Red Lines and Green Lights: Israel still angling for attack on Syria and Iran

Netanyahu and Obama at the United Nations, 2011. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

Netanyahu and Obama at the United Nations, 2011. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

President Barack Obama may have drawn his seemingly regretted “red line” around Syria’s chemical weapons, but it was neither he nor the international community that turned the spotlight on their use. That task fell to Israel.

It was an Israeli general who claimed in April that Damascus had used chemical weapons, forcing Obama into an embarrassing demurral on his stated commitment to intervene should that happen.

According to the Israeli media, it was also Israel that provided the intelligence that blamed the Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, for the latest chemical weapons attack, near Damascus on August 21, triggering the clamour for a US military response.

It is worth remembering that Obama’s supposed “dithering” on the question of military action has only been accentuated by Israel’s “daring” strikes on Syria – at least three since the start of the year.

It looks as though Israel, while remaining largely mute about its interests in the civil war raging there, has been doing a great deal to pressure the White House into direct involvement in Syria.

That momentum appears to have been halted, for the time being at least, by the deal agreed at the weekend by the US and Russia to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

To understand the respective views of the White House and Israel on attacking Syria, one needs to revisit the US-led invasion of Iraq a decade ago.

Israel and its ideological twin in Washington, the neoconservatives, rallied to the cause of toppling Saddam Hussein, believing that it should be the prelude to an equally devastating blow against Iran.

Israel was keen to see its two chief regional enemies weakened simultaneously. Saddam’s Iraq had been the chief sponsor of Palestinian resistance against Israel. Iran, meanwhile, had begun developing a civilian nuclear programme that Israel feared could pave the way to an Iranian bomb, ending Israel’s regional monopoly on nuclear weapons.

The neocons carried out the first phase of the plan, destroying Iraq, but then ran up against domestic opposition that blocked implementation of the second stage: the break-up of Iran.

The consequences are well known. As Iraq imploded into sectarian violence, Iran’s fortunes rose. Tehran strengthened its role as regional sponsor of resistance against Israel – or what became Washington’s new “axis of evil” – that included Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Israel and the US both regard Syria as the geographical “keystone” of that axis, as Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, told the Jerusalem Post this week, and one that needs to be removed if Iran is to be isolated, weakened or attacked.

But Israel and the US drew different lessons from Iraq. Washington is now wary of its ground forces becoming bogged down again, as well as fearful of reviving a cold war confrontation with Moscow. It prefers instead to rely on proxies to contain and exhaust the Syrian regime.

Israel, on the other hand, understands the danger of manoeuvring its patron into a showdown with Damascus without ensuring this time that Iran is tied into the plan. Toppling Assad alone would simply add emboldened jihadists to the troubles on its doorstep.

Given these assessments, Israel and the US have struggled to envision a realistic endgame that would satisfy them both. Obama fears setting the region, and possibly the world, ablaze with a direct attack on Iran; Israel is worried about stretching its patron’s patience by openly pushing it into another catastrophic venture to guarantee its regional hegemony.

In his interview published yesterday by the Jerusalem Post, Michael Oren claimed that Israel had in fact been trying to oust Assad since the civil war erupted more than two years ago. He said Israel “always preferred the bad guys [jihadist groups] who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys [the Assad regime] who were backed by Iran.”

That seems improbable. Although the Sunni jihadist groups, some with links to al-Qaeda, are not natural allies for either the Shia leaders of Iran or Hizbollah, they would be strongly hostile to Israel. Oren’s comments, however, do indicate the degree to which Israel’s strategic priorities are obsessively viewed through the prism of an attack on Iran.

More likely, Israel has focused on using the civil war as a way to box Assad into his heartlands. That way, he becomes a less useful ally to Hizbollah, Iran and Russia, while the civil war keeps both his regime and the opposition weak.

Israel would have preferred a US strike on Syria, a goal its lobbyists in Washington were briefly mobilised to achieve. But the intention was not to remove Assad but to assert what Danny Ayalon, a former deputy Israeli foreign minister, referred to as “American and Israeli deterrence” – code for signalling to Tehran that it was being lined up as the next target.

That threat now looks empty. As Silvan Shalom, a senior government minister, observed: “If it is impossible to do anything against little Syria, then certainly it’s not possible against big Iran.”

