What has the record of 2011′s Arab uprisings taught us so far? One could list many things, but to me, the most striking reality is the now open nature of the alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel. This alliance represents a permanent counter-revolution which together dominates the region – fully backed by the imperial hegemony run out of Washington DC. The two regimes are both military dictatorships in very different ways. The two regimes are also theocracies, each in their own way. The extreme Wahhabist religious vision of the sprawling Saudi royal family which dominates the country may lead you to think it would hate the so-called “Jewish state”. Not so. While Saudi regime media does indeed regularly spew anti-Semitism, the Zionist movement has never really cared about anti-Semitism, except as a bludgeon with which to smear its enemies. No: in fact, in the Israeli press it is typical to see Saudi Arabia referred to as a “moderate” regime. This “moderate” regime is in fact a ruthless, absolutest monarchy which does not even bother with the the pretence of sham 99-percent elections – the royal family, with its thousands of ageing princes simply rules the country with an iron fist, jailing all dissenters. After the 2011 popular uprising which ousted the Tunisian dictator Zein eldin Ben Ali from power where did he flee? Saudi Arabia, where he was welcomed by the king with open arms. Since then, the kingdom has refused all extradition requests from Tunisia. The Saudis, drawing on their seemingly limitless oil wealth, are exporting death and destruction all over the region. In Syria, the Saudis lead the push for war, and are in fact fighting a proxy war there. In Lebanon, the Saudis are one of the most likely culprits behind a recent space of car bombs seemingly aimed at inciting sectarian clashes. Saudi money fairly sloshes around the region, into the pockets of court-stenographer “journalists” who use their platforms to parrot Saudi foreign policy goals and and spread hatred and sectarianism. Speaking to the New York times recently Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York, summed up current Israeli policy in Syria: “Let them both [sides] bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this [civil war] lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.” The outgoing Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren this week claimed Israeli thinking was more equivocal, however: “we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” This would align more fully with Saudi Arabia’s policy goal to overthrow Assad – despite a brief entente in 2009 when King Abdullah paid an official visit to Damascus. Whatever the prevailing strategic thinking at the top in Israel, the once-tacit Saudi-Israeli alliance is now fairly open. Oren made it clear: “in the last 64 years there has probably never been a greater confluence of interest between us and several Gulf States. With these Gulf States we have agreements on Syria, on Egypt, on the Palestinian issue. We certainly have agreements on Iran. This is one of those opportunities presented by the Arab Spring.” In Egypt, the Saudis actually led the counter-revolution – with Israel’s diplomatic backing – encouraging American leaders to strongly back dictator Hosni Mubarak when he was most under pressure in 2011. The Saudis seem resentful that the Obama administration was caught on the back-foot and did not quite know how to respond to the Arab uprisings. Since then, a counter-revolution has dominated in Egypt. General Sisi military coup regime, which seized power in July, is fully backed by the Saudis. The royals have pledged billions in aid to the regime should US military aid be cut (a highly unlikely prospect). Writing in the Jewish Chronicle last month, Haaretz’s London correspondent Anshel Pfeffer said that Israeli officials are quietly satisfied with the coup. “We know al-Sisi and we can do business with him,” he claims one senior Israeli security official told him. In Bahrain, another popular uprising in 2011 was crushed more directly – with Saudi troops. The Saudi role in funding counter-revolution and political violence has a long history – and not only in the region. This is another aspect where Israel and the Saudi royals see eye-to-eye. In the 1980s, the US Congress for a time blocked the Reagan administration’s efforts to fund and arm the Contras – the death squads the CIA was using to fight left wing government in Nicaragua (all the while pretending in the US media they were “revolutionaries” and “freedom fighters”). Who did the CIA turn to to fill the gap? Saudi Arabia and Israel. In fact the very same Saudi prince who was in charge of arming the Contras then is now running guns into Syria — Prince Bandar bin Sultan – once again with the help of the CIA (and also British spooks). Until the despotic Saudi regime is no long able to export its oil wealth and political violence throughout the region, the prospects for genuine democratic change in the Arab world seem dim — and democracy in the Arab world is what Israel fears the most. Despite the rash of civil wars, near-civil wars or virtually collapsed states throughout the region right now, one thing seems certain: when the dust settles, Israel will still be unpopular. An associate editor with The Electronic Intifada, Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist who lives in London. – See more at: http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/inquiry/7447-israel-and-saudi-arabia-the-permanent-counter-revolution?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+middleeastmonitor%2Ffeed+%28Middle+East+Monitor+News%29#sthash.uvbiePIK.dpuf
By Batsheva Sobelman
JERUSALEM– Israel has 80 nuclear warheads and the potential to double that number, according to a new report by U.S. experts.
