moment. However, no war is good and
every war has to be prevented.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United
States, Michael Oren, also explained in his statement that Israel always
wanted “the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to go” and this has been
the “initial message (by Israel) about the Syria issue.” According to
the statements by the envoy of the Israeli regime to Washington, Tel
Aviv was always willing to see the overthrow of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad
and his government before the beginning of the conflict and armed
terrorism in March 2011. Primarily, because the overthrow of Bashar
al-Assad and the government in Damascus certainly weakens the axis of
resistance against Israel in the Middle East.
While some might
consider it as somehow schizophrenic or even dangerous that Israeli
rather supports and prefers al-Qaeda terrorists and jihadists than the
mainly secular government of al-Assad in Damascus, it seems such a logic
is valid for Michael Oren and the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv. However,
as mentioned, it is to expect that in the case the Syrian al-Qaeda
branch would overthrow the Syrian governance and President al-Assad,
these armed terrorists would probably start to hate Israel again –
despite the current support by the Israeli regime for their armed
fighting against the Syrian Army and government.
Of
course, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has
no shy to mention the real reasons for the support of Al-Qaeda in Syria.
On the one hand, it weakens the axis of resistance and thus, the
Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah and also the Iranian
administration in Tehran. On the other hand, a weak Syria would pose no
threat for Israel and has no more abilities to support the axis of
resistance or the Palestinians in the occupied areas. Israel would have
an easier life and would be able to expand its territory even further
and more easily.
The envoy of the Israeli regime to Washington said
that “greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends
from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the
keystone in that arc.” However, this is partly propaganda. On the one
hand the usual propaganda by Israel and on the other hand a useful
propaganda for the government in Syria, which supports the resistance
against the Israeli regime but the phrase about “Syria being the
keystone” is questionable. As said, Israel has attacked Syria, not vice
versa. There is so much talking every day. The deeds show the true
colours, not the words of any of those sides.
As mentioned in another article (see here),
the Israel’s hostility toward Syria and Lebanon has increased in recent
months. Not vice versa, although probably due to the reason that e.g.
Syria has no more capabilities to really support the axis of resistance
or to carry out any acts against the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv.
Syria
has been successfully weakened, but to which is extent is still
questionable and it hopefully has never to be shown. However, while the
Israeli envoy talks about the reasons why the regime in Tel Aviv prefers
to support Al-Qaeda operatives rather than the secular government in
Damascus or Iranian-backed groups, it is questionable if the members of
the regime in Tel Aviv really consider all possible consequences of its
support of Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in Syria just for the reason
that they are not “Iran”.
At least, one thing might be funny
about the statements of the Israeli envoy. They really fear the axis of
resistance and are still afraid of Syria. However, the propaganda is not
quite correct by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. As
documents prove, there were several meetings and debates between Israel
and Syria in recent years and especially when Bashar al-Assad came to
power in Syria.
According to several information and documents,
Syria’s President was never interested in a war on Israel. In contrary,
he wanted to resolve several problems, but the Israeli regime has
hampered or even dumped every attempt by al-Assad. Israel really is
notoriously hostile, fearful, and a liar. Not to mention all its crimes
against humanity since the establishment of the little state of Israel.
Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff of Colin Powell in the Bush Regime, has stated in an interview with The Real News Network
that U.S. senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, known for their
servile groveling to Israeli interests, are “bordering on being
traitors.”
In the second part of the interview Wilkerson confirmed what many
political commentators have been saying for years, that Israel is
engaged in a divide and conquer strategy in the Middle East to pave the
path for their grand vision of a “Greater Israel”. Israel intends to
weaken and undermine all of its regional competitors by instigating and
fomenting internal conflict in those countries — just as they did in
Lebanon in the 1980s.
Wilkerson recently stated that the chemical attack in Syria that took
place in late August of this year was likely an Israeli false-flag
operation.
