Midden-Oosten & Syrië, Het Eindspel: New American Century, Yinon Plan & A Clean Break

[zonbron]

Het Midden-Oosten & Syrië, Het Grote Eindspel: The Project For The New American Century, Het Yinon Plan & A Clean Break

Velen vragen zich af wat er nu eigenlijk aan de hand is in Syrië. Er wordt heel wat verzwegen in de berichtgeving aangaande Syrië die de reguliere media produceert. Alsook verspreiden deze nieuwsdiensten bepaalde onwaarheden. De bedoeling van deze topic is de huidige situatie in het Midden-Oosten trachten te verduidelijken en eens te bekijken wat het Yinon-plan, a Clean Break, het project voor de New American Century en andere in feite betekenen voor de landen in die regio.

Het plan Yinon is geen onderdeel van 'De Protocollen van de Wijzen van Sion', het is een creatie van Oded Yinon welke het opdelen van de bestaande Arabische landen in kleinere betekenisloze staatjes beoogt. A Clean Break volgt diezelfde strategie.

<sub>A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon (with a foreword by, and translated by Israel Shahak)

Foreword

The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

1. 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. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.

The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.
Israel Shahak
June 13, 1982

...


Conclusion

Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.

The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being "explained" in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian "unrest" on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of "Haddad forces" or of "Village Associations" (also known as "Village Leagues"): local forces under "leaders" completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The "states" proposed by Yinon are "Haddadland" and "Village Associations," and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be "punished" either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.

It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.

Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin's speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid "persuaders" and "explainers" (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then "learn it," more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was "in opposition") the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering "the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity" was explained in the years 1965-67.

Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?

In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call "the constructive criticism." (In fact those among them who claim also to be "Anti-Stalinist" are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion--exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a "closed society" to the rest of the world, because the world wants to cBenjamin Netanyahulose its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak
June 17, 1982
Jerusalem

About the Translator

Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel's Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)</sub>

Uit Wikipedia - Plan Yinon

Le « Plan Yinon », datant de 1982, a pour objectif de créer de mini-Etats antagonistes au sein du monde arabe1. Il est issu d'un article d'Oded Yinon, fonctionnaire du ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères, qui, �* l’automne 1982, soit quelques mois après l’invasion israélienne du Liban, écrit un article intitulé : « Stratégie pour Israël dans les années 80 » publié dans la Revue d’Études Palestiniennes par Israël Shahak et paru dans Kivunim (Orientations), n° 14, février 1982 (Revue publiée par le Département de l’Organisation Sioniste mondiale, Jérusalem) 2. Ce plan sera également mis en lumière dans le rapport « A Clean Break »

Uit : Wikipedia - A Clean Break

« A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (une coupure nette : Une nouvelle stratégie pour sécuriser le domaine ) » constitue un court mémorandum datant de 1996 destiné au premier ministre israélien entrant Benjamin Netanyahu. Il présente une stratégie israélienne envers le Moyen-Orient dans le but de modifier l’équilibre des forces régionales en faveur d’Israël 1. Ce document de politique israélienne fut écrit par Richard Perle et le groupe d’étude sur « Une nouvelle stratégie israélienne vers l’an 2000 (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies) » qui comprenait par ailleurs James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, Jonathan Torop, David Wurmser et Meyrav Wurmser 2 .

Om de discussie op te starten beschouw ik volgende analyse als een mooi vertrekpunt. Lange C/P, maar toch een zeer bondige samenvatting.

Global Research - The Syria Endgame: Strategic Stage in the Pentagon’s Covert War on Iran
7 januari 2013

<sub>Since the kindling of the conflict inside Syria in 2011, it was recognized, by friend and foe alike, that the events in that country were tied to a game plan that ultimately targets Iran, Syria’s number one ally. [1] De-linking Syria from Iran and unhinging the Resistance Bloc that Damascus and Tehran have formed has been one of the objectives of the foreign-supported anti-government militias inside Syria. Such a schism between Damascus and Tehran would change the Middle East’s strategic balance in favour of the US and Israel.

If this cannot be accomplished, however, then crippling Syria to effectively prevent it from providing Iran any form of diplomatic, political, economic, and military support in the face of common threats has been a primary objective. Preventing any continued cooperation between the two republics has been a strategic goal. This includes preventing the Iran-Iraq-Syria energy terminal from being built and ending the military pact between the two partners.

