Category Archives: Uncategorized

US to arm Syrian rebels: Putin’s rebuke for Netanyahu

DEBKAfile Special Report May 7, 2013



Negative diplomatic ricochets are pursuing Israel in the aftermath of its air force attacks on Syria. In the first place, they are seen to have had no effect on Hizballah’s successful military intervention on the side of the Assad regime or the Syrian war at large. In the second, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, while in Shanghai, was given a sharp dressing-down by President Vladimir Putin Monday, May 6, a warning that Russia would not tolerate further Israeli attacks on Damascus and would respond.
Putin did not say how, but he did announce he had ordered the acceleration of highly advanced Russian weapons supplies to Syria.
In his phone call to Netanyahu, the Russian leader made no bones about his determination not to permit the US, Israel or any other regional force (e.g. Turkey and Qatar) overthrow President Bashar Assad. He advised the prime minister to make sure to keep this in mind.
Our sources add: Since Syrian air defense teams have already trained in Russia on the handling of the S-300 interceptor batteries, they can go into service as soon as they are landed by one of Russia’s daily airlifts to Syria. Russian air defense officials will supervise their deployment and prepare them for operation.
Moscow is retaliating not just for Israel’s air operations against Syria but in anticipation of the Obama administration’s impending decision to send the first US arms shipments to the Syrian rebels.


Intelligence agencies in Moscow and the Middle East take it for granted that by the time Washington goes public on this decision, some of the Syrian rebel factions will already be armed with American weapons.

That the measure was in the works was signified by the introduction Monday by Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of legislation allowing the US to provide arms and military training to the Syrian rebels,

US military instructors have been working with Syrian rebels at training camps in Jordan and Turkey for some months. So putting the arms in their hands only awaited a decision in Washington.


Putin’s message to Netanyahu was intended to reach a wider audience than Jerusalem, such as Barack Obama in Washington and President Xi Jinping in Beijing ahead of Netanyahu’s talks there Tuesday.
Therefore, when US Secretary of State John Kerry landed in Moscow that day, in an attempt “bridge the divide” between their governments on the Syria conflict, he was preceded by a barrage of Russian condemnation of the Israeli air strikes in Damascus “as a threat to regional stability,” a stiff warning from the Russian foreign ministry to the “West” to stop “politicizing the issue of chemical weapons in Syria,” and Moscow’s “concern that world public opinion was being prepared for possible foreign military intervention.”



In other words, the Russian leader rejected in advance and with both hands any attempt by the US to use the Israeli air strikes as leverage for a deal with Moscow for ending the Syrian war. US weapons supplies to the rebels would furthermore be matched by stepped-up arms supplies to the Assad regime, which Putin is totally committed to preserving.
Kerry planned back-to-back meetings Tuesday with Russian officials focusing mainly on Syria but also covering the Russian angle on the Boston bombings, and hoped-for cooperation on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear issues.
The Chinese government’s cold shoulder to Israel was exhibited less directly that Moscow’s but no less firmly.  Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was invited to visit Beijing and meet President Xi two days before the prime arrived in the Chinese capital Tuesday to begin the official part of his visit. The Chinese president unveiled his peace plan before meeting the Israeli prime minister.



This plan emphasizes, as the key to a settlement, the Palestinian right to a state on the basis of 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital. It also adopts Abbas’s preconditions for talks, including a stop to settlement activities, an end of the Gaza blockade and “proper handling” of the Palestinian prisoners issue.
Clearly, Prime Minister Netanyahu would have been wiser to postpone his Chinese visit instead of taking off while Israeli air force blasts will still reverberating in Damascus. By staying at home, he would have displayed a firmer and steadier hand at the helm.
And after taking off, he would have done well not to linger for two days in Shanghai first. This gave the Russian leader the chance to catch him wrong-footed and administer a strong, publicized rebuke, so bearing down on the agenda of Netanyahu’s forthcoming talks with Chinese leaders.



Leave a comment

Posted by on May 12, 2013 in Uncategorized


Russia staffs Mediterranean fleet. Turkey weighs payback for Syrian bombings

DEBKAfile Special Report May 12, 2013


Russian Navy Admiral Viktor Chirkov said Sunday, May 12, that the process is underway for creating a permanent staff to run Russian fleet operations in the Mediterranean Sea.  Speaking at Sevastopol, the Black Sea fleet’s home port, Adm. Chirkov said a staff of 20 officers was already in place. And the Mediterranean deployment would comprise five to six warships and their service vessels as well possibly as nuclear submarines which, say our military sources, are armed with nuclear ballistic missiles.


DEBKAfile’s military sources: The new permanent deployment is the next Russian step for safeguarding Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus and deterring military attacks on his Hizballah allies and Iranian interests in their three-way bloc.
Moscow is also announcing loud and clear that Russia is finally restoring its military presence to the Middle East in 2013 after the last Soviet squadron exited the Mediterranean in 1992.


The Russian naval step came 24 hours after two car bombs reduced to rubble the center of the Turkish town of Reyhanli near the Syrian border, killing 46 people and injuring scores. Turkish ministers at the scene Sunday openly blamed Syrian military intelligence for the attack’s planning and execution.

This raised concerns in Moscow that Ankara was preparing to deliver a serious reprisal, possibly in the form of an aerial or missile assault, on Syrian military targets.


Russian tacticians reckoned that, after Israel’s two air strikes against Assad regime targets, the Tayyip Erdogan’s government could hardly avoid direct action without appearing to be failing in courage in the eyes of the Turkish public.
Some action is doubly pressing as Prime Minister Erdogan prepares to travel to Washington to meet President Barack Obama on May 16 and present him with evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons in his war on Syrian rebels.