In the Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories, recently published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, proliferation experts Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris write that Israel stopped production of nuclear warheads in 2004.
But the country has enough fissile material for an additional 115 to 190 warheads, according to the report, meaning it could as much as double its arsenal.
Previous estimates have been higher but the new figures agree with the 2013 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute yearbook on armament and international security. The yearbook estimated 50 of Israel’s nuclear warheads were for medium-range ballistic missiles and 30 were for for bombs carried by aircraft, according to a report in the Guardian.
Although widely assumed a nuclear power, Israel has never acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons or capabilities and continues to maintain its decades-old “strategic ambiguity” policy on the matter, neither confirming nor denying foreign reports on the issue.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, leaked the country’s alleged nuclear secrets to a British newspaper, and said Israel had at least 100 nuclear weapons. Vanunu was later convicted of espionage and treason and was released from jail in 2004 after serving 17 years.
Israel continued to adhere to its vagueness policy after comments made by then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2006 were interpreted by many as an inadvertent confirmation that Israel had nuclear weapons.
Following Sunday’s reports, Israeli defense analyst Amir Oren wrote that the ambiguity policy has done “its duty honorably and can now retire.” In the current regional conditions, Israel could benefit from giving up the vagueness, he wrote in Haaretz.
Founded in 1952, the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, is nearly as old as the state. It acknowledges two “nuclear research centers,” one in central Israel, the other in the Negev desert.
The facility at Soreq is under supervision of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors routinely ensure it is being used for research purposes only.
Earlier this year, an IAEA team inspected the facility at Israel’s request for a first-ever comprehensive safety review, a concern after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan, in 2011.
The 40-year-old facility at Soreq is expected to be phased out by the end of the decade and replaced with a particle accelerator, according to Israeli media.
But the nuclear facility in Dimona, a location in Israel’s southern Negev desert, is off-limits for the IAEA and not under its supervision. According to foreign reports, that is where the nuclear warheads have been produced since 1967.
Of the many multilateral agreements on nuclear issues the IAEA offers, Israel has signed a few and ratified fewer, mostly relating to nuclear safety issues. But it is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In 2010, Israel dismissed a demand from the parties to join.
(A letter from Henry Kissinger to President Nixon in 1969 describes U.S. concerns that Israel “make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons” or “undertake a nuclear test program”. According to the letter, the Israeli government told the U.S. it “would not become a nuclear power.”)
The NSA regularly shares raw US intelligence data with Israel without even removing information about American citizens, according to the latest revelation published by the Guardian. The report is based on a document leaked by Edward Snowden.
On Tuesday, September 11, the Guardian published a previously undisclosed document which revealed top-secret policies in place since 2009 that are used to share personal phone and Internet data pertaining to United States citizens with American ally Israel.
The document, a five-page memorandum authorized by the National Security Agency near the beginning of US President Barack Obama’s first administration, outlines a deal between the NSA and Israel’s SIGINT National Unit, or ISNU.
“This agreement,” the memo begins, “prescribes procedures and responsibilities for ensuring” privacy safeguards are implemented to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens with regards to the direct sharing of raw intelligence collected by the NSA with its Israeli counterpart.
That data, the document later explains, includes raw traffic picked up by the American spy office such as “unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) metadata and content” which is never necessarily scrutinized by US officials before sent to Israeli agents.