But the new US-Russian deal to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons can probably be turned to Israel’s advantage, so long as Israel prevents attention shifting to its own likely stockpiles.

In the short term, Israel has reason to fear Assad’s loss of control of his chemical weapons, with the danger that they pass either to the jihadists or to Hizbollah. The timetable for the weapons destruction should help to minimise those risks – in the words of one Israeli commentator, it is like Israel “winning the lottery”.

But Israel also suspects that Damascus is likely to procrastinate on disarmament. In any case, efforts to locate and destroy its chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war will be lengthy and difficult.

And that may provide Israel with a way back in. Soon, as Israeli analysts are already pointing out, Syria will be hosting international inspectors searching for WMD, not unlike the situation in Iraq shortly before the US-led invasion of 2003. Israel, it can safely be assumed, will quietly meddle, trying to persuade the West that Assad is not cooperating and that Hizbullah and Iran are implicated.

In a vein Israel may mine later, a Syrian opposition leader, Selim Idris, claimed at the weekend that Damascus was seeking to conceal the extent of its stockpiles by passing them to Lebanon and Iraq.

Obama is not the only one to have set a red line. Last year, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, drew one on a cartoon bomb at the United Nations as he warned that the world faced an imminent existential threat from an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Israel still desperately wants its chief foe, Iran, crushed. And if it can find a way to lever the US into doing its dirty work, it will exploit the opening – regardless of whether such action ramps up the suffering in Syria.

A version of this article first appeared in The National, Abu Dhabi.

About Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is jonathan-cook.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Israeli Government, syria, US Policy in the Middle East | Tagged

{ 32 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. seafoid says:

    Israel and its surgical unwinnable war against Islam. When did Zionism decide to take on the entire middle east? It seems as though the ashkenazim brought the Prussian mentality along with the german r into hebrew.

  2. eljay says:

    >> When did Zionism decide to take on the entire middle east?

    The Zio-supremacist reply: “[snip]* it was the entire Middle East that decided to take on Jews who just wanted to live peacefully in their homeland!”
    _______________
    (*Look, maybe Jews did use terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine; and maybe we did engage in a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder; and maybe we did and do still refuse to honour our obligations under international law, and to be held accountable for our past and on-going (war) crimes; and maybe we don’t have any intention of ever entering into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace; but)

  3. Taxi says:

    “If it is impossible to do anything against little Syria, then certainly it’s not possible against big Iran.”

    Hey israel: if it is impossible to do anything against little Hizbollah, then certainly it’s not possible against big Iran.

    The threat of retaliation was real two weeks ago: soon as the first USA bomb hits Syria, then sayonara tel frigging aviv. The balance of terror is not to be underestimated.

  4. HarryLaw says:

    Israel’s fear of a Iran achieving nuclear weapons capability is misplaced since all the UN inspections are in place to ensure no such thing can occur, they know Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons without the UN finding out, what they are more afraid of is Iran’s conventional weapons strength, and they are right to be, because of the sanctions Iran has been forced to be self sufficient [unlike Lebanon whose military are supplied by the US with flintlock rifles and it's air force with bi planes] to this end they are building their own submarines, developing their own missile and drone capabilities and take seriously the threats emanating from Israel/US that they are going to be attacked. Everyday that goes by Iran’s military powers grow, this is intolerable for the little hegemon and with a population more than ten times Israels it is a growing threat and one it cannot defeat alone, so it wants the US to do it’s dirty work, but even our own ex UK foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who helped take the UK into the war on Iraq said recently “that an attack on Iran would be nuts”.

    • D Pletka has admitted openly in an AEI meeting that the Israeli problem out of Iranian nukes is the guaranteed end to Israeli hegemony in ME and the nuclear Iran not any kind of threat to the Israeli security
      Later on ,one of the Israeli mainland leaders ( ? Livni) expressed same opinion.