The Reyhanli bombings and Turkey’s potential retaliation sent a fresh wave of alarm across the Syrian neighborhood. Once again, Israeli Air Force warplanes thundered Sunday across South Lebanon and over Hizballah strongholds in the eastern Beqaa Valley near the Syrian border.
Given all these circumstances, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s chances are virtually nil of getting anywhere in his trip to the Black Sea resort of Sochi to persuade President Vladimir Putin to hold back advanced S-300 anti-air missiles from Syria. He can expect to find the Russian president driving full speed for arms deals – not just with Syria, but also with Iraq, Yemen and Sudan.
Putin clearly regards Obama’s decision to keep the US clear of military involvement in the Syrian conflict as an open gateway for a Russian military comeback to the Middle East after a 21-year absence, armed with a cornucopia of weapons for winning clients. For now, there is no stopping him, not even if Turkey or Israel were to embark themselves on military intervention.




Leave a comment

Posted by on May 12, 2013 in Uncategorized


Conflicts Forum Weekly Comment – SIRIA

Conflicts Forum

3 – 10 May 2013

The main focus this week has been to gauge the ‘rationale’ behind the Israeli strikes on Syria last Friday and Sunday – and to assess the ramifications.  Ostensibly, Israel claimed its actions were directed against preventing Hizbullah attaining strategic, ‘game changing’ weapons. This policy has been announced to the West over recent years (in different contexts: firstly, S-300 surface-to-air missiles, then Fateh 110 missiles, and lately chemical weapons). Western states silently have acquiesced and therefore consented to this claimed ‘entitlement’, and the pretext therefore is no doubt seen in Israel as one against which the western states cannot easily object.  Nearly one week later however, there is no substantive evidence that weapons destined for Hizbullah were indeed intercepted.  True, the Jurmana research facility near Damascus, a site widely known to have been set up to serve the military needs of the resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine, was attacked by missiles in a spectacular of pyrotechnics last Sunday, but informally, Hizbullah sources suggest that a consignment of “effective” weapons had just recently successfully reached them (this was also confirmed by senior reporters in the Israeli press).

Possibly connected to this, Lebanon, from Friday onwards, has been subject to intensive and low-altitude Israeli over-flights – as if the Israelis had failed in their initial objective – but were still searching to locate the consignment, but had failed to halt (assuming the Hizbullah claim is taken to be accurate, which it probably is).  It is quite likely, however, that Israel will have had some partial intercept intelligence of a transfer, which Israeli officials will have presented in their ‘road-shows’ around Europe to underpin their mission rationale.

In any event, as the dust settles, it seems that casualties in Damascus have been much, much smaller than claimed by opposition sources (the Syrian army is a citizen army, and major losses such as claimed, cannot realistically be hidden from the wider population), and no strategic military outcome has ensued. Hizbullah is already fully armed, and Israeli intelligence has suggested for some time now that the Fateh 110 missiles are already a part of its arsenal.

All this suggests then, that that the attack was more political than substantive. What then was Israel’s rationale?  Opinion in this region suggests two possibilities: the first is connected to timing: the raid occurred in the wake of substantive gains in the field by the Syrian army against the armed opposition. There are some unsubtantiated accounts that Israel’s highly visible, shock and awe-style attack on Damascus may have been intended to give a fillip to the opposition, and to facilitate an opposition assault within Damascus – just before the Kerry-Putin meeting in Moscow – an occurrence, which had it happened and been successful, might have strengthened the opposition’s hand in such talks. More probable, in our view, is that this whole affair was constructed with the aim of supporting opinion within the US in favour of more direct intervention in Syria.  Israel no doubt calculated (correctly) that they could just about get away with such a demonstrative intervention in Syria without starting a war – and if the interventionists succeeded in pushing Obama to ignore his ‘red line’ on the Syria issue using this precedent, they would be the more strongly placed to do the same to Obama in respect to intervention in Iran.

The strategic ramifications of the Israeli attacks effectively have raised the Syrian conflict from a contained proxy war, fought within Syria, to one in which external parties (Israel, Iran, Hizbullah and Russia) have stood at the brink of direct external military intervention in the conflict – as result of Israel’s past three direct interventions on Syria, and in the event that Israel mounts a fresh attack.  In other words, the Israeli actions have placed us at greater risk of the Syrian conflict evolving into a wider, regional conflict. Among the consequences to Sunday’s attacks, Israeli and other sources (see here too) have been reporting the strongly adverse reaction by President Putin to the Israeli action.  Putin is reported to have directly warned Netanyahu that Russia would not tolerate any further attack on Syria, and any such move would bring a direct Russian response to his actions – as well as additional Russian weapons systems being transferred to Syria.  (Netanyahu also is reported in Israel to have received a cold reception on his subsequent visit to China, but not to the extent of the verbal ‘dressing-down’ that he received in Moscow). The Iranian Supreme Leader too promised ‘full and unlimited’ support for Syria, and Hizbullah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, spoke of a closer military alliance with Syria, and of Syria’s decision – in consequence – to accelerate weapons supplies and to include new ‘balance changing’ ones to Hizbullah (a direct challenge to Israel).  Strikingly, the Hizbullah leader also pointed to a Syrian decision to ‘reclaim’ the Golan, as a further fallout to the Israeli strikes. Are we therefore on the brink of war? At this point, probably not.  Efforts (both domestic and external) to corner Obama into intervention on Syria over an alleged breach of his chemical weapons ‘red line’, have somewhat collapsed: as Obama explained: “We have evidence that there has been the use of chemical weapons inside of Syria, but I don’t make decisions based on “perceived.” And I can’t organize international coalitions around “perceived.” We’ve tried that in the past, by the way, and it didn’t work out well”.  The evidence is not there; and ICC Prosecutor, Carla del Ponte’s, statement that there were direct suspicions of the use of the nerve gas Sarin – but by the opposition, rather than by the Syrian government – has allowed Obama to kick the issue into the undergrowth of a thorough (and long) enquiry. Conflicts Forum believes that Obama – with his historical legacy in mind – still clings to the wish to be viewed in history as the man who extracted America from its troublesome Middle East wars, rather than started others. Iranian sources noted that messages had passed in the aftermath of the Israeli action to Iran, Syria and Russia, that the US was not about to intervene militarily – and Israel too subsequently has been sending flurries of messages out that it too was not about to start a war.