• ‘No smoking gun’ evidence that Syria used chemical weapons
• Israel the source for current charges of sarin gas use by Assad
One
of America’s most respected military figures charged publicly that
long-standing allegations about the Syrian government’s use of chemical
weapons may have been, in his words, “an Israeli false flag operation”
calculated to stir up opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
long perceived by Israel as a threat to its geopolitical agenda.
And
now that the United States seems poised to attack Syria on the basis of
new claims about the use of such weapons, what former U.S. Army Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson told Current TV on May 3 bears noting.
A
longtime military intimate of U.S. General Colin Powell, and later his
chief of staff when Powell was secretary of state under “W” Bush,
Wilkerson said his intelligence sources dismissed claims at that time
that Assad’s military had used chemical weapons against terrorist
forces.
Having loomed over Assad for months, that charge has
been reinvigorated and the media revels in the possibility the U.S. will
now attack Syria. However, the Los Angeles Times reported August 27
that Germany’s Focus magazine—citing a former Israeli intelligence
official—said Israel was the primary source for current charges about
Syria’s alleged use of chemical warfare.
Noting “U.S.
intelligence sources long have relied on Israel to help provide
intelligence about Syria” the Times didn’t mention it was also Israel
that previously supplied the Bush administration much of the false data
about supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which provided the
pretext for the invasion of that Arab republic.*
The mainstream
media carefully suppresses the fact that—as demanded by the Israeli
lobby in Washington—U.S. tax dollars (underwriting Israeli covert
expertise) instigated the rebellion against Assad that led to the civil
war that U.S. blood and treasure are now expected to resolve in a manner
satisfactory to Israel.
Although the media suggests the
Pentagon is eager for war on Syria, the fact is that—just as before the
Iraq war when multiple military leaders were warning of the dangers of
such a venture—top brass are likewise urging restraint vis-à-vis Syria.
Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey recently told
Congress that U.S. intervention in Syria would not be in America’s
interests.
Yet, despite widespread public opposition to war,
many Republicans and Democrats alike—bankrolled by pro-Israel campaign
contributors—are clamoring for action.
* See THE GOLEM: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and the Road to Global Armageddon for more data on this little-known scandal.
Michael Collins Piper Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer
and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu
Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
"Israel, everyone agrees, is an established nuclear weapon state. It was the sixth nation in the world—and the first in the Middle East—to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. Indeed, while exact figures are speculative, Israel's nuclear forces are believed to be (in qualitative terms at least) more like those of France and the United Kingdom than India's and Pakistan's. Yet Israel's code of conduct and discourse in the nuclear field differs distinctly from the other established nuclear weapon states. Unlike the seven acknowledged nuclear nations—the five de jure nuclear weapon states under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China) and the two de facto nuclear weapon states outside the NPT (India and Pakistan)—Israel has never advertised or even admitted its nuclear status __ Nobody—in or out of Israel—cares to ask Israeli leaders uncomfortable questions about the nation's nuclear status... In Washington, and subsequently in other Western capitals, the Israeli bomb has become a most sensitive issue, almost untouchable ... under which the United States treats Israel as a special (and unique) nuclear case. Under this policy, the United States has exercised its diplomatic influence and power to ignore and shield the Israeli case. Israel is treated as an exception, somehow exempt from the nonproliferation regime that applies to everyone else. Friends and foes of Israel (and of the United States) have to reckon with this aura of exceptionalism. For friends it is a matter of political embarrassment; for foes it highlights the double standard and inequality of America's unevenhanded approach to non-proliferation."
—Israeli historian Avner Cohen "The Last Taboo: Israel's Bomb Revisited" Current History - April 2005 (in Michael Collins Piper's The Golem)
‘Back Story’ on Putin-Obama Deal: Plug Pulled on Israel, Warmongers • Zionists up in arms that peaceful solutions to Mideast problems being considered
By Mark Glenn
NEW
YORK, N.Y.—To say it has been a month of political roller coasters
powerful enough to give even the most seasoned veterans a case of severe
whiplash is an understatement. This all culminated when the U.S.
president, for the first time in three-and-a-half decades, telephoned
the newly elected Iranian president on Sept. 27 to discuss firsthand the
future of the two countries they lead.