    • Walid says:

      “unlike Lebanon whose military are supplied by the US with flintlock rifles and it’s air force with bi planes”

      You understated US benevolence towards Lebanon; the air force received 16 Vietnam-vintage Hueys without gun mounts, rocket launchers and spare parts and the army received a couple of hundred Humvee troop carriers that the US is in the process of eliminating from its fleet. The army had been receiving M16s until about a year ago or the year before when an army sniper shot and killed an Israeli colonel that was directing an IDF operation of cutting down a tree on the Lebanese side of the border that was blocking the view of its cameras. When that happened, hell broke lose in the American Congress that immediately suspended deliveries of the Humvees and other aid pending an inquiry to determine whether the Israeli colonel had been shot by a US-supplied M16 or by a kalashnikov. After the noise died down, deliveries resumed but Congressmen had capitalized on the opportunity to demonstrate their devotion to Israel’s welfare. Of course Congress wasn’t interested in Israel’s retaliatory missile attack on the same day by US-supplied Apache that killed 3 Lebanese soldiers and a journalist. But the make of the rifle that killed the Israeli was very important.

  5. American says:

    ”Israel, on the other hand, understands the danger of manoeuvring its patron into a showdown with Damascus without ensuring this time that Iran is tied into the plan. Toppling Assad alone would simply add emboldened jihadists to the troubles on its doorstep.”
    Given these assessments, Israel and the US have struggled to envision a realistic endgame that would satisfy them both. Obama fears setting the region, and possibly the world, ablaze with a direct attack on Iran; Israel is worried about stretching its patron’s patience by openly pushing it into another catastrophic venture to guarantee its regional hegemony.”

    In his interview published yesterday by the Jerusalem Post, Michael Oren claimed that Israel had in fact been trying to oust Assad since the civil war erupted more than two years ago. He said Israel “always preferred the bad guys [jihadist groups] who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys [the Assad regime] who were backed by Iran.”
    That seems improbable. “>>>

    I cant agree with Cooke’s points here.
    First, Israel’s ideal goal and most desired outcome has always been to replace leadership in both Syria and Iran (which would also cure their Hezbollah problem) with Isr’merica controlled rulers.
    Both Israel and Saudi were ‘betting” that if Syria went sideways the US would step in and effect a regime change and make certain any hostile to Israel/Saud rebel element did not end up in charge.
    So Oren’s statement is not improbable at all…it just didnt admit that the US would then be called upon to clean up the winning rebels also.

    Second, I dont think that Israel did understand the danger of ‘doing Syria’ separately or first and then doing Iran ‘separately and second’.
    They didnt understand the danger of their 2 Step Plan until they saw the US public rear it’s head on Syria and Russia assert itself.
    Thoses two things threw a kink in their plan.

    I also dont think Israel is winning the lottery on this. They now have to revise their stragety on Syria and Iran and Hezbollah. They will have to create some more compelling chaos and incidents to get the US to take down Assad and then take down the radicals among the rebels and get a friendly in power in Syria and then get Iran also. I am sure they will keep trying to do this under the guise of the CW fear which I think takes a back seat to their ultimate Iran goal.

    • American says:

      BTW……the thing everyone needs to Not be confused on is that Syria was and is about Regime Change above all…..at who’s behest why dont have to guess.
      We have only 2 chances to avoid US-Syria and US-Iran…one is the US public mounting a outcry every time the US spins some bs to pull an attack and the other is hoping Russia maintains it’s position.

      The Washington Examiner:

      President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

      Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad’s regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

      The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would “waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction.”

      Despite claims of a robust “vetting” process rebels must go through to be eligible for U.S. arms, Mother Jones reported last week that the process is shoddy and easily overcome by disparate rebel officers less concerned with Washington’s vetting process and looking to get as many arms as possible. Moreover, a recent study by the defense consultancy corporation IHS Jane’s found that nearly half of the approximately 100,000 rebel fighters are Islamist.

      link to washingtonpost.com

      ”The CIA has started delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, making good on a pledge made months ago. Rep. Adam Schiff (R-Calif.) tells On Background that doing so pulls the U.S. further into the conflict and diverts focus from national security interests.

      The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending mos of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

      The arms shipments, which are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked, began arriving in Syria at a moment of heightened tensions over threats by President Obama to order missile strikes to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack near Damascus last month”

  6. Citizen says:

    Jordan won the lotto too.