All Options are Aimed at Neutralizing Syria

Regime change in Damascus is not the only or main way for the US and its allies to prevent Syria from standing with Iran. Destabilizing Syria and neutralizing it as a failed and divided state is the key. Sectarian fighting is not a haphazard outcome of the instability in Syria, but an assisted project that the US and its allies have steadily fomented with a clear intent to balkanize the Syrian Arab Republic. Regionally, Israel above all other states has a major stake in securing this outcome. The Israelis actually have several publicly available documents, including the Yinon Plan, which outline that the destruction of Syria into a series of smaller sectarian states is one of their strategic objectives. So do American military planners.

Like Iraq next door, Syria does not need to be formally divided. For all intents and purposes, the country can be divided like Lebanon was alongside various fiefdoms and stretches of territory controlled by different groups during the Lebanese Civil War. The goal is to disqualify Syria as an external player.



Since 2006 and the Israeli defeat in Lebanon in that year there was renewed focus on the strategic alliance between Iran and Syria. Both countries have been very resilient in the face of US designs in their region. Together both have been key players for influencing events in the Middle East, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Their strategic alliance has undoubtedly played an important role in shaping the geo-political landscape in the Middle East. Although critics of Damascus say it has done very little in regard to substantial action against the Israelis, the Syrians have been the partners within this alliance that have carried the greatest weight in regards to facing Israel; it has been through Syria that Hezbollah and the Palestinians have been provided havens, logistics, and their initial strategic depth against Israel.

From the beginning the foreign-supported external opposition leaders made their foreign policy clear, which can strongly be argued was a reflection of the interests they served. The anti-government forces and their leaders even declared that they will realign Syria against Iran; in doing so they used sectarian language about returning to their “natural orbit with the Sunni Arabs.” This is a move that is clearly in favour of the US and Israel alike. Breaking the axis between Damascus and Tehran has also been a major goal of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms since the 1980s as part of a design to isolate Iran during the Iraq-Iran War. [2] Moreover, the sectarian language being used is part of a construct; it is not a reflection of reality, but a reflection of Orientalist conjecture and desires that falsely stipulate that Muslims who perceive themselves as being Shia or Sunni are inherently at odds with one another as enemies.

Among the prostrating Syrian opposition leaders who would execute the strategic goals of the US has been Burhan Ghalioun, the former president of the Istanbul-based and foreign-sponsored Syrian National Council, who told the Wall Street Journal in 2011 that Damascus would end its strategic alliance with Iran and end its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinians as soon as anti-government forces took over Syria. [3] These foreign-sponsored opposition figures have also served to validate, in one way or another, the broader narratives that claim Sunnis and Shiites hate one another. In synchronization the mainstream media in the countries working for regime change in Damascus, such as the US and France, have consistently advertized that the regime in Syria is an Alawite regime that is allied to Iran, because the Alawites are an offshoot of Shiism. This too is untrue, because Syria and Iran do not share a common ideology; both countries are aligned, because of a common threat and shared political and strategic objectives. Nor is Syria run by an Alawite regime; the government’s composure reflects Syrian society’s ethnic and religious diversity.

Israel’s Stake in Syria

Syria is all about Iran for Israel. As if Tel Aviv has nothing to do whatsoever with the events inside Syria, Israeli commentators and analysts are now publicly insisting that Israel needs to deal with Iran by intervening inside Syria. Israel’s involvement in Syria, alongside the US and NATO, crystallized in 2012. It was clear that Israel was working in a conglomerate comprised of the US, Britain, France, Turkey, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon’s minority March 14 Alliance, and the NATO-supported usurpers that have taken over and wrecked the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Although it should be read with caution, it is worth noting the release of the hacked correspondence of Strategic Forecast Incorporated’s Reva Bhalla to her boss, George Friedman, about a December 2011 meeting in the Pentagon between herself (representing Stratfor), US, French, and British officials about Syria. [4] The Stratfor correspondence claimed that the US and its allies had sent in their military special forces to destabilize Syria in 2011 and that there actually were not many Syrian anti-government forces on the ground or, as Bhalla writes, “there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train.” [5] The Daily Star, which is owned by Lebanon’s Hariri family which has been involved in the regime change operations against Syria, soon after reported that thirteen undercover French officers were caught by the Syrians conducting operations inside Homs. [6] Instead of a categorical no to the information about the captured French officers, the French Foreign Ministry’s response to the public was that it could not confirm anything, which can be analyzed as an omission of guilt. [7]

Days earlier, Hezbollah’s Al-Manar station revealed that Israeli-made weapons and supplies, ranging from grenades and night binoculars to communication devices, were captured alongside Qatari agents inside the insurgent stronghold of Baba Amr in Homs towards the end of April and start of March. [8] An unnamed US official would later confirm in July 2012 that the Mossad was working alongside the CIA in Syria. [9] Just a month earlier, in June, the Israeli government began publicly demanding that a military intervention be launched into Syria, presumably by the US and the conglomerate of governments working with Israel to destabilize Syria. [10]