Where does this leave Syria?  It emerges in a stronger, more confident position both militarily and politically (see here for recent upbeat comments by a senior Syrian official).  For the time being, the focus now will be on the issue of possible negotiations at an international conference proposed for the end of May.  In the political sphere, it is the US who has blinked first — it is America that has moved closer toward the Russian position (i.e. the absence of the earlier demand that Assad should go), whereas Syria, Iran and Hizbullah have, in recent days, given public expression to the mounting of a reinvigorated resistance front.

But will the West be able to fulfil its side of the Moscow agreement – by presenting a credible (and empowered) negotiating partner from the opposition side at the table?  Russia will not have such a corresponding difficulty with Damascus.  And in the interim, the Syrian government forces are likely aim to extend further their military successes in the field.  But this, it seems, will not displease the US: signalling perhaps, the beginning of a major shift in US thinking. Reports coming out from the Moscow talks, suggest that a principal American objective in Moscow has become the maintenance of the Syrian Army (even one under Assad’s command).  It seems – belatedly – that the US may be giving up on the hope – if it ever truly existed beyond a pipe dream – of the opposition having any prospect (or indeed the will) to eliminate the Islamist armed groups – especially the Al-Qae’da linked Al-Nusra Front.  And now, the US seems inclined to the view that it is the Syrian Army that represents the only force capable of destroying Al-Qaida in Syria – and moreover is successfully doing it.  Perhaps no ceasefire therefore? The Syrian army will continue to attack the Islamist opposition, whilst in parallel, the non-jihadist opposition is to be invited into negotiations. Is this feasible? Can the so-called ‘seculars’ accept this division? The Americans are already preparing the opposition for negotiation, but can the more secular opposition really sit in negotiations with the government, whilst the Al-Nusra Front is being taken down by the Syrian Army? Will the conference ever be held?  If not, then what?

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 12, 2013 in Uncategorized


Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran)

February 12th, 2012 | Author: Patriot

From: “Stephen Sniegoski”


Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government: James Morris Dares to Mention the Taboo History

In Russia Today’s recent Crosstalk program on Syria, guest  James Morris  was brave enough to incisively point out the taboo fact that the Israel  lobby has been in the forefront  in pushing a hardline interventionist  approach for the US toward that divided country. The host and the two other  guests on the show pooh-poohed the idea  on the grounds that (in their  minds) it would not be in Israel’s national interest to topple the secular  Assad regime and possibly bring about an Islamist state that could be even  more hostile to Israel.  But when one  moves from speculation to an analysis  of the actual position of members of the Israel lobby, one can see that  Morris was completely correct.  Moreover, Morris was completely correct  in  pointing out that the Israel lobby’s  position  has nothing to do with  ending oppression, and everything to do with Israeli security, as members of  the Israel lobby have perceived Israel’s interest (which might not be the  same as the Crosstalk threesome.)


The neoconservatives, the vanguard of the Israel lobby, have especially been  ardent in their advocacy of a hardline, interventionist position toward  Syria. Evidence abounds for this finding, but it is best encapsulated by an  August 2011 open letter from  the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense  of Democracies (an organization which claims to address any “threat facing  America, Israel and the West”)  to  President Obama, urging  him to take  stronger measures against Syria.  Among the  signatories of the letter are  such neocon luminaries  as: Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of neocon “godfather”  Norman Podhoretz and a former National Security adviser to President George  W. Bush); the Council on Foreign Relations’ Max Boot; “Weekly Standard”  editor Bill Kristol;   Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy  under George W. Bush and an author of the “Clean Break” policy paper);  Joshua Muravchik (affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute [AEI],  the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and “Commentary”);  Frederick W. Kagan (AEI, co-author of the “surge” in Iraq);  Robert Kagan  (co-founder of the Project for the New American Century PNAC); James Woolsey  (head of the CIA under Clinton and chair of  the  Foundation for Defense of  Democracies); Randy Scheunemann (former President of the Committee for the  Liberation of Iraq and foreign affairs adviser to John McCain in his 2008  presidential campaign); Reuel Marc Gerecht (former Director of the Project  for the New American Century’s Middle East Initiative and a former resident  fellow at AEI); Michael Makovsky (advisor to the propagandistic Office of  Special Plans, which was under Douglas Feith); John Hannah ( senior fellow  at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [WINEP] and a former  national security adviser to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney); and  Gary  Schmitt (AEI and former President for the Project for a New American  Century).

As Morris notes in his presentation, elimination of the Assad regime in  Syria was not an idea conceived by either  the neocons or the broader Israel  lobby; rather it  can be traced back to the Israeli  Likudniks, being  articulated by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, “A Strategy for Israel in the  Nineteen Eighties.”    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 ethnic and sectarian  groupings. Yinon believed that this would not be a difficult undertaking  because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and  religious divisions. In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of  powerless mini-statelets that could in no way 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.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 51)

What stands out in the stark contrast to the debate taking place  today is that Yinon’s rationale for  eliminating the dictatorial regimes in  Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with  their oppressive practices and lack of democracy, but rather was based  solely on Israel’s geostrategic interests-the aim being to permanently  weaken Israel’s enemies.     The neoconservatives took up the gist of the  Yinon’s position  in their 1996 Clean Break policy paper, whose authors  included neocons Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, which was  presented to then incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It  urged him  to use military force against a number of Israel’s enemies, which beginning  with Iraq would include  “weakening, containing, and even rolling back  Syria.”  Once again the fundamental concern was Israeli security, not  liberty and democracy for the people of those countries. (“The Transparent  Cabal,” p. 90)

Numerous neocons before and after 9/11 expressed the need to  confront Syria in order to protect the security of both the United States  and Israel, whose interests they claimed coincided.  And this position on  Syria was concurred in  by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, one  month before the US invasion of Iraq,  identified it, along with Libya and  Iran,  as an ideal target for  future US action.  Sharon stated:  “These are  irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons [of] mass  destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make  that easier to achieve.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,”  p. 172)

