May 16, 2008 - No. 80 -
Supplement
The March to War: Israel Prepares for
War
Against Lebanon and Syria
- Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global
Research, April 18, 2008 -
By the start of 2007, reports about major upgrades to
the Syrian military, including advances in missile technology, with
Iranian help were widespread in Israel.[1] The
impression of an imminent war existed across much of the Middle East.
Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran were reported in Israel to be preparing for
a war to spark in the Levant.[2]
It was also claimed in Israel that Damascus had sent
secret messages to Tel Aviv that should Israel continue to reject
Syria's peace overtures, a war would breakout in the Golan Heights and
that Syrian reservists were forbidden from leaving Syria because of the
possibility of combat.[3] In June,
2007,
an inner circle of the Israeli government that would form a "war
cabinet" in a Middle Eastern war scenario was categorically informed
that a war with Syria would absolutely involve Iranian military
intervention.[4]
It is now 2008 and the spectre of war has remerged in
the Middle East. Syrian President Basher Al-Assad revealed that his
country is uneasy and prepared for the worst once again. Despite
Tehran's position that the U.S. would not dare launch a war against
Iran, the Iranian military is on standby. The
Lebanese military and Hezbollah have also been placed on alert.
"While war is not a preferable option, if Israel
declares war on Syria and Lebanon or if America declares war on Iran,
Syria would be prepared," the Syrian President told a gathering of Arab
intellectuals according to Al-Akhbar, a Lebanese newspaper,
on April 16, 2008.[5] "We should
analyze the situation from the perspective of American interests,
because the last war in Lebanon has shown that at some point Israel
wanted to stop the fighting, but was forced by the
[Bush Jr. Administration] to pursue it further," Basher
Al-Assad continued.[6] Thus the
threat of war lives on in the Middle East in 2008.
"Miscalculations" in the Levant: Setting the Stage for
War?
Hereto, Tel Aviv has been deliberately promoting
tensions with Syria and Lebanon. In 2007, Major-General Moshe
Kaplinsky, the former deputy chief of staff for the Israeli military,
stated during a press briefing that war between Syria
and Israel was unlikely as an answer to growing rumours of war that
started since late-2006 and the commencement of 2007. The Israeli flag
officer however did not rule out an eventual Israeli-Syrian conflict.
Major-General Kaplinsky along with many other Israeli commanders and
officials repeatedly stressed that
a "miscalculation on the border" could spark a conflict between Syria
and Israel sometime in the future.[7]
Not long after the 2006 Israeli defeat in Lebanon, Tel
Aviv started crafting the "justifications" for more wars in its
surrounding neighbourhood, the Levant.[8] The
Israeli definitions of "miscalculation" have been extremely vague and
ominous. Tel Aviv has been involved in the process of creating a
military carte blanche, allowing for "flexibility" in its
regional approach towards Lebanon and Syria."Miscalculations" in the
eyes of Tel Aviv range from the domestic affairs of the Lebanese and
the events in the occupied Palestinian Territories to the most
audacious and bellicose of definitions, such
as the reaction of the Syrians to Israeli hostilities.The secretive air
assault, later revealed by the codename Operation Orchard, made by the
69th Squadron of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) against an unheard of
facility in Deir ez-Zoir Governorate of Syria on September 6, 2007
could have become a "miscalculation"
on the part of Syria had it responded to Israeli provocations.
The Israeli definition of a "miscalculation" also means
any arbitrary fire into Israel. The Jerusalem Post defined a
"miscalculation" that could spark a war with Syria as an incident
"along the border, in the form of a terrorist attack that escalates
into a larger conflict."[9] Such an
incident
could easily be sparked through conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
A false flag operation could also bring such an incident about. On July
18, 2007 there was rocket fire from South Lebanon into Israel by an
unknown group, something that could have been used as a pretext for
war. In Syria, Lebanon, and the
Arab World the incident was believed to be the work of the Israelis and
their allies in an effort to justify a future war.
