Israel: Gobbling up more Syrian land with Trump’s approval.

Israel argues that there is no Syria to ‘negotiate with’ — which means the occupation of the Golan is now ‘legitimate’ Israel: Gobbling up more Syrian land Israel’s deputy minister for diplomacy Michael Oren has announced that ‘there is no Syria to negotiate with’, which means that Israel’s illegal occupation of the Golan should be […]

via Israel Makes It Official: The Destruction of Syria Will Legitimise Israeli Land Grabs — Friends of Syria

 

uncle-donald1

 

Story image for golan heights from Jerusalem Post Israel News

IDF strikes targets in Syria after projectile lands in Israel’s Golan

Jerusalem Post Israel NewsApr 22, 2017
The army struck positions in Syria over the weekend after projectiles struck the Golan Heights, apparently errant fire from fighting in Syria.
Israeli Air Force attacks Syrian government positions in the Golan
AMN Al-Masdar News (registration)Apr 23, 2017

Nothing says I’m Guilty like Trump, UK & France all refusing to send real forensic scientists to site of their alleged chemical attack in Syria

BY: Alex Christoforou

More reasons to believe that the Idlib chemical weapons attack was indeed a false flag, for which the US, UK, France (and many western powers) are trying to cover up.

Sputnik News reports

The Organisation For The Prohibition Of Chemical Weapons has rejected Russia and Iran’s proposal for a new team to probe the suspected chemical attack earlier this month in Syria. Moscow’s pushing for a wider investigation, because it believes the OPCW cannot properly confirm anything until it’s actually visited the site.

The blocking of the Russian proposal at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on investigating the alleged chemical weapon use in Syria’s Idlib province aims to direct attention to the idea of regime change in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

The OPCW is not willing to properly probe the alleged chemical attack in Idlib. This is very odd.

What does a proper investigation entail?

How about the OPCW actually visit the site of the alleged attack, instead of rely on samples sent by White Helmets, or Al Qaeda, or anyone else for that matter.

How was the OPCW able to analyze the samples so quickly? Usually such lab work requires weeks, not hours.

What were the documented procedures for collecting the samples, and sending the samples? No documentation as to the collection process has been provided.

This is all very sloppy forensics, and it appears that western powers are working hard to keep this as sloppy as possible so as to avid a professional investigation which will, in my opinion, most certainly debunk the “Assad did it” narrative.

“Sarin or a ‘sarin-like’ substance” is repeated by UK diplomats in the video above. How can a verdict be attributed when officials are not even certain of the chemical allegedly used? Once again we see clever word play from the “Assad must go” coalition.

Here is what Russian FM Lavrov had to say about the OPCW at a joint meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

“Yesterday, our joint proposal that OPCW experts visit the sites of the suspected chemical weapon use incident in Syria was blocked by western delegations without coherent explanations. This showed the complete incompetence of the positions of our western colleagues who basically prohibit the OPCW from sending their experts to the site of the incident, to the air base from where aircraft loaded with chemical weapons allegedly flew out.”

Lavrov noted that the UK and France have been curiously silent towards Russia’s requests for detailed information on the alleged chemical weapon probes taken in Syria.

“I think we are very close to this organization [OPCW] being discredited.”

“False information on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government is being used to move away from the implementation of resolution 2254 which stipulates a political settlement with the participation of all the Syrian parties and to switch to the long-cherished idea of regime change.”

It’s fantasy for a U.S. President to think aiding an anti-Assad caliphate will lead to peace

A sober look at the confusion in Assad’s Syria

It’s fantasy to think U.S. backing of anti-Assad forces will lead to peace

 

stop_israel_us_saudi_arabia_turkey_qatar_supporting_isis_terrorists-e1449422938678
– – Wednesday, April 19, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Was “Tomahawking” Syria for an alleged gas attack justifiable retribution, misfeasance, malfeasance or just a mistake? Was it a warning to China and North Korea as some have advanced? (This is the same line of thinking that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was really aimed cautioning the Soviet Union.) Why would China, the “celestial kingdom,” powerful in her own right, pay attention; why would North Korea, in the hands of a madman, even care?