September began with the
possibility of yet another military disaster in the Middle East for
Israel’s benefit. By all appearances, a nagging Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu had finally gotten on President Barack Obama’s last
nerve and pushed him into doing what he had resisted doing for the last
four years—war with Syria.
The calls for war were built around
circumstantial evidence implicating the Syrian government led by Bashar
al-Assad in a chemical weapons attack that took place in a suburb of
Damascus on Aug. 21. Secretary of State John Kerry was out in front,
accusing the Syrian military of gassing its own people. Ghastly videos
of children dying were quickly posted to the Internet for the world to
see, and estimates of the death toll escalated to more than 1,400
Syrians.
It was Iraq all over again. In spite of weak proof that the
Syrian military was actually behind the attack, it looked as
thoughWashington had made up its mind and was going to war whether or
not the Assad regime was responsible or not.
With up-to-the-minute
news reports featuring U.S. military assets steaming toward the Syrian
coast, the drama was breathlessly reported by the mainstream media.
And
then, almost as quickly as it all started, the shouts for war ended
abruptly. Suddenly, Obama announced there would be nomilitary action
without Congress being brought in, just as the Constitution demands.
Of
course, even themost politically naive would have a hard time leaving
out of this curious political equation the fact that a few days before
Obama had suddenly became a conscientious constitutionalist he and other
world leaders met in St. Petersburg, Russia for the G20 conference.
Equally difficult would be dismissing the possibility of Obama having
discussed the messy business of Syria with Russian President Vladimir
Putin, who up to this point had made it clear that, when it came to a
war with Syria, “nyet” means “nyet” and that his country was not going
to sit by as another Middle Eastern country was bombed into oblivion by
the United States.
However, even the most optimistic watchers of
politics found it hard to believe that the Russian president could rein
in the lawless America. After all, Putin does not control the U.S.
Congress, the U.S. media or the U.S. financial system like Netanyahu’s
kith-n-kin. Jewish groups around the globe have made it clear that wars
in the Middle East are vital for the continued survival of Israel.
It
was against this backdrop that the crazy notion of an American
president calling his Iranian counterpart on the phone actually took
place on the last Friday in September, despite 34 years of silence
between the two offices.
Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (third from right; shown with members
of the Israeli delegation), addressed the UN secretary general (not
shown) during
the UN General Assembly in New York on Oct. 1. Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s belief
that only tough sanctions and a “credible
military threat” would force Iran to bow
before Israel’s will. He also
said Israel was not afraid to bomb Iran alone if he felt
it necessary.STAN HONDASTAN HONDA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
The mainstream media
was in an uproar over the phone call. Fox News headlined its report:
“Netanyahu decries Iran’s Rouhani as ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing.’” The
Washington Post titled its article:
“Worries about the Rouhani phone
call.” And The New York Times printed this bizarre story: “Iranians
Welcome Home Rouhani With Protest.”
However, Obama’s gesture in
reaching out to Rouhani and intimating that a deal could be struck
between the two nations to resolve the difficult diplomatic situation
only makes sense when the events of the lastmonth involving Syria and
Russia are factored in.
By all appearances, this is exactly what has
taken place. An out-of-control America, firmly in the grip of the
Israeli lobby and its voracious appetite for war, would not restrain
itself on principles of the Constitution, the rule of law or even
thebasic tenets of right versus wrong. The U.S. establishment would only
stop the drive to war if it were trapped in a cave with a large, angry
bear that was standing in its way.
——
Mark Glenn is a
commentator and activist fluent in several languages. He is currently
based in Idaho. See more from Glenn at www.crescentandcross.com.
Fri, 08/23/2013 - 20:01
Jobbik on the conflict in Syria
Jobbik has
always spoken out against the use of weapons banned by international
law, therefore, if it is proven that such a case has indeed taken place,
our party objects to the use of poison gas in Syria as well.