Tel Aviv's Orwellian Talk of Peace
In May, 2008 the head of the Mossad, the intelligence
service of Israel, said that talks of peace with Syria would lead to
war.[10] Le Nouvel Observateur
reported in July 2007 that the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni,
ruled out the resumption of peace talks
with Syria while stressing that she believed Damascus posed a problem
that must be tackled on a regional scale.[11]
When asked about the prospects of peace with Syria, Tzipi Livni
responded, "Absolutely not. Syria is pursuing the dangerous game it
plays in the region [Middle East]," and added that Syria "remains
a threat" to Israel.[12] These
statements reveal the conduct of Tel Aviv and its hidden agenda. Within
the context of a public declaration of peace during the summer of 2007,
they also reveal Tel Aviv's duplicity.
While Tzipi Livni stated that there would be no peace
between Israel and Syria, Ehud Olmert stated in a televised interview
with the Al-Arabiya News Channel that he personally wanted
peace with Syria. Prime Minister Olmert addressed President Basher
Al-Assad, the head of Syria, directly,
saying "you know that I am ready for direct talks with you" and added
that "I am ready to sit with you and talk about peace, not war."
Several days later, Ehud Olmert also stated in Orwellian fashion that
he wanted peace with the Syrians, but that peace did not equate to
immediate peace negotiations between Syria
and Israel and could mean a continuation of the "status quo." Olmert's
statement is doublespeak. Hereto, according to the Israelis, the threat
of war exists as a result of the status quo between Syria and Israel.
This statement is very important to keep in mind because it indicates
that Israel did not want to return the
Golan Heights, but wanted something else from Syria as the condition of
peace. This is where Tehran comes into the picture.
Israeli officials were further incriminated by the fact
that in 2007 Prime Minister Olmert also said he was not concerned by an
imminent war with Syria, but that he was unhappy with the public
discussion about peace between Syria and Israel. One should question
the logic behind Ehud Olmert's "irritation"
regarding public overtures of peace between Syria and Israel.[13] Realpolitik is definitely being played by
Israel in regards to Damascus in a consorted effort to de-link Syria
from Iran and its other allies. In this regard, Damascus publicly
insisted that there be no secret talks between Syrian and Israeli
officials as
to the conditions for peace.[14] The
rationale for the Syrian insistence on transparency was to deprive
Israeli of any means to covertly try to divide Syria from its Middle
Eastern allies by generating suspicions of betrayal.
The international press extensively reported Ehud
Olmert's statements in 2007 about wanting peace with the Syrians.
Israeli officials also repeatedly claimed that the Syrians were the
ones rejecting peace.[15] These
claims are made despite the fact that all public records show exactly
the opposite. Syria's
leadership have been calling for peace negotiations between Israel and
Syria since the premierships of Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. Israeli
claims of pursing peace for the most part have been part of an
international public relations campaign attempting to portray the
aggressor as the victim. In the case of Syria, peace
means that Tel Aviv will not go to war with Damascus if it distances
itself from Tehran.
De-Linking Syria from Iran: Israel's Real Condition for
Peace with Syria
The return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, which
was formerly called the "Syrian Heights" in Israel, to Syria was always
the recognized condition for establishing Israeli-Syrian peace. Dr.
Alon Liel, a former director-general
within the Israeli foreign affairs ministry and a former Israeli
ambassador to South Africa, who was heavily involved with previous
Israeli negotiations with Syria, has indicated the real issue holding
Tel Aviv from accepting peace. Dr. Alon Liel went on record: he
confirmed that 85% of negotiations between Syria
and Israel were agreed upon by both Damascus and Tel Aviv.[16] The
major issues for establishing peace between Damascus and Tel Aviv were
all resolved in 2000; water rights for Israel from Syrian territory,
guaranteed Israeli access to the Golan Heights upon its return to
Syria, and security guarantees between
both parties.[17] Peace, in the sense
of an agreement by both sides, however was unachievable in 1993, 1995,
1996, and 2000 due to Tel Aviv's internal politics. The situation
became more so after 2001 with the start of an aggressive U.S. policy
in the Middle East. "Israel isn't going to hand over [or return] the
Golan
[Heights] to an ally of Iran," Alon Liel has insisted as being the
problem in regards to peace between both sides.[18]
Tel Aviv has imposed broader demands on Syria as the
price of peace. It is in the strategic interests of the U.S. and Israel
to isolate Iran, even at the cost of peace with Syria.[19] In this regard, Syrian internal affairs
and foreign relations are decisive factors for Israel in regards to
negotiations. Syria
and Iran are part of a strategic alliance in the Middle East resisting
the interests of America, Britain, Israel, France, and Germany. Other
Middle Eastern players resisting the same foreign interests are
additionally allied or associated with Syria and Iran within one
tangible bloc, the Resistance Bloc.[20]
It is in this
context that one understands Israel is not pursuing peace with Syria,
but is threatening the Syrians with war if they do not abandon Iran and
their allies.