The Israeli media has even begun to casually report that Israeli citizens, albeit one has been identified as an Israeli Arab (meaning a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship), have entered Syria to fight against the Syrian Army. [11] Normally any Israelis, specifically those that are non-Jewish Arabs, which enter Lebanon or/and Syria are condemned or prosecuted by Israeli authorities and Israeli news reports focus on this aspect of the story. Yet, it has not been so in this case. It should also be mentioned that the Palestinian opponents of Israel living inside Syria are also being targeted, just as the Palestinians living in Iraq were targeted after the US and UK invaded in 2003.

Syria and the Objective of Making Iran Stand Alone

The journalist Rafael D. Frankel wrote a revealing article for the Washington Quarterly that illustrates what US policymakers and their partners think about in Syria. In his article Frankel argued that because of the so-called Arab Spring that an attack on Iran by the US and Israel would no longer trigger a coordinated regional response from Iran and its allies. [12] Frankel argued that because of the events inside Syria an opportunity has been created for the US and Israel to attack Iran without igniting a regional war that would involve Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. [13]

Frankel’s line of thinking was not lost on circles in either NATO or Israel. In reality his line of thinking springs forth from the views and plans of these very circles. As a psychological enforcement of their ideas, his text actually found its way to NATO Headquarters in Brussels in 2012 for reading material. While the latter, Israel, released its own intelligence report about the subject.

According to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, the intelligence report by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has concluded that Syria and Hezbollah will no longer be able to open a second front against Israel should it go to war with Iran. [14] During the Israeli report’s release, one senior Israeli official was quoted as saying “Iran’s ability to harm Israel in response to an attack on our part declined dramatically.”[15]

Many news wires, papers, and writers with hostile positions towards both Syria and Iran, such as The Daily Telegraph, immediately replicated the Israeli report’s findings about Iran and its regional allies. Two of the first people to reproduce the findings of the Israel report, Robert Tait (writing from the Gaza Strip) and Damien McElroy (who was expelled from Libya in 2011 by that country’s authorities during the war with NATO), summarize how significant the findings of the report are by effectively outlining how Iran’s key allies in the Levant have all been neutralized. [16]

The Israeli report has triumphantly declared that Syria has turned within and is too busy to join ranks with its strategic ally Iran against Tel Aviv in a future war. [17] The ramifications of the Syrian crisis have also placed Iran’s Lebanese allies, particularly Hezbollah, in an unsteady position where their supply lines are under threat and they have been politically damaged through their support of Damascus. If anyone in Lebanon should side with Iran in a future war the Israelis have said that they will invade through massive military operations on the ground. [18]

The new Egyptian government’s role in aiding US objectives under President Morsi also becomes clear with what the Israeli report says about his supportive role: “The foreign ministry report also predicted that Egypt would stop Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, from helping Iran by launching rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.” [19] This adds credence to the view that Morsi was allowed by the US and Israel to broker a peace between the Gaza Strip and Tel Aviv, which would prevent the Palestinians there from standing with Iran during a war. In other words the Egyptian truce was setup to bind the hands of Hamas. The recent announcements about moves by Morsi’s government to engage Hezbollah politically can also be scrutinized as an extension of the same strategy applied in Gaza, but in this case for unbinding Iran from its Lebanese allies. [20]

There is also clamouring for steps to be taken to de-link Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, from its Christian allies in Lebanon. The German Marshall Fund showcased a text essentially saying that the Lebanese Christians that are allies to Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran need to be presented with an alternative political narrative to replace the one where they believe that Iran will ultimately run the Middle East as a great power. [21] This too is tied to further eroding Iran’s alliance system.

Mission Accomplished?

The conflict in Syria is not merely an Israeli affair. The slow bleeding of Syria has other interested parties that want to smash the country and its society into pieces. The US is foremost among these interested parties, followed by the Arab dictators of the petro-sheikhdoms. NATO has also always been covertly involved.

NATO’s involvement in Syria is part of the US strategy of using the military alliance to dominate the Middle East. This is why it was decided to establish a component of the missile shield in Turkey. This is also the reason that Patriot missiles are being deployed to the Turkish border with Syria. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) and NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue are components of these plans too. Additionally, Turkey has ended its veto against the further integration of Israel into NATO. [22]

NATO has been reorienting itself towards asymmetrical warfare and greater emphasis is now being put on intelligence operations. NATO strategists have increasingly been studying the Kurds, Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians. In the scenario of an all-out war, NATO has been preparing itself for overt military roles in both Syria and Iran.

