Sabtu, 24 Agustus 2013

.Sebenarnya, bahwa ada Zionis di balik berkepanjangannya konflik di Suriah (juga Mesir, Lebanon, Irak, dll), juga bisa dibaca dari artikel saya yang ini: The Oded Yinon’s Plan Sebenarnya, saya juga sudah panjang lebar mengungkap berbagai rekayasa informasi soal Suriah dan bagaimana cara memandang konflik ini dengan benar, di buku saya Prahara Suriah. Sebenarnya, saya juga sudah posting ulang ‘Kumpulan Pemalsuan Data Foto Konflik Suriah’..>>>... "If the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it. Do we have the coalition to make it work? And, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account," he said in an interview with CNN on Friday....>>>.. Among those who have fled Syria from the Yarmouk Palestinian camp in Damascus are close to 50,000 children. This is the figure cited by the Palestinian Popular Committees in the Damascus-Homs area as well as Anthony Lake, head of the U.N. children’s agency UNICEF. Roughly 75% of the Palestinian youngsters fleeing the country are under the age of 11, and they make up a significant part of the approximately one million children altogether who have been displaced by the fighting in Syria....>>> ..... The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees places the refugee count at more than one million. This is in addition to the two million children who are internally displaced—forced to flee their homes in the face of a conflict which has morphed into a vicious, sectarian civil war...>> ....the target: It is widely realized now that the fall of President Bashar Assad’s regime would leave Syria riven by bitter ethnic, religious, and ideological conflict that could splinter the country into smaller enclaves. Already there has been a demographic shift in this direction, as both Sunnis and Alawites flee the most dangerous parts of the county, seeking refuge within their own particular communities. Furthermore, it is widely believed in Syria that, as the entire country becomes too difficult to secure, the Assad regime will retreat to an Alawaite redoubt in the northern coastal region as a fallback position. bit.ly/PLZjBo

Senjata Kimia di Suriah


Oleh: Dina Sulaeman*

Sebenarnya, soal bagaimana menyikapi pemberitaan soal Suriah, atau konflik apapun, sudah saya tulis di postingan saya sebelumnya : Cara Menganalisis Konflik.

Sebenarnya, bahwa ada Zionis di balik berkepanjangannya konflik di Suriah (juga Mesir, Lebanon, Irak, dll), juga bisa dibaca dari artikel saya yang ini: The Oded Yinon’s Plan

Sebenarnya, saya juga sudah panjang lebar mengungkap berbagai rekayasa informasi soal Suriah dan bagaimana cara memandang konflik ini dengan benar, di buku saya Prahara Suriah.

Sebenarnya, saya juga sudah posting ulang ‘Kumpulan Pemalsuan Data Foto Konflik Suriah’

Tapi, ketika kemarin (Rabu) muncul berita tentang penggunaan senjata kimia di Suriah, tetap saja para pendukung mujahidin merasa perlu mengintimidasi saya dengan mengirim inbox di FB, seolah-oleh senang sekali, bisa menyodorkan bukti kekejaman Assad.

Saya sungguh heran. “Mereka” ini sekarang sudah merasakan bagaimana jadi korban pemalsuan informasi, bagaimana foto-foto dibuat secara manipulatif untuk menyudutkan kelompok “mereka” (dan di saat yang sama, “mereka” juga melakukan cara serupa, memanipulasi foto untuk menyudutkan lawan “mereka”). “Mereka” sudah merasakan bagaimana presiden yang mereka puja dan sah secara demokratis dikudeta semena-mena.  “Mereka” gemar sekali berteriak-teriak ‘tabayun!’ Tapi tetap saja, pengalaman itu tidak membuat pikiran “mereka” terbuka. Terhadap pihak yang “mereka” benci, “mereka” berkeras tak mau bertabayun dan terus memakai kaca mata kuda.

Buat yang ingin mencari perimbangan info soal kasus terbaru di Suriah ini, bisa klik link-link berikut (saya tidak mau repot-repot menerjemahkannya).

atau ini ada yang berbahasa Indonesia: http://vendraminda.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/tidak-semua-orang-suka-informasi-atas-bukti-penggunaan-senjata-kimia-oleh-fsa/#more-729

Isu senjata kimia ini bukan hal baru. Pada tahun 2012 pun tuduhan serupa sudah dilemparkan para pemberontak (dan negara-negara Barat pendukung mereka) kepada Assad, tapi lalu berhasil dimentahkan. Bisa baca di sini:

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-plot-532/

Bahkan, pada bulan Mei 2013, pejabat PBB, Carla Del Ponte, sudah menyampaikan hasil penyelidikannya bahwa yang menggunakan senjata kimia di Suriah justru para pemberontak. Baca di sini: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320223/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-carrying-sarin-gas-attacks-blamed-Assads-troops.html
Dan masih banyak lagi, silahkan cari sendiri.