On the eve of major Israeli exercises in which Israel
and Syria fought a fictitious war, the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister,
Haim Ramon, stated on a radio interview that Syrian anxiety had no
basis and that Israel was pursing peace with Damascus, but added
"unfortunately Syria is stuck deep in the evil
axis of connections with [Hezbollah]."[21]
If this is not indicative enough, Haim Ramon also concluded that
Damascus has made a strategic choice to preserve its alliance with Iran
rather than "pursue peace," which to Tel Aviv would mean a termination
of Syrian-Iranian ties. Furthermore, on March 23, 2003 Shimon
Peres stated that "peace talks with Syria cannot begin while it keeps
supplying Lebanon with weapons."[22]
This was a reference to the important role of Damascus as a middle man
between Tehran and the Levant.
Neutralizing Syria: Prerequisite for Neutralizing
Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran
Damascus is pivotal to the framework of resistance in
the Middle East against Israeli, Anglo-American, and Franco-German
interests. Syria acts as a bridge between Iran and Iraq at one end of
the Middle East and the Levant
on the other. Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq, and Iran are
all tied together through Syria.[23]
In this regard, Damascus serves as the central link that holds together
the forces resisting a new regional order in the Middle East, also
known as the "Project for the New Middle East." What the Israelis have
been
trying to do, in coordination with the U.S., Britain, France, and
Germany is to remove Syria from these alliances and thus splinter or
break the link between Iran and the Levant. The main goal is to
pressure Syria into making a peaceful political surrender (just as
Libya did to Britain and the U.S. in 2003), and to
distance itself from Iran and the Arab resistance within Palestine and
Lebanon to Israel.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister,
hinted in October 2007 that if Syria would not dissociate itself
peacefully from Iran, a military solution was inevitable: "Driving a
wedge between Syria and Iran, drying up [Hezbollah] by cutting its
lines of arms supply, allowing the vital task of stabilizing
Lebanon to succeed [meaning empowering client forces in Beirut], and
forestalling what now looks as a most realistic scenario of a triple
front war of Israel against Syria, Hamas and [Hezbollah] are the
strategic fruits concomitant to a Syrian-Israeli peace."[24]
Removing Syria from the "Resistance Bloc" is a
prerequisite for Israel, America, and their partners for tackling Iran.
With Syria removed from Iran's influence, the entire Levant could be
controlled and the resistance in the Palestinian Territories and
Lebanon under such players as Hamas and Hezbollah
could be significantly weakened. Under such a framework, the Levant
could be integrated into the economic order of the so-called "Western
Powers" under the Washington Consensus and within the Mediterranean
Union: this is where Israeli, Anglo-American, and France-German Middle
East interests merge.
In 2006, the ultimate objective of the Israeli attack on
Lebanon was to remove Syria from its alliance with Iran and insert
Damascus within the orbit of a new regional order. With this
understanding in mind, the 2006 Israeli attacks on Lebanon were
revealed to have been planned to also target Syria.[25] War however became a far costlier option
for
America, Britain, Israel, and their partners and that is why political
channels were pursued with Damascus after the 2006 defeat of Tel Aviv
in Lebanon. Haaretz released a revealing report in August,
2007 about the true nature of the diplomatic mission of
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to
Damascus. The intentions of her visit to Damascus were stated to help
establish peace between Syria and Israel and better ties with America,
but the conditions were not fully disclosed.Syria was being courted to
abandon Iran, just as Italy was courted
to abandon Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire by London and Paris
before the First World War: "The chairman of the [U.S.] House Committee
on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, who accompanied Pelosi, said Assad
should be given a final opportunity to disengage from the ‘axis of
evil.' According to Lantos,
in a few years, Sunni Muslims and not Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
will be in control in the region, and it is to the advantage of
Damascus to know which side to be on."[26]
For Tel Aviv and its partners, if the goal of removing
Damascus from its alliance with Tehran can not be achieved through
diplomatic dialogue, economics, threats, or pressure then the original
course of action, warfare, within a major three-front confrontation is
the other alternative against Syria, Lebanon,
and the Palestinian Territories. These hostilities would also be linked
to confrontation with the Iranians and could result in a broader
conflict in the Middle East and Central Asia. Ehud Olmert declared "I
believe that we can expect a calm summer, a calm autumn and a calm
winter [which runs from November, 2007
to March, 2008]," when tensions were rising between Syria and Israel in
2007.[27] It is worth noting that
tensions began to rise again in the Levant after Olmert's time frame of
calm.