However, Jobbik is worried to see the
sinister events developing in Syria as well as the systematic attempts
of the West to find a casus belli
for an armed intervention against the Assad government. Jobbik disowns
the provocation as well as the anti-Assad stance of the West and the
servile attitude of the Hungarian government that runs to rally behind
its Western allies. Jobbik also objects to the support provided for the
forces being organized against the Assad government which also represent
Islam's most extreme platforms, Wahhabism and Salafism and openly
cooperate with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Not only does
the West contradict itself by supporting terrorism, but subordinates
the already fragile stability of tension-ridden Middle East to its own
short-term goals.
Jobbik firmly believes that the UN
Security Council, which represents the interests of the powers that view
the Syrian conflict subjectively and in light of their own goals, is
unable to conduct a fair investigation of the gas attack. This has
already been proven ten years ago, in the case of the shameful Iraqi
invasion that was built on a smear campaign and propaganda.
Jobbik stands for the Assad government,
which enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian
people and has built up an economically, culturally and politically
stable country during its rule of over half a century in one of the most
complex Middle Eastern countries in terms of ethnicity and religion. We
hope that the Assad government will soon be able to stabilize the
situation and continue its governmental activity in the interest of the
Syrian people.
Márton Gyöngyösi, deputy leader of Jobbik's Parliamentary Group
Talk of deal to eliminate Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons sends jitters through Jerusalem; will Israel be next?
With Moscow and Washington now discussing a diplomatic deal that would rid Syria of its chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say it possesses.
In the past few days, Foreign Ministry officials note, senior Russian officials have repeatedly drawn a connection between Syria’s chemical weapons and Israel’s military capabilities. President Vladimir Putin, for instance, told Russian media outlets that Syria’s chemical weapons exist as a response to Israel’s military capabilities, while Russia’s ambassador to Paris told Radio France that Syria’s chemical weapons were meant to preserve its balance of deterrence against Israel, “which has nuclear weapons.”
Israel signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, but never ratified it. Consequently, it hasn’t agreed to submit itself to international inspections or to refrain from steps that would violate the convention.
Syria, which has one of the largest chemical weapons arsenals in the world, has never even signed the convention, nor has Egypt, which also has a chemical weapons program. Iran, which suffered chemical weapons attacks from Iraq during their war in the 1980s, signed the convention in 1993 and ratified it in 1997. Nevertheless, senior figures at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem claim that Iran secretly maintains a large stash of chemical weapons.
Both Syria and Egypt used Israel as their excuse for not signing the convention. In various international forums over the years, Syrian and Egyptian officials have said their countries would agree to sign only if Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and opened its nuclear reactor in Dimona to international inspectors.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told Haaretz on Wednesday that Israel would not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention as long as other states in the region with chemical weapons refuse to recognize Israel and threaten to destroy it.
“Unfortunately, while Israel signed the convention, other countries in the Middle East, including those that have used chemical weapons recently or in the past, or are believed to be working to improve their chemical capabilities, have failed to follow suit and have indicated that their position would remain unchanged even if Israel ratifies the convention,” Palmor said in a written statement. “Some of these states don't recognize Israel's right to exist and blatantly call to annihilate it. In this context, the chemical weapons threat against Israel and its civilian population is neither theoretical nor distant. Terror organizations, acting as proxies for certain regional states, similarly pose a chemical weapons threat. These threats cannot be ignored by Israel, in the assessment of possible ratification of the convention.”
Despite not having ratified the convention, Israel does have observer status at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that monitors the convention’s implementation, and participates in many of its meetings.
In early 2010, then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman sent a letter to the OPWC’s director general saying that Israel was interested in increasing its cooperation with the organization. But he also stressed that Israel wouldn’t sign the convention until it has signed peace treaties with all its neighbors and is no longer threatened by its neighbors’ chemical weapons.
U.S. State Department cables leaked to WikiLeaks reveal that the American administration held lengthy talks with Israel about the possibility of ratifying the convention, including at a February 2007 meeting in Jerusalem between senior State Department officials and their Israeli counterparts.