  7. hey mondoweiss, how do you email one of your excellent articles. i don’t see any provision at all

  8. Iran should be very cautious and suspicious of any god faith negotiations with US given the 800 pound gorilla prancing openly in the Capitol Hill.
    Libya is a the example here. Tomorrow ,there might be a manufactured uprising by the death inmates from across Saudi,Qatar,Aljeria,Azerbaizan pouring in to celebrate human right,defend liberty,and propagate moderate Islam of Wahhabi variety in Iran’ capital after the defensive military arsenals are destroyed by Iranian anticipating a new future for its citizen

  9. Israel+ALQaeda=True

    Michael Oren: Israel want al Qaeda to rule in Syria
    link to hurriyetdailynews.com

  10. Krauss says:

    Cook is a gifted writer – but I would still point to the utter fail of Israeli foreign policy thus far.

    AIPAC can’t even get a bombing run into Syria that Kerry described as ‘unbelievably small’ – how on earth will they get a strike on Iran?
    In the past 5 years there has been a mainstream shift on reporting on the Israel lobby.
    It’s now in the sun, even if at times only half so.

    Can anyone say that Israel’s standing these past 5 years has improved? Conventional wisdom is now that Israel is doomed to be an Apartheid state if status quo reigns. Of course, Israel already is one.

    But it’s still very notable that a thought that used to linger on the fringes of the left is now accepted in the political mainstream.

    I think the 2001-2003 moment will not come back. It was a unique event; right after the 9/11 attacks, America had not seen a real war since Vietnam and you’ve had a very strong decade of economic growth behind you, so people naturally assume that it’ll continue no matter what.

    Today? The last 10 years have been a disaster for the middle class economically, Iraq made people understand of the limits of military power, even if you ‘get the dictator’, and the memory of 9/11 is fading fast and instead we’ve seen the abuses in the ‘war against terror’, even if it’s no longer called that.

    The entire dynamic has shifted tremendously. These things are paradigm shifts.
    To turn it around would take a unique confluence of events such as another 9/11 attack, a sudden and sustained burst of economic growth and a clear way to paint Iran as a scary threat to America, which of course it isn’t and people understand that.
    AIPAC can’t fight these winds tornadoes. It fights an impossible battle.
    Which it also found out rather quickly.

  11. It does seem clear Netanyahu wants a US war with Iran even if Iran does not try to build nukes.

  12. American says:

    This very interestng interview. True Isr is totally dependent on the USA, but USA is also in the ‘Lobby’s ‘ pocket—-thats what we have to change.

    link to timesofisrael.com

    ‘When they become PM, they realize how utterly dependent Israel is on the US’

    Eitan Haber, Yitzhak Rabin’s closest aide, on the 20 years since that White House handshake…..

    snip..snip…snip

    ”Haber issues a series of such complicated observations during an interview marking Oslo’s 20th anniversary. He also says that Israel benefited immensely from the Oslo process, even though it did not lead to the hoped-for end-of-conflict accord. He says the second intifada started because of then opposition leader Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000, not because of Arafat.

    ”He says he anticipates US Secretary of State John Kerry, if the current peace talks lead nowhere, “striking the table” and issuing America’s “take it or leave it” terms for an agreement… and that if Kerry does so, both sides would be “better off taking it and not leaving it.”

    Perhaps most interestingly, he displays a highly empathetic, even forgiving, attitude to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who as opposition leader relentlessly critiqued Rabin for rehabilitating Arafat, helping to create a domestic climate of bitter hostility to Rabin. “Netanyahu opposed Rabin when he didn’t know anything,” says Haber. And what is it that the Likud leader didn’t know 20 years ago, that he does know as prime minister today? That only when you make it to the Prime Minister’s Office, says Haber, do you understand the extent to which Israel “is dependent on America. For absolutely everything — in the realms of diplomacy, security, even economically… Slowly your tone changes, because you understand that without the spare parts [from the US], your entire air force is grounded. And when you have no air force you have no defenses. You can barely do anything without America. Her diplomatic support, defensive support, economic support. We are in America’s little pocket.”