The threats of war in 2007 were partly scare tactics to
pressure Syria into yielding and conceding to the geo-strategic
interests of America, Britain, Israel, France, and Germany.[28] Up to now, all efforts to remove the
Syrians from their alliances have failed. Clearly, Israel has been
preparing for war
on a broader regional level. Simultaneously, Tel Aviv has been
preparing to shift blame for any possible outbreak of a regional war on
the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Palestinians, even the Russians, and
foremost on the Iranians.
Operation Orchard: Fabricating a Syria-Iran-North Korea
Nuclear Axis
On September 6, 2007 Israeli warplanes violated Syrian
airspace and mysteriously attacked an unheard of facility. The Syrian
military reported that Israeli aircraft illegally entered Syrian
airspace from over the Mediterranean
Sea and headed towards northeastern Syria. "Air defense units
confronted [the Israeli warplanes] and forced them to leave [Syria]
after they drooped [sic; dropped] some ammunition in deserted
areas without causing any human or material damage," the Syrian
military initially claimed.[29] The
Syrians
immediately also stated that Israel was trying to create pretexts for
another war in the Middle East.[30]
The U.S. government also entered the commotion by claiming that the
White House was aware of the operation and the Pentagon had assisted
the Israelis. The White House also claimed that the Israelis had
destroyed
a facility that was linked to a clandestine nuclear program in Syria.
Damascus also maintained that the attacks and the claims about a
secretive nuclear program were preludes to U.S. involvement in an
Israeli war against Syria.[31]
In this context, Syria restrained itself, fearing that
Tel Aviv wanted to entice Damascus into a war. Professor Eyal Zisser,
the director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African
Studies at Tel Aviv University, noted, "Any misunderstanding could lead
to conflagration. However, the
Syrian announcement was surprising in its moderation."[32] The operation was also reported as being a
possible test-run for an Israeli attack on Iran. The U.S. and Israel
also asserted that the Russian-made air defence systems in Syria did
not function.[33] The attacks could
have also been a form of pressure to force
the Syrians to go to the Annapolis Conference to detect if a war was
intended against their country.
The attack was described as an Israeli success by the
Bush Jr. Administration and the mainstream media. A propaganda campaign
was launched: Through media disinformation and political statements,
efforts were placed on establishing the threat of a "Syria-Iran-North
Korea nuclear proliferation axis."[34] The
alleged nuclear facility was a Syrian project
aided by North Korea and Iran according to the U.S. and Israeli
governments. Trying to pin Syria for having weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) programs is not a fresh approach. In fact just barely a month
after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq the U.S. and
Britain actively started trying to portray Syria in an Iraq-like manner
claiming that Damascus also had hidden weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) stockpiles.
In early April 2008, it became clear that Israel and the
U.S. had been planning on releasing details about Operation Orchard and
the alleged nuclear facility attacked by Israel in Syria to further
demonize Damascus and to further construct a weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) link between Syria, North
Korea, and Iran.[35] The Jerusalem
Post subsequently reported on April 14, 2008 that Israeli experts
suggested that the full disclosure about an Israeli attack in 2007 in
the U.S. Congress could even "embarrass" the Syrians to the point of
militarily responding against Israel.[36]
The Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus:
Antecedent to War?