A month after Bush’s 2004 re-election,  Bill Kristol would emphasize  the key position of Syria in the “war on terrorism.”  He wrote in the  ”Weekly Standard” that because Syria was allegedly interfering with  America’s efforts to put down the insurgency  in Iraq,  it was thus  essential for the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as  part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” (Quoted in “The  Transparent Cabal,” pp. 253-254)

The close ties  between Syria and Iran would begin to provide a  fundamental reason for the neocons’ desire to take action against Syria.  It  was this factor that shaped neocon thinking on the Israel’s July 2006  incursion into Lebanon.  Some months after the Israeli invasion, neocon  Meyrav Wurmser would affirm that it was neocon influence in the Bush administration that  was setting US policy on Lebanon, with the aim being a direct Israeli  confrontation with Syria. “The neocons are responsible for the fact that  Israel got a lot of time and space,” Wurmser stated. “They believed that  Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that  Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It  was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the  thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit.”  Furthermore, “If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow  for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in  the Middle East.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 278)

And any action by Iran to protect its Syrian ally would provide a  casus belli for the United States to attack Iran, which is what the neocons  sought.  Michael Ledeen opined, “The only way we are going to win this war  is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus and they are not going  to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and  Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can  accomplish it.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)  Bill Kristol argued the same point in his article,  “It’s Our War,”  underscoring the need for direct American involvement in the ongoing  conflict. America “might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression  [arms provided to Hezbollah]  with a military strike against Iranian nuclear  facilities.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)

As can be seen, the goal of eliminating the Assad Baathist regime  has existed among Israeli Likudniks and the neocons for some time.  And it  currently propels the demand for militant action  against the Syrian  government.    Moreover, action taken against Syria has become viewed as a  way of seriously weakening Iran (perceived as a much more dangerous enemy),  or even leading to war with it.    That Israel might not benefit from regime  change in Syria, and that some in Israel might actually fear such a  development, does not alter the obvious fact that the neocons and much of  the overall Israel lobby support it.  And it is they who affect the policy  of the United States.

Stephen  Sniegoski


A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government

The Israel Lobby’s Role in Pushing for Regime Change in Syria

Going after Syria in accordance with the neocon ‘Clean Break’ war for Israel agenda that the Iraq invasion was based on!:

Listen to what AIPAC spin-off think tank (Washington Institute for Near East Policy – WINEP) mouthpiece Jeffrey White said about Syria on C-SPAN’s ‘Washington Journal’ on May 5th, 2013 (also fits with what James Morris said on Russia Today’s ‘Crosstalk’ via with regard to going after Syria to weaken Iran and cut off Hezbollah!):

WINEP’s Jeffrey White on Latest Developments on Syria:

CBS News correspondent Allan Pizzey just mentioned (at the end of the following CBS News segment which didn’t include his ending comments to Scott Pelley which I heard on air) that civil war in Syria would be good for Israel (such is why the Israel lobby has been encouraging such in accordance with Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon’s ‘Strategy for Israel in the 1980′s’ via which James Morris mentioned on Russia Today via as well during his Press TV interviews at

Former Israeli general: “Best timing” for Syria attack

Of course Zionists (like Daniel Pipes and others) are going to back both sides to perpetuate the Syrian civil war as they certainly aren’t going to want Al Qaeda/FSA to take over there.. So the best way to play it is to keep the civil war going per Israeli Oded Yinon’s plan which is working out well for them thus far. Take a look at Iraq for how well ‘democracy’ is working out there!

Jewish Israel 1st neocon warmonger Bill Kristol pushes rest of ‘Clean Break’ war for Israel vs Syria like he did vs Iraq with over 5,000 US troops dead:

Kristol Clear:

30 Years Ago, Neocons Were More Candid About Their Israel-Centered Views:

White House says the US may use military force against Syria

Geraldo Rivera: My Sources Tell Me Benghazi Was About Running Missiles to Syrian Rebels

Jordan Agrees: Israel Can Use Airspace to Attack Syria

Hagel Orders Unit to Jordan, Warns About Intervention in Syria

200 US Troops in Jordan Could Become 20,000 for Syria Invasion

US sending weapons to Syria

US to give $123 million military aid package to Syrian rebels (as US states, counties, cities go bankrupt):

Assad says West will pay for backing al Qaeda in Syria

Arab-Israeli conflict at heart of Syrian conflict:

“Arm the Syrian Rebels. Now,” urge fellows at think tank established to protect Israel…

Report: US Troops Training Syrian Rebels in Jordan

Washington’s Strategic Policy Shift on Syria: Edging
Closer to Direct Military Intervention? – See more at

US, NATO Prepare Syria Intervention

Middle East expert suspects Arab-backed opposition’s intelligence cooperation with Mossad enabled Israeli strike on Syria

Why Remember Iraq (by Philip Giraldi)?

we’re about to repeat the same idiocies, warns P. Giraldi

Conflict and Chaos for Syria in article by Karen DeYoung in Wa. Post 12/24

Ex-CNN Reporter: I Received Orders to Manipulate News to Demonize Syria and Iran

Rep Walter Jones’ HCR 107 to prevent US war on Syria

Al Qaeda grows powerful in Syria as endgame nears

From Roumania to Syria: The Jewish Lobby’s Role in Promoting U.S. ‘Human Rights’ Foreign Policy

Humanitarian Buffer Zones in Syria — How misinformation obscures the Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy:

The Yinon Thesis Vindicated: Neocons, Israel, and the Fragmentation of Syria

Hidden US-Israeli Military Agenda: “Break Syria into Pieces”

Israeli Official Predicts Syria’s Fragmentation and for Lebanon to Suffer Same Fate

Damascus Street Notes:

Why western military intervention in Syria is coming soon: to protect Israel:

Writer of above article is mentioned in the Reuters article included at as he was the Arab journalist who conveyed that Bin Laden was going to do 911 because of US support for Israel!