    Okay, but 20 years on, the accords did not bring peace.
    They didn’t bring peace because, I think, it became clear to everyone — and I think that this was the greatest downside of the Oslo Accords — that the problems are much deeper and harder and wider than it was possible to imagine. It’s very important to me that you emphasize this, though you must differentiate by a thousand degrees of separation, that just as the [former Israeli] residents of Gush Katif [in Gaza] and Yamit [in Sinai] do not forget for a moment from where they were displaced, the Arabs of the Land of Israel as well have not, it seems, forgotten so quickly. It is a fact — they do not forget. And we can shout until tomorrow that they have 21 countries and that they have infinite lands. It’s all fine and good, and it makes absolutely no difference to the family that lived in Jaffa or in Acre or in Haifa. They remember. We may not like it, but both sides have to find a solution.
    Now, how do we get to a situation where they will not remember? This is a very difficult issue. I remember the time that a Jordanian minister visited. I hosted him at a dinner, soon after the peace agreement was signed with Jordan. We were at the David Intercontinental Hotel [in Tel Aviv] and I said to him. You know, this hotel is located on what had been the border between Tel Aviv and Jaffa. After the dinner he asked me, can you give me a ride to Jaffa? I said, with great pleasure. I took him — just him and me in the car — and he asked me if I knew where Bustrus Street was. I knew. He then told me the number. We arrived at the house and he didn’t get out of the car. He just looked out the car window at the house. It wasn’t a house that he remembered. But it was a house belonging to the family. Suddenly he burst into tears. I looked at the tears that were streaming down his face and I said to myself, this, it seems, is the human condition. There is nothing that can be done about it.”

  13. RE: “It looks as though Israel, while remaining largely mute about its interests in the civil war raging there, has been doing a great deal to pressure the White House into direct involvement in Syria.” ~ Jonathan Cook

    TAKE ACTION! ! ! TAKE ACTION! ! ! TAKE ACTION! ! !

    FROM RootsAction.org: We helped prevent U.S. missile strikes on Syria. Public pressure made Congress turn against an attack, opening the door to diplomacy. Now let’s stop the flow of “lethal aid” to Syria.

    Send this email to your lawmakers: “As a constituent, I urge you to halt all ‘lethal aid’ in the Syrian conflict. The last thing Syria needs is more weapons, ammunition and other military supplies. The U.S. government and allies should stop sending lethal aid to rebels in Syria, while working for a reciprocal cutoff of all military assistance to the Syrian government by Russia and Iran.”

    If you’d like to send this message to your senators and representative, as well as to President Obama, click here. - link to act.rootsaction.org

    • P.S. COURTESY OF THE FANTASTIC NEW GAME CALLED “NAME THAT DOOFUS”, SEE ANDREW BRACEVICH’S TOTALLY EXCELLENT TAKE DOWN OF DAVID BROOKS – link to salon.com

    • P.P.S. FROM Avaaz.org
      To US President Obama and President Rouhani of Iran:
      As citizens around the world horrified by the slaughter of innocents in Syria, we call on you to put aside your differences and meet to find a diplomatic path forward that brings all parties to the table to negotiate a ceasefire and peace. You are in a unique position to help broker such a solution. There must be a bold diplomatic breakthrough.
      We are calling on you to create one and start saving lives.
      TO SIGN THE PETITION – link to avaaz.org

  14. gingershot says:

    Israel is simple and Oren makes it easy

    1- Israel ‘WANTS’ Al Qaeda on it’s doorstep in Syria. PERIOD
    There is NO PROBLEM for Israel with a ‘forever war’ against some rag tag Jihadists in Syria that Israel/Saudi/Neocons are themselves supporting/1/2 controlling. Small potatoes. It’s good training for the reservists. The big pay-off being Israel KEEPS the Golan FOREVER and also how much Israel can milk this ‘next Israeli existential crisis’ for another 1000 yrs. (Israel will have about as much trouble handling these jihadists as it does handling Hamas. )

    Israel is not ‘scared’ about losing Assad. It loses Assad and GETS the Golan and breaks down Iran’s backdoor and that is the perfect pathway (and prime Israeli strategy) to remain just as it is – an Apartheid state overlording Palestine – forever

    2- Israel wants an American war with Iran to preserve it’s regional hegemony. PERIOD. It wants to set the ME on fire for another 10 yrs because that is the ONLY way Apartheid Israel survives another 10 yrs without being dismantled at the ICC and BDS. Israel WANTS Iran to make one move towards nuke weapons (or just get McCain and Grahman to trigger an attack anyway, for no reason) and is doing EVERYTHING it can to try to precipitate Iran making the mistake to reasonably try to defend itself against the Neocons and Israel

    3- Apartheid Israel’s death knell is NO war on Syria and Iran – then twisting in the wind with the ICC and BDS. Therefore – this is EXACTLY what needs to happen, over the bodies of McCain and Graham

  15. This is a very good, but troubling piece.

    Its good in that I think it accurately depicts the thought processes of the present Israeli government and their neocon allies in the US. Its troubling in that one cannot help but conclude that the US, which belongs to all of us not just those who are all Israel all the time, is being manipulated.