On February 12, 2008 Imad Fayez Mughniyeh, a top
Hezbollah security official, was assassinated in Damascus by means of a
remote detonated car bomb. The intelligence services of America,
Israel, Britain, France, Germany,
Jordon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were all suspected of some form of
involvement. According to The Daily Star, an English-language
newspaper based in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia had helped Israel in
assassinating Imad Mughniyeh and a Saudi military attaché was
arrested in Damascus due to links to a
Syrian collaborator in the assassination.[37]
More than a month following the Mughniyeh assassination,
U.S. Vice-President Cheney made a regional tour of the Middle East. "We
must not, and will not, ignore the darkening shadows of the situations
in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria and in Iran and the forces there that are
working to derail the hopes
of the world," Vice-President Cheney vowed dramatically in a
insinuation that conflict was brewing and the U.S. was prepared to aid
Israel.[38]
It did not take long for pundits to point toward
Mughniyeh's murder as being used in a ploy to launch war in the Middle
East. Israel's intelligence and information apparatus started exerting
themselves in a misinformation campaign to create doubts about the
murder of Imad Mughniyeh. Tel Aviv's aims
were to shift the blame on the Syrians in a psychological operation
(PSYOP) intended to inseminate doubts and mistrust between Hezbollah,
Syria, and Iran, in order to strain their alliance and weaken the
Resistance Bloc.
According to Israel's Channel 10, sometime
after the assassination of Mughniyeh, Tel Aviv sent Hezbollah a letter
through a third party, threatening another disproportionate war against
Lebanon. Tel Aviv also wasted no time in threatening Syria if Hezbollah
launched retaliatory attacks
on Israel.[39] In this context, Reuters
also reported that an unnamed senior Israeli official had spelled out
conflict with the Syrians as a reprisal for hostile Lebanese and
Palestinian actions against Israel.[40]
The root of these so-called hostile actions by Lebanese and Palestinian
groups are of retaliatory
nature to hostile actions initiated by Tel Aviv. In many cases, these
attacks against Israel are invited by Tel Aviv as a means to create the
justifications of postponing peace, annexing territory, and launching
war.
In mid-April 2008, Israeli jets and helicopters created
insecurity among residents of Haifa when they scrambled across Israel
to intercept an unidentified light plane entering Israeli airspace.[41] Tel Aviv's security and military forces
have been on high alert since the Mughniyeh Assassination.[42] On
March 18, 2008 an Israeli warship was also dispatched into Lebanese
waters, where it was intercepted by an Italian warship, in a move that
many in Lebanon saw as a taunt by Israel. Israel has advertised very
publicly that it expects retaliation from Hezbollah.[43] This "retaliation" could also give Israel
an excuse
for launching another war. The Israeli government also used the
opportunity to raise domestic tensions amongst its own citizens.
Israeli officials also warned about possible attacks from across the
Lebanese border by Iranian-manufactured "explosive-packed drones" or
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) sent by
Hezbollah.[44]
Creating Pretexts for War in Lebanon
Israel has overtly claimed, as part of a concerted
public relations campaign, that Hezbollah increased the range of its
rocket arsenal.[45] The public
advertisement of the increase in the rocket range of Hezbollah by Tel
Aviv stands outside the standardized protocol
of Israeli officials who consistently work domestically to keep public
confidence in the strength of the Israeli military and security
apparatus. Although there was a genuine probability of truth to the
Israeli statements, the main objective behind their very publicly
advertised declarations were to further build excuses
for further Israeli aggression, such as preemptive strikes, in Lebanon
or the so-called Israeli "Northern Front" and regionally in the Middle
East.
In reality, Hezbollah's rocket range was probably
upgraded or already capable of hitting deep into Israeli territory
before Tel Aviv decided to divulge its knowledge. Hezbollah had already
threatened to strike Tel Aviv in 2006 if Beirut were to be attacked by
Israeli bombs. The timing of the information
by Israeli officials about Hezbollah's rocket range is linked to
painting the picture of a growing threat amongst its own citizens and
to gain their support for combat.
In the case of Hezbollah, like those of the Palestinian
Resistance and Syria, the increased range of their projectiles have
been attentively linked to Iran, itself the ultimate target. Starting
in March, 2008 the mainstream media in Israel and worldwide reported
that the Israeli government had warned that
most of Israel, up to the city of Dimona in the Negev Desert, was
within the striking range of Hezbollah from Lebanon. Haaretz
correspondents in addition reported that "Hamas militants who recently
returned to the Gaza Strip after training in Iran [held] a detailed
plan for upgrading the capabilities of
the rockets being developed in the [Gaza] Strip, according to senior
Palestinian Authority sources."[46]
As a note, the Palestinian Authority sources being referred to are the
unelected Fatah officials in the West Bank who themselves collaborate
with Israel. These types of reports have also helped boost the case for
war.