Apa tujuan pihak pemberontak melemparkan tuduhan penggunaan senjata kimia (dan bahkan mengorbankan warga sipil Suriah dalam aksi itu)? Tak lain tak bukan, ingin menggolkan persetujuan PBB untuk mengirim pasukan internasional menggulingkan Assad, sebagaimana dulu Barat telah menggulingkan Saddam atau Qaddafi. (Ingat, Saddam juga dituduh memiliki senjata biologis; dan setelah Saddam tewas dan Irak diduduki AS, terbukti bahwa itu berita bohong belaka).

Tapi saya akan kembali mengingatkan saja, mudah-mudahan ‘mereka’ ini bisa tersadarkan. Kalau tidak, ya apa boleh buat. Bahkan Rasulullah pun tugasnya hanya menyampaikan, apalagi saya yang sekedar blogger. Saya ulangi lagi kalimat yang entah berapa kali saya tulis, musuh umat Islam adalah Zionis, bukan yang lain.

Dan Zionis sangat cerdas, tak akan menyerang terang-terangan. Mereka menggunakan berbagai tipu daya, termasuk dengan membodoh-bodohi sebagian kaum muslimin, sehingga kaum muslimin saling berperang, sementara Zionis dan sekutunya santai-santai menonton sambil minum teh.

Berikut kutipan Dr. Mahatir Muhammad: “Kita ummat Islam memiliki 1,3 milyar penduduk yang seharusnya tidak bisa diabaikan begitu saja. Tapi kita tak bisa mengalahkan 6 juta Yahudi yang didukung AS dan Eropa karena Yahudi memerintah dunia melalui kaki-tangan mereka (proxy). Yahudi membuat kita berkelahi satu sama lain dan mati untuk mereka.”

NB: untuk  facebooker, silahkan  ikuti page Berita Harian Suriah atau Syria News Indonesia untuk mendapatkan informasi penyeimbang soal Suriah.


* Penulis adalah peneliti di Global Review Institute, penulis beberapa buku bestseller, kandidat doktor ilmu politik internasional dan blogger aktif. Tulisan-tulisannya bisa diakses disini.
Diposkan oleh di
Label:
 
US will not attack Syria without UN mandate: Obama
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/23/320154/us-not-to-attack-syria-without-un-mandate/
 
President Obama was interviewed by CNN on Friday.
President Obama was interviewed by CNN on Friday.
Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:26PM GMT
229
 
63
 
A top Pentagon official also said the US military has updated its options for a military strike, adding that target lists for possible airstrikes have been updated.
President Barack Obama says the United States cannot attack Syria without a UN mandate for the allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.


"If the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it. Do we have the coalition to make it work? And, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account," he said in an interview with CNN on Friday.

The remark was made when asked it has been one year since Obama said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a "red line" and prompt a tough US response.

Syria's foreign-backed opposition claimed that more than 1,000 people were killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds.

A team sent by the United Nations is set to investigate the latest claim of chemical weapons use outside Damascus.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Thursday asked Syria to allow UN inspectors to investigate "without delay" the alleged chemical attack.

A top Pentagon official also said on Friday the US military has updated its options for a military strike, adding that target lists for possible airstrikes have been updated.

The planning also included updates on the potential use of cruise missiles, which would not require fighter pilots to enter Syrian airspace, the unnamed official said.

President Obama also pointed to the high costs of other recent American engagements, saying, "We're still spending tens of billions of dollars in Afghanistan.”

"Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region," Obama said. 
 
CIA commandos, US special forces entered Syria: Report

Syrian militants attend a training session in Idlib, Syria, Dec. 17, 2012.


Syrian militants attend a training session in Idlib, Syria, Dec. 17, 2012.
Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:54PM GMT
 
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/23/320094/us-forces-cia-men-enter-syria/


US troops and intelligence officers reportedly made their way into Syria a few days before reports emerged that hundreds of men, women and children were killed by an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.
Related Interviews:
Related Viewpoints:
US special operations and CIA teams, along with Israeli and Jordanian troops, have entered Syria to command members of the militant groups fighting against the Syrian government, according to a French newspaper.


“According to our information, Le Figaro reported on Thursday, “The regime's opponents, supervised by Jordanian, Israeli and American commandos have been moving towards Damascus since mid-August.”

US and Jordanian teams have set up a training camp in Jordan where special operations units are training members of the militant groups in Syria.

According to Le Figaro, the first group of these specially trained militant fighters, commanded by American special forces, crossed the border into Syria on August 17 along with a number of CIA operatives. A second group joined them two days later, the report said.

The newspaper cites military sources saying the operation began in the southern Syrian region of Deraa.

DEBKAfile, an Israeli website, also reported that up to 250 US-trained rebels entered an area of Syria near the Israeli border this past Saturday and were joined by an additional 300 on Monday.

The US troops and intelligence officers reportedly made their way into Syria a few days before reports emerged that hundreds of men, women and children were killed by an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.

The alleged chemical attack, which some experts argue was suspicious, prompted the United States and other Western courtiers to call for a military response.

US officials said Thursday that the Pentagon was refining its military options for possible strikes on a number of government and military installations in Syria, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Syria's foreign-backed opposition claimed on Wednesday that around 1,300 people were killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar.

The Syrian government and the army categorically denied any role in the alleged chemical attack.