Iraq is being destabilized further too. While Iran’s allies in Damascus have been weighed down, its allies in Baghdad have not. After Syria, the same conglomerate of countries working against Damascus will turn their attention to Iraq. They have already started working to galvanize Iraq further on the basis of its sectarian and political fault lines. Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are playing prominent roles in this objective. What is becoming manifest is that the differences between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims that Washington has cultivated since the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 are now been augmented by Kurdish sectarianism.

It appears that many in the Israeli political establishment now believe that they have succeeded in breaking the Resistance Bloc. Whether they are correct or incorrect is a matter of debate. Syria still stands; the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (which was by far the most active Palestinian group fighting Israel from Gaza in 2012) and other Palestinians will side with Iran even if Hamas will have its hands tied by Egypt; there are still Tehran’s allies in Iraq; and Syria is not the only supply line for Iran to arm its ally Hezbollah. What is also very clear is that the siege against Syria is a front in the covert multi-dimensional war against Iran. This alone should make people reconsider the statements of US officials and their allies about having concerns for the Syrian people merely on the basis of humanitarianism and democracy.


door Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya</sub>

[Nr.10]

Syrië - Irak - Iran

Hebben die geen akkoord om een energietoevoersysteem te bouwen?

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nr.10

Syrië - Irak - Iran

Hebben die geen akkoord om een energietoevoersysteem te bouwen?

Inderdaad.

Tehran Times - Iran, Iraq, Syria to connect national power grids within days
2 juli 2012 - TEHRAN - Iran, Iraq and Syria will connect their national power grids within the next few days, said Iranian Deputy Energy Minister Mohammad Behzad. He told the Mehr News Agency that synchronizing the power grids of Iran, Iraq and Syria with that of Lebanon will make the biggest electricity network in the Muslim World, he added. Iran is fully prepared to export electricity to Lebanon and Syria and power transfer to these countries will officially start as of next week, Abdolhamid Farzam, Iran Energy Ministry’s official in charge of foreign exchanges said on May 13. According to Farzam, electricity export to Lebanon and Syria is taking place as part of an agreement reached between energy ministers of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in February. Power transfer to Lebanon and Syria will be carried out in two phases, 50 MW in the first phase and 200 MW in the second phase, Farzam added, Press TV reported. ...



APA - Iran starts construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline
20 december 2013 - Baku. Konul Jafarli – APA. Iran started construction of a gas pipeline which is due to take the country's rich gas reserves to Iraq and Syria, a provincial official announced. The announcement was made by Gilan-e Gharb Governor Ardeshir Rostami during an executive coordination meeting of the officials of relevant bodies, APA reports quoting “FARS” news agency.

Deze belangrijke alliantie/samenwerking is zonder twijfel een uiterst pijnlijke doorn in het oog van de terroristenknuffelaars en zij die deze regio met behulp van verdeel en heers wensen te onderdrukken en 'ontmantelen'.

[Nr.10]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Deze belangrijke alliantie/samenwerking is zonder twijfel een uiterst pijnlijke doorn in het oog van de terroristenknuffelaars en zij die deze regio met behulp van verdeel en heers wensen te onderdrukken en 'ontmantelen'.

²

[zonbron]

Verdeel en heers zal niet lukken in Irak



Press TV - Turkey, Qatar sectarian plots will fail in Iraq
14 december 2013 - Are the same forces that promote a sectarian conflict in Syria trying to do the same in Iraq?

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the enemies of Iraq have taken advantage of the complexities of the Iraqi society - made up by different political, ethnic and religious components - in order to fuel sectarian conflicts. They are trying to overthrow the current Iraqi government, led by Nouri al-Maliki, by claiming that it is Shiite-dominated or pro-Iranian and spreading sedition between Sunnis and Shiites and Arabs and Kurds.

Iraqi analysts think that some foreign parties are plotting to topple the Maliki government in order to expel Shiite parties from power or at least weaken their influence. They also consider that Iraq would be the following country in the list if Bashar al-Assad´s government were toppled by armed groups in Syria. Extremist groups would then feel emboldened by a hard line sectarian government in Damascus and the result would be a wider sectarian conflict in the region.

One of the enemies of the Iraqi government is al-Qaeda in Iraq, responsible for a wave of sectarian terrorist attacks that continue up to today. Last year, al-Qaeda began to expand its operations in Iraq and, as a result, hundreds of people were killed, especially during Shiite religious celebrations.