The basis for war against Lebanon is an intricate parcel
of a broader conflict in the Middle East, which in turn is itself a
component of an even larger conflict in Eurasia. The fact that various
Palestinian resistance groups have trained in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran
is also being used as a justification for
war and as a means to tie all three republics closer together as a
single enemy axis by Israel. Aside from those in the Palestinian
Territories, in the event of a major war the Palestinian groups based
in Lebanon and Syria have made it clear that they will fight alongside
the Lebanese and Syrians. Palestinians in Egypt
and Jordon have also elucidated towards such a course of action too.
With 2008, efforts to implicate Hezbollah in regards to
attacks on American and British troops in Iraq have resurfaced. These
reports were originally made by London in an effort to link Hezbollah
to the roadside bombs in Basra at the start of the Anglo-American
occupation of Iraq, but were dismissed.
The main British objective of involving Hezbollah as an enemy in Iraq
was the foreknowledge that Lebanon would be attacked by Israel in 2006.
On April 8, 2008 General David H. Petraeus, the
commander of Coalition troops in Iraq, accused both Iran and Hezbollah
of helping the Iraqi forces that attacked the "Green Zone" in Baghdad.[47] He testified to the U.S. Senate about
Hezbollah's alleged involvement in killing American and Coalition
troops: "Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, we have also focused
on the Special Groups [meaning those forces fighting against American
and Coalition forces]. These elements are funded, trained, armed, and
directed by Iran's Qods [Jerusalem] Force, with help from Lebanese
Hezbollah."[48] The allegations
by General Petraeus were part of the conscious effort to justify a
greater American role in the next conflict against the Lebanese.
The Mediterranean Front
It is clear to the Pentagon, NATO, and Tel Aviv that
the Levant stands to ignite a Mediterranean battle-front in the event
of a war against Iran. To this end, the marshaling of a relatively
invisible NATO war fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean is rigidly tied
to war plans
against Tehran.[49] The naval
build-ups in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean have been
ongoing since 2001 with the strategic aim of preparing the logistical
framework for war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian
resistance, Syria, and Iran.
Paris and Berlin have intense vested interest in the
Anglo-American wars in the Middle East. As has been repeatedly uttered
by French, German, and E.U. officials, the Eastern Mediterranean and
the Middle East are the "eastern borders of the European Union."[50] To this end Nicolas Sarkozy's
Mediterranean
Union is a declaration of these Franco-German interests that are very
much tied to the wars in the Middle East and the establishment of a
settlement between the Arabs and Israel in the Levant.[51]
The 2006 Israeli siege against Lebanon, with the active
support of American military personnel and planners in Israel, was a
phase of this military schedule as well as a dress rehearsal by both
sides for a larger Middle Eastern war. Both sides were given the
opportunity to re-evaluate their tactics and
strategies for such an upcoming war, should it spark. History will see
what comes to pass.
Notes
1. Ze'ev Schiff, "Syria Rearms,
Moves
Troops Closer to Golan Heights Border," Haaretz, February 22, 2007; Ze'ev
Schiff, "Israel's Message in Talks with Gates: Syria Is Preparing for
War, Haaretz, April 22, 2007;
Yitzhak Benhorin, "Syria Arming Intensely, Minister Says," Yedioth Ahronoth, May 4,
2007.
2. Herb Keion, "Syria, Iran, Hizbullah
planning war," The Jerusalem Post,
June 6, 2007; Yakkov Katz, "War with Syria this Summer Unlikely," The Jerusalem Post, July 11, 2007;
Roee Nahmias, "Syria's Top General to Pilots: Be Prepared for War," Yedioth Ahronoth, October 23, 2007.
3. Smadar Peri, "Syria Plans War of
Attrition in the Golan Heights," Yedioth
Ahronoth, August 2, 2007; Aluf Been, "IDF, Government Preparing
for Possible Syrian Strike on Golan Heights," Haaretz, April 2, 2007; Yakkov
Katz, "IDF Prepares for Syrian Attack on Golan", The Jerusalem Post, April 27,
2007; Smadar
Peri, "Arab Official: Syrian General Mulling War with Israel," Yedioth Ahronoth, August 14, 2007.
