Syria Sets New Rules For Israeli Strikes
The crisis created by the administration regarding the flaws of the nuclear agreement could be exploited to promote issues more urgent for Israel (mainly Iran’s missile program and presence in Syria).
The Israeli government claims that Iranian support for Syria is a threat to its country. That is a bogus claim. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahoo uses the “Iran threat” as boogeyman to divert attention from other issues like the various corruption cases against himself.
Over the last years Israel attacked Syrian army positions more than 100 times, often in support of al-Qaeda aligned “Syrian rebels”. Syria did not respond as it was busy fighting against the Takfiri invasion within the country. In April Israel upped the ante when it attacked the T4 base in the middle of Syria from where Russian and Iranian forces support Syria’s fight against ISIS. Iranian soldiers were killed in the attack. The Syrian air defense shot down at least one of the attacking Israeli F-16 jets. This shooting down of the Israeli jets was thought to have established a new balance, but Israel continued to provoke.
On Tuesday, just as Trump announced his breaking of the nuclear deal, Israel launched another strike on what it claimed were Iranian missiles in Syria targeted at Israel. The strike hit a Syrian army depot. Fifteen soldiers, some of them allegedly Iranians, were killed. Even the Israeli media had trouble to find an excuse for the illegal ‘preemptive’ attack:
Blumenthal, Norton, Khalek – The Turncoats Deliver A Poor Excuse – by Daniel
lifted from a comment
I see b’s Twitter linked to the “Moderate Rebels” discussion of Blumenthal / Norton / Khalek. I hope y’all don’t mind my posting the below. I originally wrote it as an “open letter” to the above triumvirate, but changed pronouns for this audience.
Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Rania Khalek talk about their late “evolution” on the war against Syria in this episode of “Moderate Rebels.”
For those who don’t know, each was pro-“opposition”, anti-Syrian government for years, but changed positions sometime in around 2016.
I’m glad to hear Max finally directly address his anti-Syrian stance from 2011 to 2016. He acknowledges that Sharmine Narwani was correct all along. It would be nice to hear him actually apologize to Sharmine and other journalists he disparaged, but especially to the Syrian people who sure could have used the support of a well known Arab/Palestinian Rights advocate with a large audience and influence.
Yes, Max “didn’t take a serious look at what was actually going on” in Syria. And didn’t for five more years. He began writing for Al Akhbar in Lebanon in July, 2011. As a journalist, he was obligated to inform himself about what was happening before writing about it. Syrian police and military had already been massacred by then. Post office workers had been thrown to their deaths from the roof because they were “government supporters.” The violence of the “protesters” was even being reported in Israeli newspapers.
He says he “didn’t think it was going to become, you know, the 7-year devastating conflict that it became.” That is apparent. Libya was already descending into the F-UK-US “Mission Accomplished” with NATO bombers warming up to finish the job. Perhaps Max’s dad had assured him that Syria would follow the same pattern his emails with Hillary Clinton show he had helped plan and define in Libya.
BTW: Has he ever addressed his father’s role in the destruction of the once most prosperous country on the African continent? I haven’t read or heard anything from Max on Syd Blumenthal’s pre-Qaddafi “removal” explanation that Libya had to be destroyed to:
- Steal their nationalized oil.
- Confiscate the hundreds of tons of gold and silver Libya held.
- Prevent Libya from establishing a gold-backed currency and pan-African development bank to compete with the US petro-dollar and IMF, and lift Africa out of neo-colonial subservience.
Yeah. Max was “pretty quiet on Libya and not really – didn’t really make any coherent statements on that either.”
That newspaper that Max publicly maligned and quit (“grandstanding” as he now says) “had taken an anti-imperialist agenda.” Did that paper ever reject any articles Max wrote defending “the Syrian revolution”? I didn’t think so. Who had “an agenda”? Because it sure sounds like it was Max who was so focused on his new book release and two upcoming book tours that at the least he abandoned journalistic values. Or did he fear that “being associated” with a paper that also published articles critical of “the revolution” could hurt book sales?
After all, he thought it was all going to be over soon anyway.
It would also be nice for Max to explain why, once he changed his position on Syria after Russia had helped turn the tide, he, Ben and Rania scrubbed all their anti-Syrian/pro-“rebel” posts from the internet without explanation. How Orwellian.