Despite the high number of victims, the Iraqi authorities have dismissed al-Qaeda´s operations as “insignificant”. “The war on terror is over,” said Maliki, adding that “what remains is only a bunch of cells backed by foreign countries.” The Iraqi Parliament has also passed a tough anti-terrorism law, which has contributed to reduce the number of attacks.


Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
...

[zonbron]

The Yinon Thesis Vindicated: Neocons, Israel, and the Fragmentation of Syria
Door Stephen J. Sniegoski



Waarde lezers, Uw mening en bijdragen zijn welkom.

Dank U.



ZB

[D'ARTOIS]

"Kwaadaardige website" volgens mijn browser (Maxthon)

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door D'ARTOIS

"Kwaadaardige website" volgens mijn browser (Maxthon)

Sucuri
web site: home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/article38.html
status: Site blacklisted, malware not identified
web trust: Site blacklisted.
*This site was just scanned a few minutes ago.

Security report (Warnings found):
error Blacklisted: Yes
check Malware: No
check Malicious javascript: No
check Malicious iFrames: No
check Drive-By Downloads: No
check Anomaly detection: No
check IE-only attacks: No
check Suspicious redirections: No
check Spam: No


Scan for: http://home.comcast.net/~transparent...article38.html
Hostname: home.comcast.net
IP address: 216.87.188.9

System Details:
Running on: Apache

Domain blacklisted on Phish tank: home.comcast.net - reference
Domain clean by Google Safe Browsing: home.comcast.net - reference
Domain clean by Norton Safe Web: home.comcast.net - reference
Domain clean on the Opera browser: home.comcast.net - reference
Domain clean by SiteAdvisor: home.comcast.net - reference
Domain clean on Sucuri IP/URL malware blacklist: home.comcast.net - reference
Domain clean by the Sucuri Malware Labs blacklist: home.comcast.net - reference
Domain clean on Yandex (via Sophos): home.comcast.net - reference

Phish tank heeft die site op de zwarte lijst gezet vanwege 'phishing', U hoeft die site echter geen info te geven om de tekst te lezen. Ik veronderstel simpelweg censuur.

Kijk zelf : http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/...article38.html

Maar, U kan bvb. diezelfde tekst ook hier lezen :

The Yinon Thesis Vindicated: Neocons, Israel, and the Fragmentation of Syria
By Stephen J. Sniegoski

of hier

[zonbron]

Het was onvermijdbaar, het masker valt af.

De schijnheilige afzijdigheid van Israel in het niet zo 'interne' Syrische conflict kan definitief naar de prullenmand verwezen worden.

Israel heeft uiteindelijk Syrie aangevallen. Nabij de grens met Libanon en in de omgeving van Damascus werden de preemtive strikes verwezenlijkt.

Deze vijandige daad was niet gericht tegen de terroristen die het land zou vrezen, maar wel tegen het regime van Assad en het souvereine Syrie. Dat maakt dat dit in feite een niet formele oorlogsverklaring is.

Of is dit toch wettelijke zelfverdediging ?

Daily Kos - A Dirty, Rotten Break: Syria

[Johan Bollen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Deze belangrijke alliantie/samenwerking is zonder twijfel een uiterst pijnlijke doorn in het oog van de terroristenknuffelaars en zij die deze regio met behulp van verdeel en heers wensen te onderdrukken en 'ontmantelen'.

Als Syrië veroverd wordt zijn deze energieprojecten zowat het eerste wat worden stop gezet. Iran kan zo zijn olie niet naar de Middellandse ze brengen. Follow the money. Geen nood om daar mijns inziens niets ter zake doende documenten zoals 'de protocollen' bij te halen.

Dat de westerse verdeel en heersstrategie de opdeling van het midden oosten in kleinere staten en tussen verschillende subgroepen (sunni, shii, Koerden...) beoogd is een voor de hand liggende conclusie. Ik vraag me af waarom de moslims zo gemakkelijk tegen elkaar op te zetten zijn. Zien ze dan niet dat ze collectief genaaid worden?

[Johan Bollen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door D'ARTOIS

"Kwaadaardige website" volgens mijn browser (Maxthon)

Ik hoop dat u een manier kan vinden om rond de censuur heen te geraken. Dat zal moeilijker en moeilijker worden vrees ik.

In Landen waar er rechtstreekse overheidscensuur is past men meestal niet van die geniepige trukjes toe en kan men een kat een kat noemen. De indirecte censuur in het Westen is echter niet minder censuur te noemen is ook al is ze dikwijls geprivatiseerd en ingepakt als iets anders...in dit geval wil men uw computer enkel 'beschermen'. Bullshit natuurlijk.

[Johan Bollen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

Of is dit toch wettelijke zelfverdediging ?