An American cable summing up the meeting said that U.S. officials urged the Israelis to move forward on this issue, stressing that Israel is one of only five countries that haven’t yet ratified the convention, with the others being North Korea, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Alon Bar, then director of the Foreign Ministry’s arms control department, responded that Israel signed the convention in the early 1990s, when the peace process was at its height, and that since then, the situation had changed.
Israel’s chemical weapons policy is overseen by a Defense Ministry panel comprising about 20 senior representatives from the defense establishment and the intelligence community. The committee was established in 1991, dismantled in 2007 and reconstituted in 2009. It meets every few months, but in recent years it has spent very little time discussing chemical weapons.
It's time for Israel to stop making military threats and to propose an
imaginative diplomatic move — risky as it may seem — to help ease
nuclear tensions in the Middle East.
It can start by acknowledging its own nuclear weapons program.
It
has accused Iran of seeking the capability to produce nuclear weapons,
when for years Israel has been believed to possess hundreds of nuclear
bombs and missiles, along with multiple delivery systems. It continues
to insist it doesn't have them.
Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders continue to accuse Tehran
of deceit in describing its nuclear program as peaceful.
Perhaps
Netanyahu sees Iran following the path Israel took 50 years ago when
it's known that his country joined the relatively small nuclear weapons
club.
Back in the 1960s, Israel apparently hid the nuclear
weapons program being carried on at its Negev Nuclear Research Center
(NNRC) at Dimona. It deceived not only the international community but
also its close U.S. ally. It repeatedly pledged "it would not be the
first to introduce nuclear weapons into the area."
In early
1966, at the time of a U.S. sale of F-4 fighter-bombers to Israel, the
Johnson administration insisted that Israel reaffirm that pledge.
"Foreign Minister Abba Eban told Secretary of Defense Robert S.
McNamara that Israel did not intend to build nuclear weapons, 'so we
will not use your aircraft to carry weapons we haven't got and hope we
will never have,'" according to the State Department's Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII.
Sound
familiar? Maybe that's why Netanyahu was so tough Tuesday during his
U.N. General Assembly speech when attacking Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani's statements that Tehran's nuclear program is peaceful. When
the Israeli prime minister asked, "Why would a country that claims to
only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build
hidden underground enrichment facilities?" I thought Dimona.
According
to the bipartisan, Washington-based, Nuclear Threat Initiative, the
Machon 2 facility at Dimona "is reportedly the most sensitive building
in the NNRC, with six floors underground dedicated to activities
identified as plutonium extraction, production of tritium and
lithium-6," for use in nuclear weapons.
So, along with
easing up on the threats, what else could Israel be doing, perhaps with
U.S. support? After all, since the 1960s, Washington has gone along
with this idea of never openly acknowledging Israel's nuclear weapons.
What
about following the recent example of Russia and Syria? After Russian
President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad both
refused to acknowledge Syria having chemical weapons, they did what
Americans would call "a flip-flop." They admitted that such weapons
existed and that Damascus would join the Chemical Weapons Convention
and destroy the whole program.
Inspection teams from the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are on the ground
in Syria. (...)
Perhaps it's time to drop the facade hiding
Israel's nuclear weapons program from the public, since Washington and
the Israeli government say more transparency is one of the goals
sought when dealing with Iran's nuclear program. It then might be
easier to revive a once-planned conference on a Middle East nuclear
free zone, linking it to progress made guaranteeing that Tehran's
program remains peaceful.
No doubt, there would be risk. Israel must ask itself if it is a chance worth taking.
Un Moyen-Orient sans nucléaire et sans armes chimiques, c'est pas
Israël qui veut ça, c'est la Syrie et l'Iran. Israël a accumulé un
important arsenal chimique et nucléaire soi-disant pour assurer sa
survie. En voyant Israel faire ça et les
menacer en plus, les autres pays qui environnent Israel ont
été forcés de se procurer un arsenal eux aussi, pour parer à la menace
d'un Israël menaçant et
doté d'armes chimiques et nucléaires.