HJ/HJ

Many Flee, as Worries over Chemical Weapons Mount

Chemical Weapons Fear In Syria

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2013/08/chemical-weapons-fear-in-syria/

Plan For Iraq Invasion Drawn
Up Decades Ago
Israel's Policy Aimed At The Fragmentation
Of Iraq Has Long Historical Roots
By Harun Yahua
Pravda.ru
10-7-4
http://rense.com/general58/decades.htm
 
The plan for the Iraq war, which has erupted in the face of opposition from the entire world, was drawn up at least decades ago, by Israeli strategists
 
In its attempt to realize its strategy of destabilizing or dividing the Middle Eastern Arab states, Israel has Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia on its list of subsequent targets.
 
As these lines are being written, the United States of America has begun striking at Iraq. Despite the fact that most countries of the world, and even the majority of the USA's allies, opposed it, the US administration was determined for the strike to go ahead. When we look behind the scenes of this insistence, it seems that Israel and its powerful lobby in the US, have the greatest share in the make-up.
 
In fact, Israel's policy aimed at the fragmentation of Iraq has lengthy historical roots>£
 
The Age-Old Israeli Plan to Divide Iraq
 
An ambitious report entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," which appeared in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim in February 1982 disclosed a strategy aimed at making the whole of the Middle East a kind of "living space" for Israel. The report, drawn up by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist and formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel, set out the scenario of the "division of Iraq" in these terms:
 
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria>£ Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past>£ In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. 1)
 
This was not the only announcement of the Israeli plan to atomize Middle East, including Iraq. As Israel Shahak, the notable Israeli scholar known for his dedication to a peaceful solution in the Middle East, explained that Yinon was just echoing the views of Israeli hawks:
 
The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old. 2)
 
Thus, the plan was a serious one and this has been confirmed by the age-old Israeli support to non-Arab or non-Muslim minorities in the Muslim Arab states. The rebellious Kurds of northern Iraq was one of these strategic allies of Israel. During their revolt against the Baghdad regime, 1961-75, they have been financially and militarily supported by Israel. Israelis would love to see them carve up the northern part of Iraq, no matter how bloody and devastating such a civil war would be. However, the revolt failed in 1975, after loosing the support of its major patron, the Shah.
 
Fifteen years later, a new opportunity arose for Israel, an opportunity from the ambitions of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein.
 
Israel's Role in the Gulf War
 
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, after his bloody war against Iran in the 80's, invaded Kuwait in a sudden attack on August 1, 1990, giving rise to an international crisis. Israel headed the list of those forces that encouraged that crisis. Israel was the fiercest supporter of the attitude adopted by the United States in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait. The Israelis even regarded the United States as moderate, and wanted a harsher policy. To such an extent in fact that the President of Israel Chaim Herzog recommended that the American use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the Israeli lobby in the United States was working to bring about a wide-ranging attack on Iraq.
 
This whole situation encouraged the idea in the United States that the attack against Iraq under consideration was actually planned in Israel's interests. Pat Buchanan summarized this idea in the words "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East - the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."
 
Israelis had also initiated a serious propaganda campaign on the issue. Since this campaign was largely waged in secret, Mossad also entered the equation. Rogue Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky provides important information on this subject. According to Ostrovsky, Israel had wanted to wage war with the United States against Saddam long before the Gulf crisis. So much so in fact, that Israel began to implement the plan immediately after the Iran-Iraq war. Ostrovsky reports that Mossad's Psychological Warfare department (LAP - LohAma Psychologist) set about an effective pro-war campaign using misinformation techniques. 3)
 
A Mossad Agent Describes the Gulf War
 
Ostrovsky describes how Mossad used agents or sympathizers in various parts of the world in this campaign. Among the tools employed in the campaign were the horrible massacres done by missiles launched against civilian targets in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. As Ostrovsky makes clear, Mossad's later use of these missiles as a propaganda tool was quite peculiar, since those missiles had actually been directed towards their targets by Mossad, with the help of information from US satellites. Having supported Saddam throughout his war with Iran, Israel was now disclosing his crimes. Ostrovsky writes:
The Mossad leaders know that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he'd been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear. 4)
 
The Israelis were so determined on this matter, and with regard to the United States, that on August 4, 1990, Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy issued a diplomatically worded threat to William Brown, the American ambassador to Israel, stating that Israel "expects the U.S. will fulfill all of the goals it set for itself at the beginning of the gulf crisis," in other words that it attack Iraq. According to Levy, if the United States failed to do so, Israel would act unilaterally. 5)
 
It would be of enormous benefit to Israel to have the United States engage in the war and for Israel to remain entirely uninvolved: and that is indeed what happened.
 
Israel Forces the USA to War
 
However, the Israelis were actively involved in the United States' war plans. Some US staff officers involved in planning Operation Desert Storm received fine tactical advice from the Israelis that "the best way of wounding Saddam was to strike at his family."
 