“Seems the only info actually being ‘minimized’ is the info #NSA shares with the American public,” American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer tweeted following publication of the Guardian piece. “NSA is really good at minimizing that.”
But while the contents of emails and phone calls involving most US persons are fair game to be collected by Israeli intelligence, a select group of Americans are sparred from international surveillance: elected officials. The memo mandates that the Israelis must “destroy upon recognition” any communication “that is either to or from an official of the US government.” That pool of exempt persons is defined as “officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court).”
The Guardian notes, however, that other leaked documents uncovered as of late indicate that the US intelligence community may have reservations nonetheless with sharing info with even an ally as tried and true as Israel.
“On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems,” a senior NSA official says in a 2008 NSA document seen by the Guardian but not published in Wednesday’s piece. “A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US.”
A newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The revelation comes in the midst of reports about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on August 21st, although there is still no clarity as to whether the regime or the rebels carried out the attack, or whether it was an accident.
Israeli nuclear and chemical weapons manufacturing facility at Dimona (image by sodahead.com)
While U.S. President Barack Obama threatened to go to war with Syria over the attack, the Syrian government has denied responsibility, and has agreed to a proposal by the Russian government to open its stores of chemical weapons to international inspection and destruction.
The document revealed by Foreign Policy magazine on Monday shows that, in addition to building up a nuclear stockpile of an estimated three hundred nuclear weapons during the 1960s and 70s, the Israeli military also developed an extensive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The 1983 document stated that U.S. spy satellites had identified “a probable CW [chemical weapon] nerve agent production facility and a storage facility… at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry.”
“While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents,” the document adds, “several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems.”
The single page of a larger CIA report was discovered at the Ronald Reagan Library in California in its unredacted form – the report had been released several years ago to the National Archives, but was heavily censored.
According to the Foreign Policy report, “Israeli historian Avner Cohen, in his 1988 book Israel and the Bomb, wrote that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion secretly ordered that a stockpile of chemical weapons be built at about the time of the 1956 war between Israel and Egypt. The CIA, on the other hand, believed that Israel did not begin work on chemical weapons until either the late 1960s or the early 1970s.
The article included the following assessment from the 1983 CIA report: “Israel, finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW [chemical weapons] capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack. Its sensitivities were galvanized by the capture of large quantities of Soviet CW-related equipment during both the 1967 Arab-Israeli and the 1973 Yom Kippur wars. As a result, Israel undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas.”
The Israeli government has harshly criticized the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons three weeks ago, and has encouraged President Obama’s pledge to respond militarily.
Israel did sign the Convention to Ban Chemical Weapons, but the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) never ratified the treaty. Israel has never opened its nuclear facility or its chemical weapons stockpile to international inspections.
Israel must give Palestinians gas masks: official
Israel must provide Palestinians living in the occupied territories with gas masks, a Palestinian official has said, in the event of a spillover of violence from Syria. Israel has been distributing gas masks to its citizens over the last two weeks amid…
September 3, 2013 |
Like this article?
Join our email list:
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
Editor’s note: What is the driving force in the building U.S. campaign to launch attacks on Syria? Max Blumenthal below argues that Israel’s military intelligence and political leadership are forcing the issue, and a recent New York Times article described the Israel lobby as a powerful presence in the White House’s deliberations. Other journalists, like the Guardian’s Nafeez Ahmed have suggested that the impetus for attacking Syria is part of a larger regional multi-year project to sustain control over the production of oil and gas by Western oil companies. Noam Chomsky, long-time scholar and commentator on the Mideast has argued persuasively that the Israel lobby’s influence in the United States is overstated; essentially arguing that Israel is a satellite of US power, and that its priorities are addressed to the extent that the US is in agreement with its wishes.
How Israel Is driving the US to War in Syria by Max Blumenthal
President Barack Obama’s August 31 announcement that he would seek congressional authorization to strike Syria has complicated an aggressive Israeli campaign to render a US attack inevitable. While the Israelis are far from the only force in bringing the US to the brink of war – obviously Assad’s own actions are the driving factor – their dubious intelligence assessments have proven pivotal.