U.S.: Singling out Israel at UN would harm efforts for nuclear-free Middle East
En fait c'est précisément l'inverse qui est vrai: s'attarder sur le cas d'Israel est la clé pour faire du Moyen-orient une zone sans nucléaire! Car c'était précisément à cause de l'arsenal nucléaire israélien que les pays voisins ont senti la nécessité de se procurer des armes chimiques!
(...)Fayçal al-Maqdad, le vice-ministre syrien des AE, a balayé les
accusations occidentales, rappelant avec ironie le flacon présenté en
2003 par Colin Powell, le secrétaire d’État américain, représentant la
preuve d’armes chimiques que Saddam Hussein était sur le point
d’utiliser pour exterminer son peuple.
Pour lui, ce sont les groupes
islamistes qui auraient employé le gaz sarin que les États-Unis leur
ont livré, dès lors qu’ils ont vu que ces terroristes perdaient du
terrain. Aucune obligation morale de cette sorte n’est, cependant,
invoquée à l’égard d’Israël, pays qui détient le plus important stock
d’armes chimiques biologiques et nucléaires au Moyen-Orient, et qui est
le seul État à ne pas avoir signé le traité de non-prolifération
nucléaire. Ce n’est pas simplement qu’Israël possède un important
arsenal d’armes chimiques. Il s’en est servi contre les Palestiniens en
Cisjordanie et à Gaza : après l’éclatement de la deuxième Intifadha, il y
a eu plusieurs incidents rapportés de soldats israéliens utilisant un
“gaz inconnu” contre les Palestiniens, en particulier durant une
campagne de six semaines, par les forces militaires israéliennes à Gaza,
durant l’opération Plomb endurci.
Le secret des gaz israéliens Ce sont les recherches israéliennes sur les armes chimiques et biologiques qui ont poussé historiquement la Syrie à rejeter la Convention interdisant les armes chimiques. C’est pourquoi la signature par Damas de ce document risque de mettre en lumière l’existence, et éventuellement la poursuite, de recherches sur des armes sélectives destinées à tuer les seules populations arabes.
Glenn Beck: " I Personally Am Calling for the Impeachment of the President of the United States "
Les
sionistes se servent des révélations sur l'appui US envers Al-Qaïda en
Syrie pour attaquer Obama et
demander sa destitution (comme pour l'affaire Snowden). Comme si
c'était lui qui voulait aller en guerre... Les sionistes vont toujours
trouver le moyen de blâmer Obama peu importe ce qu'il fait: s'il va pas
en guerre c'est sa faute, s'il y va, c'est sa faute: "Damned if
you do and damned if you don't." Faites attention au discours qui s'en
prend à l'appui des USA envers al-Qaïda car cela peut aussi servir, de
manière détournée, les plans d'Israël qui aime brandir constamment le
spectre des "islamistes".
Ça
montre que pour eux, il faut que les USA soient intimidants et face
l'étalage de sa puissance en faisant des guerres et en inspirant la
terreur dans le monde. Les USA sont leur "police mondiale", c'est leur
Golem, leur assurance-vie! Si les USA ne font pu peur à personne, les
juifs se croient vulnérables et sans défense!
Guerres impérialistes: Seule la guerre permanente fait survivre Israël… Un analyste politique dit que le régime israélien a besoin de
déclencher des guerres à travers le monde, spécifiquement au
Moyen-Orient, s’il veut assurer sa survie et demeurer le récepteur
principal de l’aide financière et militaire américaine, rapporte Press
TV
Israel better off with Arab tyrants Op-ed: In the name of our egoistic interest,we only want dictators in our neighborhood. Let Washington deal with democracy and freedom of expression.
Quel
aveu! C'est ça que je dis depuis longtemps. Israel veut juste des
méchants arabes excités autour de lui, pour lui servir de repoussoir.
Car si Israel est entouré d'États modérés et pleins de bon sens, c'est
Israel qui passe pour le méchant.