The Mossad-inspired propaganda campaign reported by Ostrovsky set up the necessary public backing for the Gulf War. It was again Mossad local assistants who lit the touchpaper for the war. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm, run by Tom Lantos of the Israeli lobby, prepared a dramatic scenario to convince members of Congress on the subject of war against Saddam. Turan Yavuz, a noted Turkish journalist, describes the incident:
 
October 9, 1990. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm organizes a sitting in Congress on the subject of "Iraq's Barbarities." A number of "eye witnesses" brought to the session by the lobbying firm maintain that Iraqi troops killed new-born babies in the hospital wards. One "eye witness" describes the savagery in enormous detail, saying that Iraqi soldiers killed 300 new-born babies in one hospital alone. This information deeply disturbs the members of Congress. This works to President Bush's advantage. However, it later emerges that the eye witness brought by Hill and Knowlton to Congress is in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. Nevertheless, the daughter's account is sufficient for members of Congress to give Saddam the nickname "Hitler". 6)
 
This leads to just one conclusion: that Israel played an important role in the United States' to wage its first war on Iraq. The second one is not much different.
 
The Pretext of "War Against Terrorism"
 
Contrary to popular belief, the plan to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime by force was prepared and placed on Washington's agenda long before the genesis of the "war against terrorism," which emerged in the wake of September 11. The first indication of this plan emerged in 1997. A group of pro-Israeli hawkish strategists in Washington D.C. began to put forward the scenario of the invasion of Iraq by manipulating the "neo-con" think-tank, called PNAC (Project for The New American Century). The most notable names in the PNAC were those of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who as defense secretary and vice-president would be the most influential figures in the George W. Bush administration.
 
An article titled "Invading Iraq Not a New Idea for Bush Clique: 4 Years Before 9/11 Plan Was Set" written by William Brunch and published in the Philadelphia Daily News, sets out the following facts:
But in reality, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and a small band of conservative ideologues had begun making the case for an American invasion of Iraq as early as 1997 - nearly four years before the Sept. 11 attacks and three years before President Bush took office.
 
An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998. 7)
 
Is Oil the Real Objective?
 
Why were the PNAC members so determined to attack Iraq? The same article continues:
While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force. [Ian] Lustick, [a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert,] while a critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war's proponents primarily as a way to pay for the costly military operation.
 
"I'm from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt. "The oil market doesn't need disruption."
 
Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israel>£ 8)
 
This, therefore, is the principal motivation behind the plan to attack Iraq: to serve Israel's Middle East strategy.
 
This fact has also been identified by other Middle East experts. Cengiz >sandar, a Turkish Middle East expert, for instance, describes the real power behind the plan to attack Iraq thus:
 
... Who is directing the attack on Iraq? Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are the "senior level" backers of the attack. Yet the rest of the iceberg is even richer and more interesting. There are a number of "lobbies."
 
Heading these lobbies are the Jewish Institute for Security Affairs team, pro-Likud and Israeli-right and known for their close relations with US arms manufacturers. These have close relations with the "arms lobby," Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics and Israeli military industries ... JINSA's fundamental principle is this: America's and Israel's security are inseparable. In other words, they are the same thing.
 
JINSA's objective is not solely the overthrow of the Saddam regime in Iraq: it also supports the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Egyptian and Iranian regimes with a logic of "total war," and the subsequent importation of "democracy." ... In other words, a number of American Jews on the same wavelength as the most extreme factions in Israel at the moment comprise the hawks in Washington. 9)
 
The Israeli Strategy for The Muslim Middle East
 
In short, there are those in Washington who are encouraging a war aimed first at Iraq and then at Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The most distinguishing feature of these is that they are lined up alongside, and even equivalent to, the "Israeli lobby."
 
No matter how much they speak of "American interests," these people are actually supporting Israeli interests. A strategy of waging war against the whole of the Middle East and turning all the peoples of the region against it cannot be to the United States' advantage. The adoption of such a strategy can only be possible if the United States is bound to Israel, by means of the Israeli lobby, which is profoundly influential in this country's foreign policy.
 
It is for these reasons that behind the strategy which began to be set in motion after September 11 and is aimed at re-arranging the entire Islamic world, lies Israel's strategy for dominating the Middle East. Ever since its foundation, Israel has aimed at restructuring the Middle East, making it manageable and secure to itself. The search for security is of course a legitimate one, but the way that Israel chose to achieve this end is wrong: From the beginning, Israel decided to establish security behind an "iron wall" that would separate itself from the Arabs, and most important of all, protect the lands that Israel occupied through methods of invasion, colonization and depopulation.
 
This strategy of reaping the wind had its consequence as a century of constant clash between Israelis and Arabs. Had Israel chosen a peaceful path to secure its existence, by building good relations with its Arab neighbors and refraining from aggression, Jews and Muslims could peacefully co-exist in the Middle East, as they have.
 
However, the radical Zionist ideology still denies any chance to peace and relentlessly tries to transform the whole Middle East to create a "living space" for Israel. It has been using its influence in the United States for that purpose in recent years, and to a large extent directs Washington's Middle East policy. The post-September 11 climate gave Israel the opportunity it had been seeking. Pro-Israeli ideologues who for years had been propounding the falsehood that Islam itself - not some militant radicals who use Islam as a shelter - posed a threat to the West and the United States, and who encouraged the mistaken concept of a "clash of civilizations," have been trying to incite the United States against the Islamic world in the wake of September 11. As early as 1995, Israel Shahak of the Jerusalem Hebrew University wrote former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin's obsession with "the idea of an Israeli-led anti-Islamic crusade".
 