On April 25, the head of the Israeli army’s Military Intelligence research and analysis division, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, delivered a high profile lecture at the military-linked Institute for National Security Studies. “To the best of our professional understanding, the [Syrian] regime has used lethal chemical weapons,” Brun declared, referring to March 19 attacks near Damascus and Aleppo.
“The very fact that they have used chemical weapons without any appropriate reaction,” Brun said, “is a very worrying development, because it might signal that this is legitimate.”
The stunning statement by the Israeli army’s top intelligence analyst was significantly stronger than suspicions expressed days before by the UK and France about the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. It was clearly aimed at Obama, who had declared in the summer of 2012 that chemical weapons attacks on civilian targets would transgress a “red line” and trigger US military action. But the White House pushed back against the Israeli ploy, dispatching Secretary of State John Kerry to demand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supply more conclusive evidence.
“I don’t know yet what the facts are,” Kerry said after a phone call with Netanyahu, “I don’t think anybody knows what they are.”
Specious intelligence brightens the red line
Flash forward to the August 21 Ghouta massacre, where over 1000 Syrian civilians died without any sign of external wounds in a series of attacks. As in April, Israel has come forward with intelligence supposedly proving that the victims of the attacks died from nerve gas deployed by units from Assad’s Syrian Arab Army (SAA).
On August 24, Israel’s Channel 2 broadcast a report claiming that the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of Assad’s SAA fired the nerve gas shells on Ghouta. Channel 2 added that Israel was relaying its concerns to Washington, suggesting an urgent demand for US action. The report was echoed by an August 30 article in Germany’s Focus magazine claiming that Israeli army’s Unit 8200 — a cyber-warfare division that functions much like the American NSA — had intercepted communications of top Syrian officials ordering the chemical attack.
Oddly, neither outlet was able to reproduce audio or any quotes of the conversation between the Syrian officials. Channel 2 did not appear to cite any source at all – it referred only to “the assessment in Israel” – while Focus relied on an unnamed former Mossad official for its supposed bombshell. The definitive nature of the Israeli intelligence on Ghouta stood in stark contrast to the kind introduced by other US allies, which was entirely circumstantial in nature. At the same time, it relied on murky sources and consisted of vague assertions.
editors note:I don’t know if this can be confirmed but I am going to post anyway
source : examiner
Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad and his family arrived in Tehran Aug 28, landing at Khomeini Airport aboard his presidential jet. Iranian foreign ministry sources confirmed this with the Lebanese newspaper a-Nahar.
Accompanying the Assad family was a group of senior Syrian government officials who together with Assad are officially there to hold talks with the Iranian government about a Syrian response to a possible US strike on Syrian WMD assets which is expected to take place in the near future.
As this information made its way into a-Nahar, Syrian Army generals continued their dire warning that if Syria is attacked, ‘Israel will burn’ and that if Syria weakens, ‘certain irresponsible groups’ will be formed that would endanger Israel.
Pres. Assad and his family fleeing to Tehran is no surprise. Iran and Syria have been decade’s long allies since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. The Assad’s are Alawite Muslims, which are an offshoot of Shia Islam which is the predominant Muslim sect in Iran.
Syria under the Assad Dynasty of first Hafez and then son Bashar al-Assad were instrumental in helping Iran build, train, equip and supply the terror army known as Hezbollah in southern Lebanon to threaten Israel. Without Assad in control of Syria, Hezbollah can not survive.
Assad’s fleeing likely means a Western military strike cannot be far off. If the strike is limited strictly to a brief missile and air campaign, then Assad could return to Damascus once it’s over. If however, events lead to a sustained campaign and/or a ground invasion of Syria by Turkey, Israel or a coalition of nations then Assad’s departure will be permanent.
The most likely reason for the mass chemical weapons attack in the first place, was that Assad’s Fourth Armored Division was in danger of being overrun and they were the last line of defense in central Damascus. Rebels are likely regrouping for a renewed offensive and if Assad does not have any WMD as an option, then returning to Damascus would mean his capture or execution.