Open War? Obama backs Syria rebels ‘infiltrated with terrorists’: 

BREAKING: US sending Patriot surface-to-air missiles to Turkey – reports:

MORE: Up to 400 US servicemen being sent to Turkey to operate surface-to-air batteries in Turkey – reports

Iran warns Turkey over NATO missiles

Iran: Patriot Missiles In Turkey First Step To Next World War

Iran says it will ‘never allow’ forcible overthrow of Assad’s government

How leftist “anti-zionists” are allied with Israel against Syria:

Kucinich: US ‘Immeasurably’ Closer to War in Syria

US deploys troops to Turkey amid Syria unrest: US General

US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD

Thousands of US troops arrive near Syrian shore on USS Eisenhower

U.S. military in Jordan, has eyes on Syria chemical weapons (looks like the AIPAC/Neocon war for Israel agenda vs Syria is moving along with the US on the brink of invading Syria next per the rest of the neocon ‘Clean Break’ war for Israel agenda that Iraq was based on as well – see for more and click on following links as well!):

Syria preparing chemicals for weapons – @BarbaraStarrCNN report on Security Clearance –

No mention by former AIPAC newsletter editor Wolf Blitzer and other Zionist Israel firsters at CNN about how Israel lobby is pushing Syrian regime change to weaken Iran:

Neocon mouthpiece John McCain pushing yet another war for Israel vs Syria (per rest of the neocon ‘Clean Break’ agenda via that the Iraq invasion was based on which McCain pushed for as well!):

‘No confirmed reports’ Syrian govt preparing to use chemical weapons – UN chief

No confirmed reports Assad preparing to use chemical weapons: Ban

Pre-Empty: US ramps up WMD rhetoric against Syria:

US ramps up threats in ‘psychological’ war on Assad (for Israel lobby pushing Syria regime change):

‘Ground being prepared for Syria intervention’ – ex-US Chief of Staff

Former Powell adviser ‘skeptical’ of ‘politicized’ US intelligence on Syria

See what Lawrence Wilkerson said in following AIPAC VPRO documentary:

The Israel Lobby:

Listen to fmr CIA analyst Ray McGovern discuss USS Liberty & Syria WMD propaganda!:

“Justification” to Wage a “Preemptive War”: US Repeats Syrian Chemical Weapons “Warning:

Read more about the author of the above piece via the following link:

Jordan: U.S. forces plan shield against Syria

Confirmed: Pentagon deploys military forces to Jordan-Syria border

Russia Warns Against NATO Missiles on Syrian Border

Senator Rand Paul calls out Romney on Syria, defense spending, and war

Kristol’s declaration should force media to acknowledge, Israel is at core of neoconservatism

Chris Matthews calls out neocons for endlessly pushing Middle East wars

James Morris mentions above linked ‘Russia Today’ (RT) appearance in following BBC ‘World Have Your Say’ broadcast which aired to millions on the BBC World Service on July 6th, 2012:

BBC World Have Your Say – How To End The Syrian Violence?:


WINEP provides forum for Syrian National Council — and cover for Israel

A surreptitious WINEP project is pushing cataclysmic regime change in Syria

David Pollock (of AIPAC’s spin-off think tank WINEP – Washington Institute for Near East Policy) has been skyping with the Syrian rebels as well according to what he mentioned on C-SPAN’s ‘Washington Journal’ via following link:

WINEP’s David Pollock on C-SPAN’s ‘Washington Journal’ on WINEP/AIPAC Israel first associate David Pollock at following link:

Syrian opposition wish to “be friends” with Israel

Is Israel slyly inciting genocide against Alawites as prelude to creation of Kosovo-style enclave in Syria?

Red Cross: Syrian Conflict Now a Civil War (civil war is exactly what James Morris predicted would happened in the referenced ‘Russia Today’ ‘Crosstalk’ broadcast – Israel firsters foster Syria war and then use loose ‘chemical weapons’ as another ‘reason’ to intervene in Syria for Israel!):

Operation on Syria Successful, but the Patient Died (by Philip Giraldi):

Joe Lieberman and the Genesis of Israel’s ‘Partnership for Freedom’ with Middle East Dissidents
‘Intervention into Syria already underway’ –  Phyllis Bennis to RT

Washington’s road to Iran goes through Syria — but who’s in the driver’s seat (scroll down to comments at following link)?

‘If West stops military aid to opposition, Syria will be at negotiation table the very next day’

Obama caves to Israel lobby & threatens intervention in Syria (for Israel)

Dempsey Backs Away from Obama’s Threat to Intervene in Syria

Surviving a storm: Palestinian refugees caught in Syrian crossfire (Won’t see such on US pro-Israel biased media!):

On the Edge of War (Can diplomacy succeed with Iran and Syria?):

Ron Paul: Hands Off Syria! Let’s Not Fall for the Same Lies Again!

All roads lead to… Iran? ‘War at core of MidEast turmoil’

Patrick Seale ‘War Clouds over the Greater Middle East’

Patrick Seale: The Urgent Need to Prevent a Middle East War:

Media Propagates Myth of Israel’s Non-Involvement in Syria

‘Syria messy civil war distorted by Annan plan’

VILE HYPOCRISY EXPOSED by reporter doing his job

Nasrallah to Assange: Hezbollah talked to Syria opposition; we want dialogue, US & Israel want civil war

Deadly clashes in Lebanon raise fears of Syria-like conflict (right in accordance with the neocon ‘Clean Break’ war for Israel agenda that James Morris mentioned from in the above link ‘Cross Talk’ appearance):

Washington Post reports that US supplying weapons to Syrian rebels:

 JINSA: Strengthening Israel by promoting Syrian ‘Chalabi’ (fits with what James Morris mentioned about the ‘JINSA crowd’ in the above RT ‘CrossTalk’ interview):

JINSA: Arab Spring disorder makes Israel stronger

Iran cornered with key ally Syria on the brink?