Daily Kos - A Dirty, Rotten Break: Syria

Als zogezegde 'preventieve oorlogen' wettige zelfverdediging mogen genoemd worden zitten we aan het eind van het internationaal systeem dat een relatieve vrede wist te bereiken na de tweede wereldoorlog.

Het is wordt tijd dat we degenen die de internationale orde niet respecteren en de ene na de andere oorlog starten, veel menselijk leed in hun kielzog achterlatend, identificeren als gevaarlijk voor de wereldvrede.

The actions the neocons promoted have left a trail of shattered countries which we have been unprepared to repair. None of these breakages have been clean. Preceded by false intelligence and followed by deteriorating societies, in their quest to secure the realm and remake the map of the Middle East, the neocons have delivered nothing but dirty, rotten breaks.

Neocons have excelled at crafting interventionist messages for Israel and the United States, both in position papers for heads of state and in op-eds for the mainstream media. It's past time for the progressive grassroots to craft a message of our own: whether overt or covert, no more neocon adventures in our name.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Johan Bollen

Als Syrië veroverd wordt zijn deze energieprojecten zowat het eerste wat worden stop gezet. Iran kan zo zijn olie niet naar de Middellandse ze brengen. Follow the money. Geen nood om daar mijns inziens niets ter zake doende documenten zoals 'de protocollen' bij te halen.

Iran Times - EU sanction of Bank Sina ruled unjust
31 januari 2013 - In a major decision, Europe’s highest court has ruled that the European Union unfairly sanctioned Iran’s Bank Sina in July 2010.

In a major decision, Europe’s highest court has ruled that the European Union unfairly sanctioned Iran’s Bank Sina in July 2010.

The court decision could open the door for many other Iranian institutions to challenge the EU for labeling them as partners in nuclear proliferation.

The European Court of Justice, based in Luxembourg, found that the EU’s justification for sanctioning Bank Sina was too vague and lacking in specifics to justify the punitive action the EU took. The court did not say that Bank Sina was innocent of the charge that it helped Iran’s nuclear program; it just said the EU had done nothing to prove its allegations.

The court last week gave the EU two months in which to appeal the decision or re-impose sanctions on Bank Sina with a more substantive justification.

Ironically, the decision represents the Americanization of the judicial system in Europe. In the United States, the courts have long been able to tell government that it cannot do what it wants to do. But in Europe, parliaments have been supreme and stood unquestioned until recent years when the American system has been adopted.

In Britain a few years ago, a court told the government it had no justification to declare the Mojahedin-e Khalq to be a terrorist organization. In the Netherlands last week, a court said a Dutch ban on Iranian students taking nuclear science was discriminatory and illegal. Now, the EU’s highest court has told that government it can’t just throw vague words around to justify its policy toward Iranian banks

...

Sommige instellingen in de EU functioneren blijkbaar nog naar behoren...

Dat de westerse verdeel en heersstrategie de opdeling van het midden oosten in kleinere staten en tussen verschillende subgroepen (sunni, shii, Koerden...) beoogd is een voor de hand liggende conclusie. Ik vraag me af waarom de moslims zo gemakkelijk tegen elkaar op te zetten zijn. Zien ze dan niet dat ze collectief genaaid worden?

Dat vraag is me ook soms af.

Maar als men dan even naar de taalstrijd in Belgie kijkt en hoe de politiek er gebruik van maakt...

Verdeel en heers kan hard, maar ook zachtjes gespeeld worden. Maar meestal is het succesvol. Als men uiteindelijk wat meer onlust en onrust wenst voldoen een paar snipers en een paar straffe uitspraken van een paar politiekers. Dat wordt dan in de media 'uitgesmeerd'.

[D'ARTOIS]

DE vraag blijft bestaan of de EU de uitspraak van het hof zal volgen. Voor zover mij bekend liggen er geen sancties uitvoerbaar bij voorraad op een gedane uitspraak.

De uitspraak mag zijn zoals die is, maar er bestaat geen enkele overheid die haar eigen wetten volgt, zou dat zo zijn, was er geen rechtspraak nodig.

Het is en blijft achterkamerpolitiek waarvan de werkelijke doelstellingen in het verborgene worden vastgesteld. Zo ook met betrekking tot het Iraanse banksystem, immers vanuit de VS hoek chanteerde men SWIFT om Iran uit te sluiten van het mondiale bankverkeer.