4. Ronn Sofer, "Syria Not Planning
Offensive, Security Officials Say," Yedioth
Ahronoth, June 11, 2007.
5. Roee Nahmias, "Assad: U.S. Wants
Israel to Declare War on Syria," Yedioth
Ahronoth, April 17, 2008; "Assad: Syria Is Preparing for War", The Jerusalem Post, April17, 2008;
"We are prepared for Israel war," Press
TV, April 17, 2008.
6. Ibid.
7. Amos Harel, "IDF Deputy Chief: Summer
War with Syria Not Likely," Haaretz,
July 11, 2007.
8. The Levant in its cotemporary
definition is a geographic sub-region of the Middle East that includes
Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, Syria, and Jordon. The Turkish province of
Hatay, where the city of Alexandretta (Iskenderon) is located, has
traditionally been considered a part of the Levant along with small
portions
of Turkey. The exact boundaries of the Levant are abstract, but the
categorization of Levantine countries, in the geographic sense of the
word, is unambiguous. The Levant is roughly bordered by Iraq to the
east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the mountain range of the
Taurus in the north, and Arabia to the south.
9. Yakkov Katz, "IDF Wary of Possible War
with Syria," The Jerusalem Post,
July 11, 2007.
10. Itamar Eichner, "Talks with Syria
Could Lead to War, Says Mossad Chief," Yedioth Ahronoth, May 14, 2007.
11. Tzipi Livni, «Nous allons aider
Mahmoud Abbas...», interview by Henri Guirchoun, Le Nouvel Observateur, July 12,
2007.
12. Ibid.; Tzipi Livni: «
Absolument pas. La Syrie poursuit le jeu dangereux qui est le sien dans
la région et demeure une menace »
13. Hern Keinon, "Olmert: Israel, Syria
don't want war," The Jerusalem Post,
July 12, 2007.
14. "Assad Sets Golan Pullout as
Condition for Future Talks," The
Daily Star (Lebanon), July 18, 2007.
15. "Syria Dismisses Olmert Offer to Hold
Peace Talks," The Jerusalem Post and
Associated Press (AP), July 10, 2007.
16. Yaakov Lappin, "Israel-Syria pact ‘85
percent done'," Yedioth Ahronoth,
July 18, 2007.
17. Adam Entous, "Syria May be Flexible
on Key Israeli Demand: UN," Reuters,
July 12, 2007.
18. Lappin, Israel-Syria pact, Op. cit.
19. Adam Entous, "Israel Says: Awaits
Clear Syrian Message on Iran," Reuters,
July 18, 2007.
20. The Resistance Bloc is a group of
players that can be categorized within one grouping for resisting
foreign programs and interests in the Middle East. Iran, Syria, both
the Lebanese Resistance and the Lebanese National Opposition, the
Hamas-led Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian
Resistance,
the Iraqi Resistance, and various elements of opposition in the Arab
World all fall into this regional grouping opposed to Anglo-American,
Franco-German, and Israeli interests.
21. "Deputy PM Ramon: ‘Israel has No
Intention of Attacking Syria'," The
Jerusalem Post, April 3, 2008.
22. Aviram Zino, "Peres: Israel Will Not
Cede Golan Heights for Syria-Controlled Lebanon," Yedioth Ahronoth, March 23, 2008.
23. It is interesting to note that the
outline of this bloc also falls within the perimeters of the so-called
"Shia Crescent," an artificial and misleading concept about Shiite
ascendancy in a crescent starting from Iran, going through Iraq and
Syria, and ending in Lebanon and Palestine. This concept is a
brethren-term
of the very terminology that conceptualized the "Sunni Triangle" in
Iraq, which did not exist until the campaign to occupy Iraq started.
Both terms are psychological devices and concepts described as a means
to re-categorize and divide the Middle East.
24. Shlomo Ben-Ami, "The Way to Damascene
Conversion," Yedioth Ahronoth,
October 21, 2007.
25. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, "The
Premeditated Nature of the War on Lebanon: A Stage of the Broader
Middle East Military Roadmap," Centre for Research on Globalization
(CRG), September 10, 2007.