Israel calls up Reserves re Egypt, Syria

Syria -US, Israel, Saudis Have Plotted For Years:

Saudi Arabia: The Neocons’ Once and Future Target

Europe blindly following Israeli interest on Syria

Keep in mind that the ‘JINSA crowd’ was after Iraq for Israel as well via their ‘Clean Break’ agendawhich was also mentioned by James Morris during that RT ‘CrossTalk’ broadcast linked above!
Even The Daily Beast censored the link out of a recent piece about ‘Neocon Newt’ Gingrich as the following blog entry by Maidhc O’ CatHail conveys (scroll to comments section at bottom of following link if interested further)!:

NATO and CIA Covertly Arming Syrian Rebels in Order to Weaken Iran (for Israel)

Obama Commits to US Intervention in Syria

US Can’t Be Bystander, President Insists

Obama Commits to US Intervention in Syria US Can’t Be Bystander, President Insist

Russia Troops In Syria? Report Claims Military Unit Arrives At Syrian Port

US Syria mission still possible – but at what price?

’U.S. pursues policy of divide and conquer’


The following fits with what James Morris mentioned near the end of his RT CrossTalk appearance linked above with Dr. Sniegoski’s piece about such!

‘Neocon John’ McCain wants to arm the Syrian rebels (exactly what James Morris said would happen at the end of that RT ‘CrossTalk’ Syria broadcast linked above):

McCain wants to arm Syrian rebels

McCain: U.S. must lead (for Israel on behalf of AIPAC and the Neocon war for Israel agenda) in Syria (see comments at following link):

McCain once again calls for arming Syrian rebels

Lieberman-McCain Strike Again (scroll down to comments of following URL as well):

American сannibalism in Syria (Op-Ed)

Neocon mouthpiece John McCain calls for airstrikes in Syria:

Additional at following URL:

Neocon mouthpiece John McCain calls for airstrikes in Syria:

On Syria, Follow McCain (says pro-Israel/Neocon Weekly Standard & FDD)

US Senator John McCain gives the game away – the real reason for an attack on Syria would be to weaken Iran (for Israel)

And pandering neocon toady Mitt Romney said the following:

“”If we can turn Syria and Lebanon away from Iran, we finally have the capacity to get Iran to pull back,” Romney said. He added that the United States should make it clear that military action would be taken if Iran pursued nuclear weapons.

Republicans voice support for arming Syria opposition

US softens stance on arms for Syria rebels:

Obama Admin Orders Military Planning for Syria Intervention

Syria: Straining credulity?
By Alastair Crooke

“The UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry condemns the Syrian government of crimes against humanity, but only on the basis of what the opposition says, and without having investigated evidence of opposition “crimes”: and then proceeds to “charge” the Syrian government with this process based simply on “reasonable suspicion”: Do they really believe what they have written, or is it just a part of “writing the script”? [2]

UN Security Council backs Annan peace plan


Eric Margolis wrote:

As I’ve been reporting, US/Brit Special forces training, arming, directing anti-Asad regime rebels. Lebanon’s far right sending men and arms into Syria, backed by US and Saudis. Full court press to overthrow Asad regime as way of hurting ally Iran. Washington looking for a Syrian general to head insurgent forces.

19% Support Increased U.S. Involvement In Syria

Additional via following link:

CrossTalking about Syria on ‘Russia Today’ (RT) with James Morris

Israel lobby pushing Iran sanctions (acts of war as Ron Paul has accurately said) which is driving up the oil prices in the process:

US pays price in money and blood for Israel’ (latest Press TV interview with James Morris during which he mentions ‘Neocon John’ McCain as well)

Following is a youtube of the above:

US pays price in money and blood for Israel’

Israeli lobbies dragging US into wars

Press TV talks to James Morris on ‘CNN GOP Debate’

Only Ron Paul is not owned by AIPAC / Interview with James Morris / editor of

Israel lobby behind Iran tension pushing US to the brink of WW3:

James Morris on PressTV – “US neo-cons seek war on Syria, Iran”

‘Israel pushing Obama into war with Iran’

Press TV – ‘Pro-Israel lobby has stranglehold on US political system’

Russia says action on Syria, Iran may go nuclear
Israeli TV report shows air force gearing-up for Iran attack, says moment of truth is near

James Morris on Israel’s rarely discussed Samson Option

Additional Press TV and Russia Today interviews with James Morris linked via youtube at

Posted in Zionist Threat

14 Responses to “Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran)”

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 11, 2013 in Uncategorized


Gatekeeping for Zion

by  Philip Giraldi:

Gatekeeping for Zion

Posted By Philip Giraldi On May 9, 2013

People like myself who are either paleoconservatives or libertarians generally base their opposition to Israel and its Lobby on the costs of the de facto alliance, both financial and in terms of the wars and political chaos it has triggered. We try to demonstrate how damage to rule of law and actual U.S. interests has been a byproduct of the relationship and seek to explain what a sane U.S. foreign policy might actually look like, end of story. But it is different sensibility coming from the more humanitarian inclined political left of the spectrum, which one would assume to have a natural inclination to oppose purveyors of oppression and human suffering. With that in mind, I would observe it is remarkable how ineffective the left has been in mobilizing any serious opposition to Israel’s policies.

There is a kind of groupthink that might provide an explanation for the lack of results in spite of what sometimes appears to be frenzied activity on the part of the cluster of liberal groups that focus on the Middle East. Gatherings to “Expose AIPAC” often focus on strategy and training, hardly discussing or challenging the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) at all. They also frequently fail to confront the full array of predominantly Jewish groups actively promoting Israel to include The Hudson Institute, WINEP, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, MEMRI, the American Enterprise Institute’s foreign policy wing, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The plethora of well-resourced and actively engaged Jewish groups involved in foreign policy and more particularly Israel promotion is a fact of life inside the Beltway and a critical element supporting the interventionist narrative in spite of the country as a whole becoming decidedly war weary.