Het is en blijft de VS die de stuwende Deus ex Machina is die Iran economisch op de knieën wil dwingen. Tot elke prijs.
De fladderjurken, evenals de Joden de slechts mogelijke discussiepartners (alleen zij hebben gelijk), hebben van PR geen enkel stuk kaas gegeten.
Ook hier weer een zuiver voorbeeld van hoe een religie gedoopt in een saus van directe waanzin, een land in het moeras kan storten.

Kortheidshalve, de EU zal de uitspraak van het hof naast zich neerleggen.
Alleen door zware sancties kan een overheid gedwongen worden zich naar een uitspraak te schikken. Met andere woorden: deze uitspraak is een klap op een lege zak, aldus onze bekende Heinrici.

[D'ARTOIS]

Inmiddels heb ik het comcast artikel gelezen.

Uit ervaring weet ik dat de Israëlische politiek behept is met impuls- en paniek handelingen.
En, geen enkele consideratie hebben met wie, wat en waar als men zich bedreigd voelt.
Immers, grote broer staat op de hoek tw wachten en zal ingrijpen als het mis gaat.
En niemand durft grote broer in de straat van het M-O een klap op zijn bek te geven, althans in het openbaar.

Een beetje beeldspraak, maar je begrijpt wel wat ik bedoel.

Wat er in Libanon is voorgevallem moet je van twee kanten kunnen bekijken.
1) Vanuit Libanon vinden voortdurend aanvallen plaats en 2) als fundi's een wapenbergplaats van Assad hebben leeggeruimd en de inhoud in een stel vrachtwagens hebben geladen, voor geadresseerde Hamas, dan is het terecht dat ze met die lui korte metten maken.
Dat het tegen alle regels is, is in een conflictsituatie van ondergeschikt belang. Als het er op aankomt houdt geen kat zich aan regels.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door D'ARTOIS

Inmiddels heb ik het comcast artikel gelezen.

Uit ervaring weet ik dat de Israëlische politiek behept is met impuls- en paniek handelingen.
En, geen enkele consideratie hebben met wie, wat en waar als men zich bedreigd voelt.
Immers, grote broer staat op de hoek tw wachten en zal ingrijpen als het mis gaat.
En niemand durft grote broer in de straat van het M-O een klap op zijn bek te geven, althans in het openbaar.

Een beetje beeldspraak, maar je begrijpt wel wat ik bedoel.

Wat er in Libanon is voorgevallem moet je van twee kanten kunnen bekijken.
1) Vanuit Libanon vinden voortdurend aanvallen plaats en 2) als fundi's een wapenbergplaats van Assad hebben leeggeruimd en de inhoud in een stel vrachtwagens hebben geladen, voor geadresseerde Hamas, dan is het terecht dat ze met die lui korte metten maken.
Dat het tegen alle regels is, is in een conflictsituatie van ondergeschikt belang. Als het er op aankomt houdt geen kat zich aan regels.

Heb het begrepen hoor D'ARTOIS en akkoord.

Maar het gaat niet over fundies hoor, dit mijn inziens.



Israeli regime launched an airstrike against Syria targeting a military research center near Damascus.

Meer : HIER

[D'ARTOIS]

@ ZB

Ik ben met mijn boot bezig en derhalve kom ik tijd tekort om alle media uit te pluizen.

Vanwege de gevaarlijke situatie is Syrië zijn er weinig correspondenten die een serieus verhaal te vertellen hebben.

Wat ik ervan begrepen heb staat een simultane situatie als Egypte (en mogelijk Libye) voor de deur waar moslimfundamentalisten zullen proberen een politiek overwicht te krijgen en worden mogelijk bijgestaan door anti-Assad groepen.

Naar mijn idee heeft de EU politiek alreeds afscheid genomen van Assad en wacht nu af wie als winnaar uit de bus komt.
Dat is tenminste wat ik ervan begrepen heb.

Hoe de partijen in het conflict zich daadwerkelijk tot elaak verhouden is mij niet bekend.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jacob555

Bedankt voor het bespreken en het stellen van deze issue.I met je eens.

Welkom @Jacob555.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door D'ARTOIS

@ ZB

Ik ben met mijn boot bezig en derhalve kom ik tijd tekort om alle media uit te pluizen.

Vanwege de gevaarlijke situatie is Syrië zijn er weinig correspondenten die een serieus verhaal te vertellen hebben.

Wat ik ervan begrepen heb staat een simultane situatie als Egypte (en mogelijk Libye) voor de deur waar moslimfundamentalisten zullen proberen een politiek overwicht te krijgen en worden mogelijk bijgestaan door anti-Assad groepen.

Naar mijn idee heeft de EU politiek alreeds afscheid genomen van Assad en wacht nu af wie als winnaar uit de bus komt.
Dat is tenminste wat ik ervan begrepen heb.