Given the vagaries of the Middle East, truth is the first and last casualty. The first accusation of a gas attack by Syrian President Bashar Assad against rebel strongholds failed the smell test; it was more likely done by the regime’s enemies. In the latest iteration, is there conclusive evidence of culpability? Maybe I missed it. It’s more likely that Mr. Assad’s jets hit an ISIS chemical weapons dump, releasing the poison into the surrounding neighborhoods. So far, the allegations consist of words like “likely,” “leads to” and on and on in that vein. We are presented with suppositions and possibilities, but that is all.

Should we take Secretary of Defense James Mattis’ pronouncements at face value? Could he not be given misinformation? Could assertion of an Assad gas attack follow the formula of the Tonkin Gulf incident? Who profits from the gas attack? Certainly not Mr. Assad, who lived in London and knows full well the military power of the United States. Why would he, winning on the battlefield, use gas, which he knows would bring on the opprobrium of the West and a military attack? Who profits then? Why not ISIS and its friends who, by blaming Mr. Assad, might inspire American might to remove the great obstacle to their Dark Ages mentality?

Mr. Assad is an Alewite, a Shia faction heretical in the eyes of Sunni ISIS and, therefore, their enemy. As a Baathist, and therefore a modernizer, he is also antithetical to those Muslims who wish to resurrect a caliphate. The Baathist Party, which he represents, was founded by Michel Afliq, a Christian. It is a party that, in spite of its jumble of nationalism, Arabism and socialism, has seen itself as a bringing Arab society into the present, releasing it from the straitjacket of an Islam mired in the 12th century.

Compounding their offenses, the Assad family has protected Christians, whom the caliphate crowd see as infidels deserving of death. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, they have never passed up the opportunity to reinforce their hatred of Christianity or other Muslims. The press gives short shrift to the atrocities against Christians in the Middle East, and never reports on the efforts of Franciscan monks in Aleppo to relieve suffering caused by the civil war and the Muslim militias. In short, if Mr. Assad were to go, Alewites and Christians would be on the extermination list. With no alternative other than the death for him and his supporters and clients, Mr. Assad will hold on.

Knowledge of Syria by this administration and its predecessor is shallow at best. T.E. Lawrence wrote in his “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” that the Arab delights in chicanery. In hospitality, the Arabs can be extremely generous (as I experienced in Iraq), but was Lawrence right in saying that they were also “unstable as water” and that we delude “ourselves that perhaps peace might find the Arabs able to defend themselves with paper tools”?

The Syrian situation amply supplies examples of all. The Obama administration’s policy, enunciated by U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power as a “duty to protect” (i.e., U.S. intervention in the “Arab Spring”), was a dangerous absurdity in lands whose undercurrents are unfathomable to the Western mind. It led to nearly losing Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood and the unconstitutional attack on Libya, ensuring chaos and then the murder of Moammar Gadhafi, who was not a threat and who had kept a lid on the fanatical murderous rage of ISIS.

The history of the Middle East is one of bloodshed and oppression; this conflict is just another in an age-old saga. To think that by backing anti-Assad forces or removing him from power will lead to a flowering of democracy and peace is a fantasy. It would behoove this administration to examine the tumultuous French experience in Syria under the League of Nations mandate; we are not dealing with Anglo-Saxons. Unless the United States and the West is prepared to put troops on the ground, who would be first welcomed and then shot at, it is advisable to stay out and make them sort it out on their own.

• William Layer is a historian who covered Air Force presidential operations during the early years of the Reagan administration.