At the same time, most American Jews are actually either cool or even hostile to the policies of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Peter Beinart has called for a boycott of goods produced in the Israeli settlements while Jeffrey Goldberg has denounced a coalition partner in Netanyahu’s government, writing “The Jewish Home party advances an ideology that will bring about the destruction (the self-destruction) of Israel.” This reaction to the Israeli drift rightwards politically speaking probably explains why most organizations on the political left that are critical of Israel are themselves led by American Jews and, to their credit, they are very outspoken regarding Israel’s human rights violations and its policies towards the Palestinians. But it sometimes seems that they are restrained in their critiques, something that might be attributed to what could be referred to as Jewish identity politics. Instead of biting the bullet and confronting the fact that it is leading Jewish organizations and their in-the-pocket politicians that have quite plausibly been thesine qua non in unleashing a series of actual and impending wars against the Muslim world, they instead sometimes serve as gatekeepers to frame and divert an uncomfortable truth while looking for alternative explanations.

Part of the problem is that even though major Jewish organizations’ support of interventionism represents what is only a minority opinion among Americans in general, they pretend to represent everyone who is Jewish and have successfully sold that canard to both congress and the media. And make no mistake, it is the financial and political muscle of Jewish groups like Anti-Defamation League, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, The American Jewish Committee, and the AIPAC that have given the green light to the hard line Israeli governments that have done so much damage to U.S. interests over the past decade. Christian Zionists are highly visible and are frequently cited to demonstrate the diversity of the Israeli Lobby, but they are largely irrelevant in terms of the actual dynamics of the pro-Israel effort. The reality is that no other national lobby can gather 13,000 of the faithful to its convention and count on the enthusiastic presence of numerous politicians from both parties as AIPAC does every year. But in spite of the quite visible power of the Jewish organizations it is sometimes more convenient and less troubling to look instead for other reasons to explain Tel Aviv’s misbehavior.

Progressives who are nervous about mentioning the shameless politicking of Jewish organizations frequently parrot what I call the Noam Chomsky rationalization, engaging actively in criticizing Israeli behavior while at the same time blaming the Middle East farrago on outside forces like American imperialism, capitalism, or oil. This approach largely exonerates Israel from actual blame for what it does and it also by extension minimizes the role of the Jewish groups that constitute the core of the pro-Israel lobby because it is claimed that Washington drives the Israeli government’s behavior based on its own self-interest not vice versa. As a result, the critics seldom question the legitimacy of the self-defined Jewish state and they are sometimes reluctant to support any measures that would actually do damage to Israel and its perceived interests.

Norman Finkelstein, a reliable progressive critic of Israeli actions, is of the Chomsky persuasion. He believesthat the United States would have attacked Iraq anyway based on its own interests whether or not the fervently pro-Israel neocons had occupied key positions in the Pentagon, National Security Council, and White House. Finkelstein, in an article on the Israel Lobby, maintains that “fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn’t been affected by the Lobby,” rejects the view that Israel is a liability for U.S. national interests and states instead that it is a “unique and irreplaceable American asset.” He describes American Jewish elites as only “’pro’ an Israel that is useful to the U.S.” He insists that the neocons do not “generally have a primary allegiance to Israel [or] in fact, any allegiance to Israel.” The evidence, however, suggests otherwise: even agreeing that the Iraq war had a number of godfathers, the folks in the Pentagon and White House who cooked the books and led the charge had extremely well documented strong personal and even financial ties to Israel, so much so that several of them were accused of passing classified information to the Israeli Embassy.

The shaping of the narrative to minimize the role of organizations that are demonstrably Jewish – albeit unrepresentative of Jewish opinion in America -has also been very effective in some media circles. An April 2007 ninety minute presentation on PBS’s Frontpage with Bill Moyers “Buying the War,” a critical look at the genesis of the Iraq invasion, did not mention Israel’s supporters even once. And one only has consider the recent Obama trip to Israel as well as the interrogation at the Chuck Hagel nomination, which was driven by organizations like AIPAC from behind the scenes, to realize that the United States government is no free agent when it comes to Middle Eastern policy. Ignoring the dominant role of “Jewish leaders” and the well-funded organizations that they head which falsely pretend to represent their entire community is a convenient obfuscation if one does not want to address causality, a bit like being concerned about global warming without looking at the actual science.

President Obama recognizes the power represented by Jewish groups acting as a cohesive and focused political entity when he meets with them collectively in the White House, so why the reluctance in recognizing and confronting their persistent pro-war, pro-intervention agenda? At a March 7th session, shortly before his trip to Israel, Obama met with Alan Solow, Lee Rosenberg and Michael Kassen of AIPAC; Barry Curtiss-Lusher of the Anti-Defamation League; David Harris of the American Jewish Committee; Jerry Silverman of Jewish Federations of North America; Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz; former Congressman Robert Wexler; Dan Mariaschin of B’nai B’rith; Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street; and Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Admittedly the linking of Jewish organizations’ easy access to policymakers with their possible role in launching a string of failed wars in Asia and still more in the offing on behalf of Israel makes many people uncomfortable because it invites the dual loyalty critique and even more extreme commentary that is ultimately racist in nature, but there you have it. The president knows who is pulling his strings and so should the rest of us.

Americans can either confront the ugly realities of what has been going on for the past twelve years or they can pretend that what they are seeing is not really there. The gatekeepers are understandably concerned lest Washington’s next war be blamed on American Jews so it is far better to suggest against all evidence that Israel is a pawn of American imperialism or that recent wars have been about oil or capitalist exploitation. The reality is that if progressives (and the rest of us) really want to stop a proxy war against Syria followed by a catastrophic conflict with Iran we have to take the blinkers off and be willing to confront Jewish groups like AIPAC and the ADL directly and persistently.

Read more by Philip Giraldi

Article printed from Original:

URL to article:


Leave a comment

Posted by on May 11, 2013 in Uncategorized


Syria: Great Game or Just a Tug of War?

Too many states, large and small, see themselves as having a vested interest in Syria’s outcome.


John Kerry and Bashar al-Assad in better times.
John Kerry and Bashar al-Assad in better times.

The visit by US secretary of State John Kerry to Russia earlier this week gave hope that an imminent diplomatic breakthrough in Syria is on the horizon. The reason for this hope is the realizationthat a military solution in Syria has proven much more difficult than expected. The Syrian army and the opposition are unable to deliver a decisive victory against one another after three years of battle that cost over 70, 000 Syrian lives and millions of refugees.