Hoe de partijen in het conflict zich daadwerkelijk tot elkaar verhouden is mij niet bekend.

Infowars - Israel Announces “Security Zone” in Syria


Veel plezier op het sop en met de hobby @D'ARTOIS.


Nieuwe info...

...

Israel’s decision to carve out a strip on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights – Syrian territory occupied and administered by Israel since 1967 – is hardly a new tactic: Israel did much the same in south Lebanon.

Following the conclusion of the 1982 Lebanon War and Operation Peace in Galilee (the Israeli invasion of Lebanon), the IDF was instructed by the Israeli government to maintain a “security zone” in Lebanon, ostensibly to prevent infiltration by the PLO. Israeli occupation of a 25 kilometer deep area inside the country and the brutality inflicted on civilians by the IDF and its proxy the South Lebanon Army resulted in the formation of Hezbollah.

Around 18,000 people were killed and 30,000 injured and between 500,000-800,000 made homeless in the first three months of the Israeli occupation. The IDF maintained the notorious Khiam prison where many Lebanese were held without trial and tortured.

Resistance by the Lebanese and Hezbollah’s low-intensity guerrilla warfare eventually resulted in Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. In 2000, Israel completed the withdrawal in compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426 requiring it to withdraw to internationally recognized borders.

Intimidating Syria

Israel’s action against Lebanon was part of a long-standing “effort to secure the balkanization and vassalization of Lebanon, the eradication of Palestinian nationalism, and the intimidation of Syria,” writes Naseer H. Aruri. He cites the writings of Moshe Sharett, the second Prime Minister of Israel, who documented deliberate Israeli acts of provocation, intended to generate Arab hostility and thus to create pretexts for armed action and territorial expansion. Sharett’s records document this policy of “sacred terrorism” and expose the myths of Israel’s “security needs” and the “Arab threat” that have been treated like self-evident truths from the creation of Israel to the present…

Livia Rokach, in her book on Sharett’s personal dairy, reveals a consistent effort by Israel to provoke Syria, beginning in the early 1950s and culminating in the occupation of the Golan in 1967, a move that resulted in the explusion of 130,000 Syrians.

“The Golan Heights serves as yet another reminder that the conflict on the ground is very different than the story Israel offers up to the world,” writes Mya Guarnieri. “The conflict isn’t about the Western world battling the Muslim world; it’s not a clash of cultures or a clash of values; the occupation isn’t a security measure, meant to protect Israel from ‘terrorists.’”

It is also about balkanizing and splintering the Arab and Muslim world, a plan not exclusive to Israel as a key component of its own territorial ambitions, but also used by the global elite who have employed the time-tested British “divide and conquer” strategy to “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski writes in The Grand Chessboard.

Israel’s Buffer Zone in Syria: Old Habits

“The purpose of the plan [to impose a buffer zone] is to ensure the safety of Israel’s Golan Heights and its northern region after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria,” Israel Defense reports today.

“If the Syrian instability persists, it seems that IDF forces will have to stay in the security zone that will be constructed for years,” said one of those close to those behind the plan that was submitted.

For Israel, the piecemeal conquest of Syria – and Lebanon before it – has little to do with “Syrian instability” manufactured in large part by external players (the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar), but is rather an ongoing effort to dissolve Arab and Muslim states.

A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s, written by Oded Yinon, who was formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, and published in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization, “reflects high-level thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment,” writes Ralph Schoenman. The article “outlines a timetable for Israel to become the imperial regional power based upon the dissolution of the Arab states.”

Yinon described an effort to dissolve Lebanon, fragment Syria, go to war with Iran, target Iraq (mission accomplished), marginalize and weaken Egypt (now in process), undermine Saudi Arabia, and eventually depopulate the Occupied Territories.

The decision to carve out a new security zone in Syria – despite its abject failure to maintain one in Lebanon – reveals that it remains on a trajectory envisioned prior to the establishment of the Israeli state.

The United States will naturally support this violation of Syria’s national sovereignty – citing al-Qaeda and other manufactured threats – as it has supported nearly all of Israel’s efforts against its Arab and Muslim neighbors.

Birds of a feather, they say, after all fly together.

[zonbron]

Lees ook : The Sunday Times - Israel plans defence buffer inside Syria
4 februari 2013 - ISRAEL is considering creating a buffer zone reaching up to 10 miles inside Syria to protect itself from fundamentalist rebels on the other side of the border. The proposal, which has been drawn up by the military and presented to Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, is intended to secure the 47-mile border against a growing Islamist threat if President Bashar al-Assad’s embattled regime loses control of the area.