All that has happened in the years which have followed is that Israeli hawks have made their intentions even clearer. The political climate in the wake of September 11 prepared the ground for this intention to be made a reality.
 
The Only Way to World Peace: An Islamic Union
 
The situation may be summarized as follows: Israel's aim is to reshape the Middle East in line with its own strategic interests. In order to do this, it needs a "world power." That power is the United States; and Israeli hawks, thanks to their influence there, are trying to wage a militant American strategy against the Islamic world. Although Israel is a small state with a population of only 4.5 million, the plans drawn up by Israeli strategists and their counterparts in the West are directing the world affairs.
 
What needs to be done in the face of this?
 
1) "Counter lobby activities" need to be adopted in the face of the Israeli lobby's influence in the United States in order to develop dialogue between the United States and the Islamic world and to invite it to seek peaceful solutions to Iraq and similar problems. A wide section of the United States wishes to see their country adopt a fairer Middle East policy. Many statesmen, strategists, journalists and intellectuals have expressed this, and a "peace of civilizations" movement must be carried forward in cooperation with them. The approach inviting the US administration to peaceful solutions must be carried forward at governmental and civil society organization level.
 
2) A reconciliation between Israel and the Muslim Middle East must be sought. There are many "peaceniks", i.e. pro-peace Israelis, too. Many Israeli statesmen, religious leader, opinion leaders and many Jews from all around the world are urging the Israeli state to refrain from its brutal occupation and accept a just peace to live along with their Arab neighbors. Cooperation with them, especially on the inter-faith level, should be initiated and encouraged. One thing should never be forgotten: The rise of radicalism, enmity and violence is bad for all parties.
 
3) Alongside all this, a deeper rooted solution lies in a project which can resolve all the problems between the Islamic world and the West and deal with the fragmentation, suffering and poverty in the Islamic world and totally alter it: An Islamic Union. Recent developments have shown that the whole world, not just Islamic regions, stands in need of an "Islamic Union." This Union should heal the radical elements in the Islamic World, and establish good relations between Muslim countries and the West, especially the United States.
 
This Union, can find a solution to the mother of all problems: The Arab-Israeli conflict. With Israel retreating to its pre-67 borders and Arabs recognizing its right to exist, there can be real peace in the Middle East. And Jews and Muslims - both Children of Abraham and believers in one true God - may peacefully co-exist in the Holy Land, as they have done during the past centuries. Then, Israel would need no strategy to destabilize or divide the Arab States. And it will not have to face the results of occupation in forms of terrorism and constant fear of annihilation. Then, both the Israeli and Iraqi (and Palestinian) children may grow up in peace and security. That is a Middle East that any sane person should work to see.
 
-------
1- (ed.) Israel Shahak, The Zionist Plan for the Middle East; from Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982 Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8);
2- (ed.) Israel Shahak, The Zionist Plan for the Middle East;
3- Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception, pp. 252-254.
4- Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception, p. 254
5- Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison, p. 356.
6- Turan Yavuz, ABD'nin K>^rt Kart>Z (The US' Kurdish Card), p. 307
7- William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003
8- William Bunch, "Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique" Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003
9- Cengiz >sandar, "Iraq and the 'Friends of Turkey' American Hawks", Yeni >afak, September 3, 2002.
10- Israel Shahak, "Downturn in Rabin's Popularity Has Several Causes", Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1995.
 
-------
Harun Yahua
 
The author, who writes under the pen-name Harun Yahya, has published many books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. Harun Yahya is well known as an author who has written very important works disclosing the imposture of evolutionists, the invalidity of their claims and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and bloody ideologies. Some of the books of the author have been translated into many languages. Harun Yahya's books appeal to all people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, regardless of their age, race and nationality, as they center around one goal: to open the readers' mind by presenting the sign's of God's eternal existence to them.
 
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/387/9770_moslem.html
 
 

[Translate]

The Yinon Thesis Vindicated

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2012/08/the-yinon-thesis-vindicated/

Neocons, Israel, and the Fragmentation of Syria



By Stephen J. Sniegoski

It is widely realized now that the fall of President Bashar Assad’s regime would leave Syria riven by bitter ethnic, religious, and ideological conflict that could splinter the country into smaller enclaves. Already there has been a demographic shift in this direction, as both Sunnis and Alawites flee the most dangerous parts of the county, seeking refuge within their own particular communities. Furthermore, it is widely believed in Syria that, as the entire country becomes too difficult to secure, the Assad regime will retreat to an Alawaite redoubt in the northern coastal region as a fallback position. 