    Reading the piece I couldn’t help but think about that old joke…God created gentiles because he needed someone to buy retail.

    http://www.wednesdayswars.com

  16. Bandolero says:

    The more I read about the Israeli obsession with Iran and the axis of resistance the more I believe it’s more or less an Israeli deception.

    Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are no threat to Israel’s might, and, despite laughable outbursts of fear like Netanyahu displaying a cartoon in the UN, I tend to think Israel knows it. If the whole stuff is a deception, what could they hide what Israel really wants? Settelments, eating up the westbank, establishing a zionist majority population in Israel including the westbank. If that’s the goal the Iran hype and trouble making in Syria would make sense. As long as the Iran threat can be hyped and in Syria or elsewhere in the mideast is trouble, noone cares much about growing settlements.

    And, I tend to think, Israel thinks it needs to hurry up, because a final deal will be reached on status quo at the time of the deal and in a few years China will be the strongest country in the world and in China there is no Israel lobby like in the US and in the EU that will shield Israel from all and any consequences of it’s illegal settlement activity.

    I tend to think that’s what all the fuzz is really about and the whole Iran threat thing is just a deception to hide and thereby realize these actual Israeli goals.

    • tree says:

      I think its more than just the West Bank that Israel wants. Longterm, it wants the Litani. All the hullabaloo about Iran is to create the opening to occupy Lebanon up to the Litani again, without having to worry about any significant opposition. The Litani has been a goal since the Ben Gurion 1956 Sinai War days. If the Israelis manage to totally crush the Palestinians beyond any hope for recovery, they still won’t be satisfied.

  17. Taxi says:

    A Whiff of Democracy – Steve Weissman:
    link to readersupportednews.org

  18. kalithea says:

    “He said Israel “always preferred the bad guys [jihadist groups] who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys [the Assad regime] who were backed by Iran.”

    And that’s only the half of it! What Israel really prefers is Arabs killing each other. Israelis not only enjoyed watching Gaza burn and Gazans squirm in the prison camp under the brutal blockade, but picture Israelis as the Romans, Syria as the Colosseum in their back yard, and the show being Arabs slaughtering each other.

    Depraved is part of the Israeli lifestyle just as it was in Roman times.

  19. kma says:

    the US is ALQuaeda’s airforce? no, it is Israel’s airforce, army, navy, etc.

  20. Forseti says:

    The jihadist groups in Syria are just a part of Syrian rebels, the majority are the moderate Free Syrian army. Also Jihadists are on the side of Assad too.

    • The jihadist groups in Syria are just a part of Syrian rebels, the majority are the moderate Free Syrian army.
      lol, that’s rich. even the pro FSA pro rebel propaganda activist o’bagy had this to say last april:

      “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”

      link to nytimes.com

      get it? NOWHERE to speak of. which doesn’t mean moderates do not exist, just not as a fighting ‘force to speak of’. so how bout you explain to us how they regrouped into the majority since last april.

      Also Jihadists are on the side of Assad too.

      do you have any supporting links? i’d be interested in reviewing them.

      and as an aside, what is this on your bio: “Masters degree in Controlling”, i’ve never heard of that.

      • Danaa says:

        “Jihadists on the side Assad” is the new meme they are trying to spread Annie. Kind of like a new talking point. Blunt the edge of who those “rebels” really are….

        “Masters degree in Controlling” – that’s a great one. I suggest a not-so-Freudian slip? may be he meant to say “Control and Communications”?

        this is what i get for asking Hasbara central for at least one better one….

        • Kind of like a new talking point.

          yes i suspect it’s the new talking pt, this is just the first time i’ve heard it.

          this is what i get for asking Hasbara central for at least one better one….

          ha! a control master no less, what will they think of next?