There is now a coalition of 36 nations forming for a strike on Syria including Britain, France, Turkey, Australia and Canada among the more powerful nations. It remains to be seen however, whether the United States will participate.
Pres. Obama has been dragging his feet with US allies eager to strike Syrian WMD delivery vehicles and weapons by insisting on a UN Security Council Resolution on Syria, awaiting a UN weapons inspector report when those inspectors have indefinitely postponed any further inspections; and telling world leaders that there has to be accountability assigned before any strike can be authorized.
The governments of Britain, France and Turkey have indicated a willingness to go ahead without the UN on board and have each called their respective Parliaments in to special session for legislative authorization for the use of force. Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan has taken the further measure of asking the Turkish Parliament for a new mandate with language allowing him to act in Syria without a UN mandate or NATO sanction. The existing Syria mandate required one or the other for anything more than defensive operations.
Pres. Assad fleeing to Iran, and with wife and family in tow along with senior regime cronies, is indication that and attack is forthcoming with or without the United States onboard and that someone has tipped off Assad that the attack is pending.
source : theeconomiccollapseblog.com
By Michael Snyder
While most of the country is obsessing over Miley Cyrus, the Obama administration is preparing a military attack against Syria which has the potential of starting World War 3. In fact, it is being reported that cruise missile strikes could begin “as early as Thursday“. The Obama administration is pledging that the strikes will be “limited”, but what happens when the Syrians fight back? What happens if they sink a U.S. naval vessel or they have agents start hitting targets inside the United States? Then we would have a full-blown war on our hands. And what happens if the Syrians decide to retaliate by hitting Israel? If Syrian missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv, Israel will be extremely tempted to absolutely flatten Damascus, and they are more than capable of doing precisely that. And of course Hezbollah and Iran are not likely to just sit idly by as their close ally Syria is battered into oblivion. We are looking at a scenario where the entire Middle East could be set aflame, and that might only be just the beginning. Russia and China are sternly warning the U.S. government not to get involved in Syria, and by starting a war with Syria we will do an extraordinary amount of damage to our relationships with those two global superpowers. Could this be the beginning of a chain of events that could eventually lead to a massive global conflict with Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other? Of course it will not happen immediately, but I fear that what is happening now is setting the stage for some really bad things. The following are 22 reasons why starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea…
#1 The American people are overwhelmingly against going to war with Syria…
Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.
About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.
#2 At this point, a war in Syria is even more unpopular with the American people than Congress is.
#3 The Obama administration has not gotten approval to go to war with Syria from Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires.
#4 The United States does not have the approval of the United Nations to attack Syria and it is not going to be getting it.
#5 Syria has said that it will use “all means available” to defend itself if the United States attacks. Would that include terror attacks in the United States itself?
#6 Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem made the following statement on Tuesday…
“We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves”
#7 Russia has just sent their most advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria. What do you think would happen if images of sinking U.S. naval vessels were to come flashing across our television screens?
#8 When the United States attacks Syria, there is a very good chance that Syria will attack Israel. Just check out what one Syrian official said recently…
A member of the Syrian Ba’ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister’s aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as “behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire” should Syria be attacked by the United States.
In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad’s fellow party member said: “We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel.”
Al-Muftah stressed that the US’s threats will not influence the Syrain regime and added that “If the US or Israel err through aggression and exploit the chemical issue, the region will go up in endless flames, affecting not only the area’s security, but the world’s.”
#9 If Syria attacks Israel, the consequences could be absolutely catastrophic. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promising that any attack will be responded to “forcefully“…
“We are not a party to this civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt to attack us we will respond and we will respond forcefully”
#10 Hezbollah will likely do whatever it can to fight for the survival of the Assad regime. That could include striking targets inside both the United States and Israel.
#11 Iran’s closest ally is Syria. Will Iran sit idly by as their closest ally is removed from the chessboard?