Syrian Kurds, about ten percent of the country’s population, are also interested in gaining autonomy or joining with a larger Kurdistan. The Syrian Kurdish Democratic Party (PYD)—linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has engaged in a separatist insurgency in Turkey's Kurdish southeast region for nearly three decades—has gained control of key areas in northeast Syria. While Turkey has supported the Syrian opposition, it is terrified of a Kurdish autonomous zone in Syria, believing that it could provide a safe haven for staging attacks into Turkey. Moreover, Kurdish autonomy would encourage separatist sentiment within the Turkish Kurdish minority. Turkey has threatened to invade the border areas of Syria to counter such a development and Turkish armed forces with armor have been sent to Turkey’s border with the Syrian Kurdish region. A Turkish invasion would add further complexities to the fracturing of Syria.

What has not been readily discussed in reference to this break-up of Syria is  that the Israeli and global Zionist Right  has long sought the fragmentation of Israel’s enemies so as to weaken them and thus enhance Israel’s primacy in the Middle East.  While elements of this geostrategic view can be traced back to even before the creation of the modern state of Israel,  the concept of destabilizing and fragmenting enemies seems to have been first articulated as an overall Israeli strategy  by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties." Yinon had been attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment in the years of Likudnik Menachem Begin’s leadership.  Israel Shahak’s translation of Yinon’s article was titled “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”

In this article, Yinon called for Israel to use military means to bring about the dissolution of Israel's neighboring states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of homogenous ethnic and sectarian groupings. Yinon believed that it would not be difficult to achieve this result because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and religious divisions, and held together only by force. In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of powerless mini-statelets unable to confront Israeli power. Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon's model for the entire Middle East. Yinon wrote: "Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The  dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target." Information Clearing House.

Eminent Middle East historian, Bernard Lewis, who is a Zionist of a rightist hue and one of the foremost intellectual gurus for the neoconservatives, echoed Yinon with an article in the September 1992 issue of   “Foreign Affairs” titled “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he wrote of a development he called “Lebanonization,” stating “[A] possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has of late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity. . . . The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.”  Since Lewis— credited with coining the phrase "clash of civilizations”—has been a major advocate of a belligerent stance for the West against the Islamic states, it would appear that he realized that such fragmentation would be the result of his belligerent policy.

In 1996, the neoconservatives presented to incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu their study “A Clean Break” (produced under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), which described how Israel could enhance its regional security by toppling enemy regimes.  Although this work did not explicitly focus on the fragmentation of states, such was implied in regard to Syria when it stated that “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.” It added that “Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.”

David Wurmser authored a much longer follow-up document to “A Clean Break” for the same Israeli think tank, entitled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant.” In this work, Wurmser emphasized the fragile nature of the Middle Eastern Baathist dictatorships in Iraq and Syria in line with Lewis’s thesis, and how the West and Israel should act in such an environment.  
           
In contrast to some of the Western democracies as well as Arab states, Israel did not publicly call for Assad's removal until a few months ago.  This, however, does not mean that the Netanyahu government did not support this outcome.  This tardiness has a number of likely reasons, one of which being the fear that an Islamist government would replace Assad that would be even more hostile to Israel and more prone than he to launch reckless attacks.  Moreover, instability in a country on Israel’s border is of tremendous concern to its security establishment. It is feared that in such a chaotic condition, Assad’s massive chemical weapons arsenal and advanced surface-to-air missile systems could end up in the hands of terrorist groups like the Lebanese Hezbollah, which would not be hesitant to use them against Israel.  

Unlike the armchair destabilization strategists and the neocons, the actual Israeli leaders, including hardline Likudniks such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, have to be concerned about facing the immediate negative political consequences of their decisions even if they believe that the long-term benefits would accrue to the country.  This invariably leads to the exercise of caution in regard to dramatic change. Thus, the concern about the immediate security risks cited above likely had a significant effect on their decision-making.

Furthermore, it could have been counterproductive for Israel to express support for the Syrian opposition in its early stages.  For Assad has repeatedly maintained that the opposition is orchestrated by foreign powers, using this argument to justify his brutal crackdown.  Since Israel is hated by virtually all elements in the Middle East, its open support of the opposition could have turned many Syrians, and much of the overall Arab world, against the uprising.  While Israel did not openly support the armed resistance, there have been claims from reliable sources that Israeli intelligence has been providing some degree of covert support along with other Western intelligence agencies, including that of the United States. 

Since May of this year, however, the Israeli government has become open in its support for the overthrow of the Assad regime. In June, Netanyahu condemned the ongoing massacre of Syrian civilians by Assad, blaming the violence on an “Axis of Evil,” consisting of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.  “Iran and Hezbollah are an inseparable part of the Syrian atrocities and the world needs to act against them,” he proclaimed. This inclusion of Iran and Hezbollah illustrates Israel’s goal of using the Syrian humanitarian issue to advance its own national interest.
                     