The Syrian conflict is much more complex than expected because it quickly evolved into a regional and international tug of war between great powers like the US, Russia, China, Iran, and Israel, and minor players like Jordan and the Gulf States. Each of those countries is vying for its own interests in this important regional country.

For China and Russia, the real issue is not just to prevent the US and Israel from dislodging an important ally and converting Syria from an important regional player into a US satellite state, but to challenge the US policies and hegemony around the world as rising super powers.

For Iran, the loss of the Syrian regime would end its historic expansion in the Levant and would isolate its Hezbollah colony in Lebanon. It is very important for Iran, moreover, which views itself as a regional powerhouse with regional interest and allies, to maintain its foothold in the Mediterranean and at Israel’s doorstep.

Its historic alliance with the Syrian regime gave Iran a much-needed Arab face that it used to increase its presence and influence in the region. More importantly, however, Iran uses the Syrian regime as well as Hamas and Hezbollah, as a first line of defense against its arch-enemy Israel.

Israel, in the meantime, sees the Syrian conflict as an important element in its wider conflict with Iran. Moreover, deposing the Damascus regime is a strategic imperative for Israel to ensure its supremacy over all of the Arab states especially after converting Iraq from a powerful Arab state with regional ambitions into an Iranian satellite and failed state.

Within the conservative American and Israeli movements Syria and Iran were supposed to be the next target after the war in Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein. Having powerful unfriendly Arab states in the Middle East can pose a future danger to US and Israeli hegemony in the region and is something that should be addressed according to the neoconservative thinking in the US and Israel.

The war against Iraq that saw the establishment of the Bush doctrine of “preemptive war” was supposed to start the remaking of the Middle East and create surgical chaos before new weakened and fragile states emerge. Such states would depend on the US for their survival and pose no threat to Israel for decades to come.

The administration of President Barack Obama came in to power with the intention to roll back the Bush doctrine of preemptive wars in the Middle East and prevent Israel and its neoconservative allies from completing their overarching strategy of remaking the Middle East into chaotic and fragile states. Ironically, what made this strategy so successful was none other the Arab dictatorial regimes themselves. The regimes of Saddam Hussein and Bashaar al Assad were brutal and oppressive dictatorships and inherently inflexible toward more democratic reform and allowing their citizens breathing space outside their suffocating control. Demolishing such regimes that lack basic legitimacy in the eyes of an oppressed citizenry proved much easier than expected.

Obama’s cautious approach toward Syria put a stop on the US and Israeli drive to remake the Middle East and forced the Israeli leadership to halt its war plans, for now, at least, against Iran.

The biggest prize for Israel is Iran, not Syria, but Syria is a necessary step toward defeating Iran by defanging its Syrian and Lebanese allies. This explains why conservative and powerful American lawmakers like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are pushing the Obama administration toward more active military involvement in Syria that goes beyond diplomatic and financial support for the opposition and the refugees.

While the Obama administration also views Iran, and, to a lesser extent Syria, as a major threat to its interests in the region, its approach toward dealing with it is less confrontational and definitely not through military means. The irony of this is that the Obama administration ended up becoming a lesser threat to Iran and the regime of Bashaar al Assad because it considers clandestine operations, diplomacy, and containment as the best approach toward containing Iran and its Syrian ally. Kerry’s meeting with the Russian leadership is clear evidence that the Obama administration is hoping to coax the Russians and the Chinese to support an international conference to end the conflict in a manner acceptable to all concerned. Unless different kind of variables emerges on the ground, such as a military confrontation with Israel, or large-scale use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, the Obama administration is content with a management approach to the Syrian conflict.

Ali Younes is a writer and analyst based in Washington D.C. He can be reached at: and on Twitter at @clearali.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2013 in Uncategorized


The real friends, and real enemies, of Syria

Excerpts on Syria from Seyyid Hassan Nasrallah’s latest”  Nasrallah’s speeches are serious and important.  Here he wants to make it clear to the Jews that they can’t just wreck Syria without serious repercussions.  He also understands the most basic idea of sticking by your friends:

“Oh Palestinian and Arab people who reject Israeli hegemony, you will not find anyone to stand by your side except he who has stood by your side for tens of years. Protect those who stood by you, protect the sources of strength in your axis.  Any serious effort to find a political solution in Syria which refuses to allow Syria to fall into the hands of the US, Israel and the takfiris is effectively the battle for Palestine, the battle for Quds, the battle for the Aqsa mosque.”

Why Israel Can’t Be Part of Obama’s Calculus on Syria”  Hilarious attempt to claim the Jews are innocent, despite the massive air strikes and the vile false-flag lies about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army, both clearly directed at the Americans, and reflected immediately in warmongering by the usual Jewslave Congress traitors like McCain.

I keep hearing how Obama’s going to do this, and Obama’s going to do that, all involving escalation.  Isn’t it completely clear by now that Obama’s plan all along has been to do nothing?  I’m sure he’s thinking he got away with the Iran-contra style operation in Benghazi by the skin of his teeth (only the most extreme nutty right-wingers dare come even close to how awful it was, and Barry is saved only by a general bipartisan agreement to hide the deep politics of Wars For The Jews).  Now that Hezbollah is engaged, it may only be a few weeks until this problem sorts itself out.

Speaking of which, everyone seems to have forgotten that Russian and Chinese support for Syria derives directly from the fury in those countries at being deceived in the UN over American War-For-The-Jews plans for Libya (and you can immediately see how the concept of Wars For The Jews is crucial to understanding what is going on).  This is reflected most recently in the extreme lack of success in Kerry’s visit to Russia.  “Kerry hopes Russia won’t sell missiles to Syria”  Hopes? “Kerry warns Russia against selling high-performance missiles to Syria”   Washington Post makes it ‘warns’, but it is still ”hopes’.

Israel Cozies Up to China”  Note how Barry can’t get Bibi to do a thing about the settlements, but China asks and a sudden freeze appears, and the Jew-controlled American media hides why.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2013 in Uncategorized