#12 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with Russia. On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that the West is acting like a “monkey with a hand grenade“.
#13 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with China. And what will happen if the Chinese decide to start dumping the massive amount of U.S. debt that it is holding? Interest rates would absolutely skyrocket and we would rapidly be facing a nightmare scenario.
#14 Dr. Jerome Corsi and Walid Shoebat have compiled some startling evidence that it was actually the Syrian rebels that the U.S. is supporting that were responsible for the chemical weapons attack that is being used as justification to go to war with Syria…
With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.
You can examine the evidence for yourself right here.
#15 As Pat Buchanan recently noted, it would have made absolutely no sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons on defenseless women and children. The only people who would benefit from such an attack would be the rebels…
The basic question that needs to be asked about this horrific attack on civilians, which appears to be gas related, is: Cui bono?
To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assad’s, as we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.
The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.
#16 If the Saudis really want to topple the Assad regime, they should do it themselves. They should not expect the United States to do their dirty work for them.
#17 A former commander of U.S. Central Command has said that a U.S. attack on Syria would result in “a full-throated, very, very serious war“.
#18 A war in the Middle East will be bad for the financial markets. The Dow was down about 170 points today and concern about war with Syria was the primary reason.
#19 A war in the Middle East will cause the price of oil to go up. On Tuesday, the price of U.S. oil rose to about $109 a barrel.
#20 There is no way in the world that the U.S. government should be backing the Syrian rebels. As I discussed a few days ago, the rebels have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, they have beheaded numerous Christians and they have massacred entire Christian villages. If the U.S. government helps these lunatics take power in Syria it will be a complete and utter disaster.
#21 A lot of innocent civilians inside Syria will end up getting killed. Already, a lot of Syrians are expressing concern about what “foreign intervention” will mean for them and their families…
“I’ve always been a supporter of foreign intervention, but now that it seems like a reality, I’ve been worrying that my family could be hurt or killed,” said one woman, Zaina, who opposes Assad. “I’m afraid of a military strike now.”
“The big fear is that they’ll make the same mistakes they made in Libya and Iraq,” said Ziyad, a man in his 50s. “They’ll hit civilian targets, and then they’ll cry that it was by mistake, but we’ll get killed in the thousands.”
#22 If the U.S. government insists on going to war with Syria without the approval of the American people, the U.S. Congress or the United Nations, we are going to lose a lot of friends and a lot of credibility around the globe. It truly is a sad day when Russia looks like “the good guys” and we look like “the bad guys”.
What good could possibly come out of getting involved in Syria? As I wrote about the other day, the “rebels” that Obama is backing are rabidly anti-Christian, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western. If they take control of Syria, that nation will be far more unstable and far more of a hotbed for terrorism than it is now.
And the downside of getting involved in Syria is absolutely enormous. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah all have agents inside this country, and if they decide to start blowing stuff up that will wake up the American people to the horror of war really quick. And by attacking Syria, the United States could cause a major regional war to erupt in the Middle East which could eventually lead to World War 3.
I don’t know about you, but I think that starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea.
Let us hope that cooler heads prevail before things spin totally out of control.
Despite many assaults, past and present, the First Amendment of the United States constitution broadly guarantees freedom of speech. But it is threatened by a slanderous campaign to discredit or silence American critics of the Israeli government. The Israel lobby, guided by the Israeli government, with the help of Israeli think tanks, is organizing this effort. In fact, Malcolm Hoenlein, the Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, has publicly announced this campaign for the 2013-14 school year.