If the Assad regime were to fall, Israel would certainly be more secure with a splintered congeries of small statelets than a unified Syria under an anti-Israel Islamist regime.  Consequently, staunch neoconservative Harold Rhode presents the fragmentation scenario in a positive light in his article, “Will Syria Remain a Unified State?” (July 10, 2012).  In contrast to what has been the conventional Western narrative of the uprising against the Assad regime, which presents a heroic Sunni resistance being brutally terrorized by government forces and pro-government Alawite militias, Rhode writes with sympathy for the pro-government non-Sunni Syrian minorities:  “In short, what stands behind most of the violence in Syria is the rise of Arab Sunni fundamentalism in its various forms – whether Salafi, Wahhabi, or Muslim Brotherhood. All of those threaten the very existence of the Alawites, the Kurds, and other members of the non-Sunni ethnic and religious groups.

“It is therefore much easier to understand why the ruling Alawites feel they are fighting a life and death battle with the Sunnis, and why they believe they must spare no effort to survive. It also explains why most of Syria's other minorities – such as the Druze, Ismailis, and Christians – still largely support the Assad regime.”

For a short aside, the neoconservative background of Harold Rhode is of considerable relevance, providing further evidence for the much denied neocon support for the fragmentation of Israel’s enemies. (The mainstream view is that the neocons are naïve idealists whose plans to transform dictatorships into model democracies invariably go awry.)   Rhode, a longtime Pentagon official who was a specialist on the Middle East, was closely associated with neocon stalwarts Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.  He was also a protégé of Bernhard Lewis, with Lewis dedicating his 2003 book, “The Crisis of Islam,” to him.  Rhode served as a Middle East specialist for Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the administration of George W. Bush, where he was closely involved with the Office of Special Plans, which provided spurious propaganda to promote support for the war on Iraq.  Rhode was a participant in the Larry Franklin affair, which involved dealings with Israeli agents, though Rhode was not charged with any crime.  Alan Weisman, the author of the biography of Richard Perle, refers to Rhode as an “ardent Zionist” (“Prince of Darkness: Richard Perle,” p.146), more pro-Israel than Perle, which takes some doing since the latter has been accused of handing classified material to the Israelis.  Rhode is currently a fellow with the ultra-Zionist Gatestone Institute, for which he wrote the above article.  
       
Obviously the very removal of the Assad regime would be a blow against Israel’s major enemy, Iran, since Syria is Iran’s major ally.  Significantly, Assad’s Syria has provided a conduit for arms and assistance from Iran to Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, Hamas, to use against Israel.  If Israel and Iran had gone to war, these arms would have posed a significant threat to the Israeli populace.  Moreover, a defanged Hezbollah would not be able to oppose Israeli military incursions into south Lebanon or even Syria.

A fragmented Syria removes the possible negative ramifications of Assad’s removal since it would mean that even if the Islamists should replace Assad in Damascus they would only have a rump Syrian state to control, leaving them too weak to do much damage to Israel and forcing them to focus their attention on the hostile statelets bordering them.

Moreover, Israel is purportedly contemplating military action to prevent Assad’s chemical weapons from falling into the hands of anti-Israel terrorists.  With such a divided country there is no powerful army capable of standing up to an Israeli military incursion.  
       
The benefits accruing to Israel from the downfall of the Assad regime and the concomitant sectarian fragmentation and conflict in Syria go beyond the Levant to include the entire Middle East region.   For sectarian violence in Syria is likely to cause an intensification of the warfare between Sunnis and Shiites throughout the entire Middle East region. Iran might retaliate against Saudi Arabia’s and Qatar’s support for the Syrian opposition by fanning the flames of Shiite Muslim revolution in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich and majority Shiite Eastern Province. Both areas have witnessed intermittent periods of violent protest and brutal government suppression since the Arab Spring of 2011.  And Iraq remains a tinderbox ready to explode into ethno-sectarian war among the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, with violence already on an uptick since the formal departure of American troops in December 2011. 
              
In assessing the current regional situation, American-born Barry Rubin, professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (Herzliya, Israel) and  director of its Global Research in International Affairs Center,  writes in the Jerusalem Post (“The Region: Israel is in good shape,” July 15, 2012) :  “The more I think about Israel’s security situation at this moment, the better it looks.”  He goes on to state: “By reentering a period of instability and continuing conflict within each country, the Arabic-speaking world is committing a self-induced setback. Internal battles will disrupt Arab armies and economies, reducing their ability to fight against Israel. Indeed, nothing could be more likely to handicap development than Islamist policies.”

It should be noted that the “period of instability and continuing conflict” in the Middle East region has been the result of regime change and is in line with the thinking of Oded Yinon who, along with the other aforementioned geostrategic thinkers, pointed out that the major countries of the Middle East were inherently fissiparous and only held together by authoritarian regimes. 

America’s removal of Saddam in a war spearheaded by the pro-Israel neoconservatives served to intensify Sunni-Shiite regional hostility and, in a sense, got the destabilization ball rolling.    Iran is targeted now, and Israel and its neocon supporters seek to make use of dissatisfied internal elements, political and ethnic—the radical MEK, democratic secularists, monarchists, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, and Azeris— to bring down the Islamic regime. And while Saudi Arabia is currently serving Israeli interests by opposing Iran, should the Islamic Republic of Iran fall, Israel and their supporters would likely turn to Saudi Arabia’s dismemberment, seeking the severance of the predominantly Shiite, oil-rich Eastern Province, with some neocons already having made such a suggestion—e.g., Max Singer, Richard Perle, and David Frum (schemes which have been put on ice while Israel and its supporters have focused on Iran).   If everything went according to plan, the end result would be a Middle East composed of disunited states, or mini-states, involved in intractable, internecine conflict, which would make it impossible for them to confront Israeli power and to provide any challenge to Israel’s control of Palestine. The essence of Yinon’s geostrategic vision of Israeli preeminence would be achieved.