Not on our Dime…Johnson hints parliament votes against Syria invasion

‘Hard to say no’: Johnson hints parliament vote against Syria invasion may be ignored at US request ‘Hard to say no’: Johnson hints parliament vote against Syria invasion may be ignored at US request Published time: 19 Apr, 2017 01:32Edited time: 19 Apr, 2017 07:12 British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. © Alkis Konstantinidis / Reuters AddThis […]

via Boris “the clown” Johnson says an USA request to illegally bomb Syria would override Parliament’s wishes — Uprootedpalestinians’s Blog

Beyond apartheid: Fragments from the West Bank

divorce-israel-peak-of-evil

I want the world to know

Anas Mohammed Jnena on April 17, 2017

Anas Mohammed Jnena, a writer from Gaza with the WeAreNotNumbers campaign wants the world to know Gaza is like any other place in the world and so are its people: “I want the world to know that Palestine has writers, artists, thinkers and, most importantly, lovers. I want to the world to know that we are humans just like you.”

‘Being a former prisoner’s daughter has instilled in me an unstoppable determination’

Tamam Abusalama on April 17, 2017

As more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails launch a hunger strike on the occasion of Palestinian Prisoners Day, Tamam Abusalama recalls the combined 15 years her father spent as a prisoner. “Being a former prisoner’s daughter has instilled in me an unstoppable determination to break all borders and limits. I struggle against everything that violates my freedom and that of my people.”

Beyond apartheid: Fragments from the West Bank

Yarden Katz on April 17, 2017

According to a recent New York Times op-ed, Israel today is “nothing like” South African apartheid. Yarden Katz, an Israeli, abandoned the warnings about visiting the West Bank and toured a housed in Bethlehem trapped by the wall, and a ghost town in Hebron, “If we only dare look, we see that there’s apartheid and much more.”

– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/israel-palestine/#sthash.N4eacYAt.dpuf

Turks are So Screwed Now

Erdogan: The ambitious sultan – Adam Baum – Medium
15 April 2017 21:21 CEST By Hasan Hasan* On Sunday, 16 April a referendum will be held in Turkey to codify Erdogan’s dictatorial ambitions and his plenipotentiary powers as an absolute executive whose power and authority cannot be challenged or checked. Think of an Anatolian version of Adolf Hitler and you’ll begin to get the idea.
Medium
Turkey’s Referendum Farce
Apr 16 at 7:58am
Erdogan is a shill for the Globalists ….Watch:
https://medium.com/@Adam1Baum/erdogan-the-ambitious-sultan-6282fa32bd47
C9OUe2zXoAEkIxF

Declassified: 1983 CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria For Oil and Predicts Current Conflict

8Hmmkxd

Apr 12, 2017, 8:26:47 PM

Syria has been at the center of a decades-long plot by the United States to depone the sovereign government and install one supportive of its business goals in the Middle East.

 

President Donald Trump has repeatedly castigated President Bashar al-Assad for ordering a gruesome mass killing of civilians with chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun. Due to insufficient investigation, this accusation, unsubstantiated, sparked overwhelming support for the Syrian regime from both Moscow and Tehran.

Could Trump have earned a congressional green light and perhaps approval from NATO to obliterate Syrian Arab Army forces responsible if the account of an ordered chemical weapons attack proved immutably true? Potentially.

Fifty-nine $1.87 million Tomahawk missiles raining down on a Syrian air base not long after the toxic gassing proves Trump to “stay in line” with a succession of pompously militant and combative presidents. It shows he is stands alongside the neocon political establishment’s longstanding mission to forcibly bend Syria to its own will.

Former CIA officer Graham Fuller discussed Syria under Assad’s predecessor, his father, Hafez al-Assad. It ‘s Entitled “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria” and dated September 14, 1983, amid the Iran-Iraq War:

 

 

“Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.”

 

 

1983 CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria, Foreshadows Current Crisis

 

 

Fuller’s analysis conveys Assad as a nuisance hindering the American empire’s lust to control fossil fuel stores and protect ally, Israel, against multiple threats in the Middle East.