26. Aluf Ben, "Israel Seeks to Reassure
Syria: No Summer Attack," Haaretz,
April 3, 2007; it should also be noted that the grounds were paved for
war against Berlin and Vienna in 1914 by London and Paris by first
de-linking Rome from Germany and Austro-Hungary and this is precisely
what Washington, D.C.
and Tel Aviv have been trying to do in regards to Damascus and Tehran.
27. Barak Ravid, "Olmert: Israel, Syria
Have No Interest in Military Conflict," Haaretz, August 11, 2007.
28. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, "The March
to War: Détente in the Middle East or 'Calm before the Storm?'
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 12, 2007.
29. "Air Defense Units Confront Israeli
Aircrafts over Syrian Airspace Forcing them to Leave," Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA),
September 6, 2007.
30. "Syria: Israel Is Spreading False
Reports In Order To Justify War," Reuters,
September 30, 2007.
31. "Syrian Paper Warns Nuclear Rumors
May Be Prelude to U.S. Attack," Associated
Press (AP), September 16, 2007.
32. Alastair MacDonald, "Syria-Israel
Bombing Incident Shrouded in Mystery," Reuters, September 7, 2007.
33. "Report: Russia Sent Technicians to
Syria," Jerusalem Post,
October 2, 2007.
34. Sarah Baxter et al., "Israelis ‘Blew
apart Syrian Nuclear Cache'," The
Sunday Times (U.K.), September 16, 2007; Alexander Kogan, "The
Secretive Syrian-N. Korean Alliance," The
Jerusalem Post, September 18, 2007.
35. Amos Harel and Barak Ravid, "Israel,
U.S. Plan to Telease Details on Syria Attack," Haaretz, April 9, 2008.
36. "Yakkov Katz and Herb Keinon, Status
of Syria Strike Hearing Unclear," The
Jerusalem Post, April 14, 2008.
37. "Riyadh Accused of Role in Mughniyeh
Assassination," The Daily Star
(Lebanon), April 10, 2008.
38. "Cheney Backs Israel over Security," British Broadcasting Corporation News
(BBC News), March 23, 2008.
39. "Israel Threatened to Attack
Damascus," The Jerusalem Post,
March 15, 2008; Adam Entous and Daniel Williams, "Israel Secretly
Warned Syria about Hezbollah," ed. Dominic Evans, Reuters, March 14, 2008; Jon Brain,
"Israel Calms Fears of Syria Conflict," British Broadcasting Corporation News
(BBC News),
April 3, 2008.
40. Ibid.
41. Hanan Greenberg and Ahiya Raved,
"Light plane Causes Scare in North," Yedioth
Ahronoth, April 12, 2008.
42. Ron Ben-Yishai, "Revenge for Mugniyah
Could Ignite Conflict in North," Yedioth
Ahronoth, April 3, 2008.
43. Yoav Stern, "Nasrallah: Mughniyah's
blood will lead to elimination of Israel," Haaretz, March 14, 2008; "Police to
beef up forces over Purim, fearing Hezbollah strike," Associated Press (AP), March 17,
2008; Avi Issacharooff et al., "Hezbollah Deputy Chief: We Have Proof
Israel Killed Mughniyah," Haaretz,
March
23, 2008; "IDF Chief: Army Prepared for Any Scenario," Yedioth Ahronoth, April 18, 2008.
44. Yakkov Katz, "Hizbullah May Send
Bomb-laden UAVs," The Jerusalem Post,
April 6, 2008.
45. "Israel: Hezbollah Increases Rocket
Range," Associated Press
(AP), March 27, 2008.
46. Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel,
"HamasGets Iranian Olans for Improved Qassams," Haaretz, March 31, 2008.
47. Andrew Gray and David Morgan, "U.S.
Sees Iran and Syria 'Lebanon' Gambit in Iraq," ed. Philip Barbara, Reuters, April 8, 2008.
48. General David H. Petraeus, April 8,
2008 SFRC Testimony (Testimony, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Washington, D.C., April 8, 2008).
49. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, "The March
to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern
Mediterranean," Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), October 1,
2006.
50. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, "The
Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East and North Africa," Centre
for Research on Globalization (CRG), February 10, 2008.
51. Ibid.; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya,"The
Mediterranean Union: NATO's Role in Conquering the Middle East and
North Africa," Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), February 18,
2008.
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|