A key component of this attack on freedom of speech is the “new anti-Semitism,” the claim that criticism of Israel is based on hatred of Jews. But the real purpose of the new anti-Semitism is to discredit and silence Israel’s critics in the U.S. and elsewhere, even though comparable criticisms are common place in Israel, especially in such renown newspapers as Ha’aretz, the “New York Times of Israel. “
A recent victim of this smear is Sadia Saifuddin, the University of California student recently appointed without any opposing votes as the first Muslim student representative to the University of California Board of Regents. Even though Ms. Saifuddin is clearly qualified, with a great resume, Israel lobby stalwarts StandwithUs, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and David Horowitz attacked her nomination. Why? Not because Saifuddin was unqualified. It is because she has opposed the Israeli government’s occupation of the territories it conquered in 1967, including the resulting dispossession of Palestinian property and violation of Palestinian human rights guaranteed through international law. For these reasons she cosponsored a divestment resolution at the UC Berkeley Student Senate, and the AIPAC types — using the template of the new anti-Semitism — then claimed she was unfit to be a UC Regent because she threatened UC Jewish students
Indeed, Jewish students and faculty were once victims of real anti-Semitism on American campuses from the early 20th Century through the early 1970s in the form of admission quotas, glass ceilings on high academic and administrative positions, and discriminatory practices by fraternities and sororities. But these types of anti-Semitic social discrimination were successfully fought and have been absent from American college campuses for over 40 years. In fact, Jewish organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) no longer measure anti-Semitic discrimination in the United States. This is why the ADL’s annual count of anti-Semitic incidents is restricted to verbal harassment, assaults, and property crimes, none of which have the slightest connection to Sadia Saifuddin.
With hardly any real anti-Semitism in sight, the Israel lobby concocted a new form of anti-Semitism: criticism of the Israeli government’s policies and practices. They argue that any criticism of Israel is really a call for the destruction of the state, the alleged secret agenda of the country’s critics. Nonsense! And the Israel lobby knows this is nonsense because nearly all American critics of Israel are driven by opposition to a nominally Western country that – on one hand – “shares our values,” while – on the other hand – has maintained a 46-year military occupation over four million people in conquered territories, depriving them of human, civil, and economic rights. Furthermore, in blatant violation of the 1949 4th Geneva Convention, Israel continues to construct illegal towns, cities, and factories in these areas. These segregated “settlements”, including their access highways, are limited to Jewish Israelis. Furthermore, these settlers are subject to Israeli civilian law, not the Israeli military law imposed on their immediate Palestinian neighbors.
Another case of the new anti-Semitism targeting speech on California campuses is California State Assembly Resolution HR-35. HR-35 characterizes any criticism of Israel as “cloaked” anti-Semitism. Carlos Villarreal, director of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, called this resolution irresponsible and dangerous because it fails to distinguish between legitimate support for the Palestinian people and real anti-Semitism (i.e., verbal harassment and physical attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions). This is why the ADL does not include these campus political events in its annual list of anti-Semitic activity in the United States.
HR-35 did not become California law, but it has had the effect of encouraging university administrators to enact restrictions on campus political events critical of the Israeli government. Under an HR-35 inspired campus policy, some political speech would be silenced. Any person or group that stood up against an obvious human rights abuse, like Israel’s 2008-09 assault on Gaza with banned phosphorus bombs, could be charged with anti-Semitism. These bogus charges could ruin someone’s reputation and bring sanctions against university-affiliated student organizations. Most individuals and campus groups would, therefore, remain silent. After all, who wants to be identified and then punished as a bigot?
The intent of HR-35 is to undermine free speech when that speech entails criticism of Israel.
So what happens next? California is about to witness a major effort by the Israel lobby, financially supported and directed by the government of Israel, to discredit campus groups that work for the end of Israel’s direct and indirect occupation of the land it conquered in 1967. As active members of LA Jews for Peace, we strongly oppose this misuse of charges of anti-Semitism, and stand with those, Jewish and non-Jewish, who criticize the practices of the Israeli government and the support of those practices by the United States government. Attempts to muzzle groups for political speech should be stopped in the bud.
Jeff Warner and Dick Platkin are Jewish peace activists in southern California and leaders of LA Jews for Peace. They have organized many demonstrations against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory in general and the siege of Gaza in particular. Warner has been on humanitarian missions to Gaza. He is a retired research geologist and now works on environmental and climate change issues. Platkin is a retired city planner and now works to stop “mansionization” of residential neighborhoods.
« Previous Page — Next Page »