Many Flee, as Worries over Chemical Weapons Mount

Chemical Weapons Fear In Syria

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2013/08/chemical-weapons-fear-in-syria/

Fear Spreads through Palestinian Camps in Syria

chemical weapons



by FRANKLIN LAMB
Yarmouk Palestinian camp, Damascus

Among those who have fled Syria from the Yarmouk Palestinian camp in Damascus are close to 50,000 children. This is the figure cited by the Palestinian Popular Committees in the Damascus-Homs area as well as Anthony Lake, head of the U.N. children’s agency UNICEF. Roughly 75% of the Palestinian youngsters fleeing the country are under the age of 11, and they make up a significant part of the approximately one million children altogether who have been displaced by the fighting in Syria.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees places the refugee count at more than one million. This is in addition to the two million children who are internally displaced—forced to flee their homes in the face of a conflict which has morphed into a vicious, sectarian civil war.

Problems for Palestinian refugees continue at the Syria-Lebanon Masnaa crossing, adding to the number of children who are homeless and without encouraging prospects of finding either shelter or school enrollment as classes begin next month. Approximately 8000 children, younger than fifteen, have been killed so far in the 30 month civil conflict in Syria.

According to information this observer has received from the Palestinian Popular Committees—in Yarmouk as well as the twelve other Palestinian camps in Syria—evidence now suggests the possibility, indeed probability, of terrorist use of chemical weapons in some of the camp areas. They have called upon Palestinian factions to take preemptive steps to prevent further incidents.

The Popular Committee inside the “free” area of Yarmouk (pockets inside the eastern edge of the camp) issued a statement which included the following: “In the framework of agitating the political and media war against the government of Syria, channels of destruction and sedition have started to air misleading propaganda, claiming that the Syrian Arab Army would fire  mortars and or missiles into the camp with chemical gases, whereas these elements themselves are planning chemical attacks to blame the government much as what happened in Irbin.”

The Committee added, “Those who invaded and destroyed the camp after having displaced its residents would not hesitate to use the meanest ways of killing and destruction to fulfill the U.S.-Zionist goals.”

The statement was drafted by advisers to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,-GC, led by Ahmed Jabril, a staunch supporter of Syria’s President Bashar Assad. On 8/22/13, the PFLP-GC was targeted by Israel when a missile struck just meters from the entrance to one of a series of underground tunnels in a valley in Naameh, an area 15 kilometers south of Beirut, where the group maintains a military base.

Israel said the attack was in retaliation for Thursday’s rocket attack from Lebanon into the Jewish state. The PFLP-GC source denied the group’s involvement in that attack..

Palestinian camp officials, as well as various medical groups, are growing frustrated with a lack of activity from chief U.N. inspector Ake Sellstrom  and his delegation, who seem to linger for considerable amounts of time in the lobby of their 5-star hotel and its swimming pool. As it happens, the hotel is situated only a few kilometers from Ghouta, the green belt which surrounds Damascus, as well as the Yarmouk camp and the nearby attack area.
“What are they waiting for?”—is a commonly expressed sentiment heard this morning in Irbid, site of the alleged chemical weapon attack.

“They can give me their equipment and I will gather evidence for them if they are too busy,” commented one Palestinian youngster to this observer.

Residents in the Damascus suburbs, and also at Yarmouk, at least seem relieved that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has just urged the Syrian government to allow in the UN inspectors without delay to thoroughly investigate this crime against humanity.
Palestinian sentiments expressed to this observer by refugees in Damascus and Homs seem largely in keeping with what the Syrian government has been saying—namely that Western accusations of government involvement are probably false—and like many others they point to the illogical timing of the attack, just days after the arrival of the inspectors. A change from this initial tentative conclusion is not impossible, however.

Near Irbid one now hears estimates of more than 1,500 killed, with more victims being discovered still, while figures cited by the Unified Medical Bureau for Eastern Gouta are even higher.  One Palestinian member of Yarmouk’s Popular Committee, whose family village is near Safad, pointed to the location of the attacks—Irbin, Jobar, Zamalka and Ain Tarma, rebel strongholds in the portion of the Ghouta east of Damascus, as well as the town of Muadhamiya which is maybe five miles south.

One reason the casualty figures are so high, people from the gassed areas explain, is due to lack of air conditioning. Most residents in this area sleep with their windows opened; victims died in their beds during the early morning attack.

As of morning on 8/23/13, many of the remaining Palestinians in Yarmouk are seeking somewhere to flee to, visibly afraid that chemical weapons will be used in Yarmouk in the coming days.
Diposting oleh ZA di 06.31

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar (Atom)