Destabilization of Iraq and Iran is also featured in the intricate U.S. plan to deal with the irritant, elder Assad, who recognized Western ulterior motives.

 

The six-page document continues:

 

 

 

“Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East.

 

  • Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south.
  • Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf.

 

Diplomatic initiatives to date have had little effect on Assad who has so far correctly calculated the play of forces in the area and concluded they are only weakly arrayed against him. If the U.S. is to rein in Syria’s spoiling role, it can only do so through the exertion of real muscle which will pose a vital threat to Assad’s position and power.”

 

 

With Iraq seeking to obtain support internationally in the war, the U.S. had to scramble to prevent the shutdown of a pipeline.  This is a dilemma Fuller suggests could be alleviated through a “change in narrative to present Syria as a more deviant enemy than even Iran.” That, alone, could have changed the face of the war bearing the names of the two principal adversaries, Sunni majority, Iraq, and Syria-allied, Shi’a, Iran.

 

Fuller asserted:

 

 

“The US should consider urging Iraq to take the war to the other key source of its predicament: Syria.”

 

 

 

 

He continued:

 

“The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. Iraq, perceived to be increasingly desperate in the Gulf war, would undertake limited military (air) operations against Syria with the sole goal of opening the pipeline. Although opening war on a second front against Syria poses considerable risk to Iraq, Syria would also face a two-front war since it’s already heavily engaged in the Bekaa, on the Golan and in maintaining control over a hostile and restive population inside Syria. Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq. Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. Such a concession would relieve the economic pressure on Iraq, and perhaps force Iran to reconsider bringing the war to an end. It would be a sharpening blow to Syria’s prestige and could affect the equation of forces in Lebanon.”

 

In context, then-President Ronald Reagan faced pressure both to insert military power in neutral Lebanon,  and to prohibit military assistance in the troubled regional entanglement. Until a suicide bomber decimated a U.S. Marines barracks encamped at an airport in Beirut, killing hundreds, just one month after the date on Fuller’s Syria action plan.

In “When America Attacked Syria”,  Micah Zenko, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (a Deep State establishment think tank)  wrote in 2012:

 

“The October 23, 1983, suicide truck bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport would kill 241 U.S. military personnel; simultaneously, another suicide bomber killed fifty-eight French servicemen of the MNF several kilometers away. (Two weeks later, yet another truck bomb exploded in the Israeli military headquarters in Tyre, killing sixty.) An FBI forensics assessment called the Marine barracks bombing the ‘ the biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II.’ According to a Pentagon commission formed to investigate the attack, it was ‘tantamount to an act of war using the medium of terrorism.’ Within weeks, the CIA determined ‘the bombings…of the United States and French MNF headquarters were carried out by Shia radicals, armed, trained, and directed by Syria and Iran.’”

 

The fact the CIA determined fault for the bombings rested with Syria and Iran left both plausibly responsible, with public perception largely following suit.

A situation eerily similar is playing out nearly three-and-a-half decades later. Behind-the-scenes string-pulling and long-term U.S. commitment to deposing an Assad from rule in Syria bellows resoundingly on failures of interventionist foreign policy. Or, potentially, success.

 

“Such a threat must be primarily military in nature. At present there are three relatively hostile elements around Syria’s borders: Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Consideration must be given to orchestrating a credible military threat against Syria to induce at least some moderate change in its policies,” Fuller explained in the document.  This paper proposes serious examination of all three states, acting independently, to exert the necessary threat. Use of any one state in isolation cannot create such a credible threat.”

 

Syria is now a landmine for the Trump administration as it’s been in for a lengthy succession of presidents before.

To comply with the neocon agenda by raining missiles upon Assad’s forces would rightly emblazon the already blood-stained U.S. government as chief aggressors in a conflict nearing resolution, if not become the catalyst for a third world war.

 

 

 

 

To see the document, check out the video below: