By Theodore Shoebat
The Russian government has recently reported that it was Israel who was responsible for the shooting down of the Russian plane that was destroyed in mid air. According to one report from USA Today:
A Russian reconnaissance aircraft was brought down by a Syrian missile over the Mediterranean, killing all 15 people on board, the Russian defense ministry said Tuesday. It blamed Israel for the crash, saying the plane was caught in the crossfire as four Israeli fighters attacked targets in northwestern Syria.
The Russian military said that the Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft was hit 35 kilometers (22 miles) offshore late Monday as it was returning to its home base nearby.
“The Israeli pilots were using the Russian aircraft as a shield and pushed it into the line of fire of the Syrian defense,” Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said in a statement.
Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu called his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, later on Tuesday to say that Israel is “fully to blame” for the deaths, the ministry said.
The military said Israel did not warn it of its operation over Latakia province until one minute before the strike, which did not give the Russian plane enough time to escape.
If the Russian affirmation is true, the Israelis used the Russian plane as cover because they were quite indifferent to the lives of Russians since there are many militarists on the Israeli side who see Russia as an enemy because it is an ally with Iran. They will be people who cry out about how Israel just wants to fight “Islamic jihad,” but this is chimerical thinking given the reality that Israel has been backing Islamic jihadists to fight against the Syrian government.
A recent report reveals that the government of Israel gave support to twelve Islamic militias in Syria, by providing them with assault rifles, machine guns, mortar launchers and transport vehicles. According to one report from Haaretz:
Israel discreetly funded and armed at least 12 rebel groups in southern Syria in order to keep Iranian-backed militias and Islamic State fighters away from Israel’s border, Foreign Policy magazine reported on Thursday.
Foreign Policy’s Elizabeth Tsurkov interviewed more than two dozen members of the rebel groups, who reported that Israel’s support took place in recent years and ended last month.
The weapons transfer, according to the report, included assault rifles, machine guns, mortar launchers and transport vehicles, all delivered through three border crossings – gates that connect the Golan Heights and Syria.
These crossings are the same ones through which Israel transferred humanitarian aid to Syria.
According to Tsurkov, Israel paid each rebel approximately 75 dollars per month, with additional money transfers for the groups to purchase weapons on Syria’s black market.
When Bashar Assad’s forces retook south Syria in July, rebel groups expected Israel to intervene, due to the support they had received, sources told Tsurkov. One fighter said: “This is a lesson we will not forget about Israel. It does not care about … the people. It does not care about humanity. All it cares about it its own interests.”
Israel, in other words, wants the rebels to prevail against the Syrian military. This is why Israel has been backing several rebel groups. Analyst Elizabeth Tsurkov, who has been studying and investigating the Syrian conflict for years, and has interviewed many rebel fighters, wrote on how Israel has been backing the rebels. As Haaretz reported early this year:
Dozens of rebels who spoke with Tsurkov described a significant change in the amount of aid they receive from Israel. Moreover, she said at least seven Sunni rebel organizations in the Syrian Golan are now getting arms and ammunition from Israel, along with money to buy additional armaments.
While Israel is worried about Syria, it was not worried about rebels on the Syrian Golan who she armed. That Israel has been backing the rebels is really of no surprise, given the fact that pro-Israel lobbyists who have the ears of the US government have been pushing for regime change in Syria for many years. In the spring of 2002, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was pushing for Syria to be categorized as part of the “axis of evil”. John Bolton also called Syria a member of this “axis of evil”, and stated back in 2002:
The United States also knows that Syria has long had a chemical warfare program. It has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and is engaged in research and development of the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX. …America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror. States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort. But those that do not can expect to become our targets.”
John Bolton blabbers about Syria being in the “axis of evil,” all the while Bolton and his ilk will lobby for the MEK, that is, the Islamist Mujahideen-e Khalq, or the People’s Muhahideen of Iran, a terrorist group and cult which has done attacks that led to the deaths of both Iranians and American citizens. So while these lobbyists for destruction will sit there and talk about the dangers of Hezbollah and Iran, they will lobby not only for the Iranian mujahideen, but for the Syrian Muslim jihadists as well. This should lead us to question their motives. Are these lobbyists really against terrorism, or do they use the reality of terrorism to advocate for a pernicious agenda? The reality is the latter of the two.
Daniel Pipes has also lobbied for the MEK, stating that they are not terrorists and they can be useful to the US government. In a 2003 article, Daniel Pipes wrote:
Is the MeK a terrorist group? No. It used terrorism decades ago, when its members attacked Americans. For the last 15 years, however, the MeK has been organized as an army, and its only violent actions have been directed against the Iranian regime.”
So, according to Pipes, a terrorist is only defined as such when they only kill Americans or Israelis. To Pipes, a terrorist group that has killed Americans in the past is okay, just as long as it uses terrorism against the Iranian government. So all of this talk about Iran from these lobbyists is full of hypocrisy because these very people are backing the Iranian mujahideen. And now they are in favor for destroying a whole country (Syria) in the name of a hypocritical outcry against Iran. This goes back years in the activities of American lobbyists for war. In September of 2003, John Bolton appeared before Congress and declared that Syria was a growing threat to American interest in the Middle East. After Saddam was executed, lobbyists were stating that what happened to Saddam could happen to Assad next. In early April of 2003, WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy), produced a report stating that Syria “should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless, irresponsible and defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate.”
The Syrian government, while being berated as an evil regime, was at one point a major source of intelligence for the United Stated against Al-Qaeda. This continued until the second Iraq War (when neoconservative lobbyists began pushing for regime change in Syria). As Seymour Hersh wrote back in 2003:
American intelligence and State Department officials have told me that by early 2002 Syria had emerged as one of the C.I.A.’s most effective intelligence allies in the fight against Al Qaeda, providing an outpouring of information that came to an end only with the invasion of Iraq. … [A]fter September 11th the Syrian leader, Bashar Assad, initiated the delivery of Syrian intelligence to the United States. The Syrians had compiled hundreds of files on Al Qaeda, including dossiers on the men who participated—and others who wanted to participate—in the September 11th attacks. Syria also penetrated Al Qaeda cells throughout the Middle East and in Arab exile communities throughout Europe. That data began flowing to C.I.A. and F.B.I. operatives.
Syria had accumulated much of its information because of Al Qaeda’s ties to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic terrorists who have been at war with the secular Syrian government for more than two decades.
Hersh also pointed to something quite fascinating: Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, wrote an entire essay on Aleppo as part of his study on “urban planning”. He did such a study as part of the conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood to topple the Assad regime. As Hersh writes:
Aleppo was the subject of Mohammed Atta’s dissertation on urban planning, and he travelled there twice in the mid-nineties. “At every stage in Atta’s journey is the Muslim Brotherhood,” a former C.I.A. officer who served undercover in Damascus told me.
So, what we find here, is that the US’ plans for Syria, is no different from those of Al-Qaeda and Muhammad Atta himself. So now the US is doing what Muhammad Atta wanted.
In a CIA document written in 1985, entitled, Syria: Sunni Opposition to the Minority Alawite Regime, it talks about how the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood could destabilize Syria after the death of Hafez al-Assad:
“When Assad dies, concern among the Alawite elite about Sunni discontent probably will serve to dampen rivalries within the regime and contribute to an orderly succession. The longevity of such a successor regime, however, will depend in part on its ability to replicate Assad’s successful combination of repression and co-optation of the Sunni community. A broad-based popular movement or Islamic revolution appears unlikely, but in the context of a succession crises or in the early stages of a new regime, Sunni officers might seek to take advantage of regime weaknesses to attempt a coup. The Muslim Brotherhood almost certainly would attempt to instigate civil disorders to test the staying power of Assad’s successor as president.”
The US government knew very well that the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to topple the Syrian government, and this is why the CIA backed the Muslim Brotherhood to support the policy of destabilization in Syria. In the beginning of the Syrian civil war, the CIA was working in Turkey to use the Turkish government and the Muslim Brotherhood as a conduit to send weapons to the rebels. As the AP reported back in 2012:
The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some anti-tank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries, including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.
So the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood have been collaborating to commence a jihad against the Syrian government. What is disturbing is how Israel is siding with this Jihad. Many of our readers criticize us for exposing the US and Israel, urging us that we should only expose Islam. But they will ask us to refrain, when Israel and the US supports Islam. So I guess its okay for the US and Israel to support Islamic rebels?
And you have many people — who are in the American war lobby — who for many years have been going on and on about how the US needs to topple the Assad government for the cause of ‘fighting Jihad terror.’ But how do they do this? By supporting jihadists, of course. What the war lobbyists are saying about Assad, they were saying similar things about the Saddam regime, and how the dismantling of the Iraqi government would be a defeat of Islamic terrorism. But the overthrow of Saddam only helped enable Islamic terrorism. John Bolton boasts himself as one who wants to ‘fight terrorism,’ but the policies that he has been advocating have only helped advance Islamism, such as the removal of Saddam.
John Mearsheimer, a prominent scholar on political study has made some very educated observations on the Israel Lobby and how it has influenced the US to do very destructive policies. I will present some quotes here:
“Prominent neoconservatives include former and present policy makers like Elliot Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, William Bennet, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, the late Jean Kirkpatrick, I. Lewi Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, and David Wurmser; journalists like Robert Bartley, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Bret Stephens, and Norman Podhoretz, academics like Fouad Ajami, Eliot Cohen, Aaron Friedberg, Bernard Lewis, and Ruth Wedgwood; and think-tank pundits like Max Boot, David Frum, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, Daniel Pipes, Danielle Pletka, Michael Rubin, and Meyrav Wurmser.” (P. 129)
“In addition to [Elliot] Abrams, [Richard] Perle, and [Paul] Wolfowitz, the other key insider pushing for regime change in Syria was Assistance Secretary of State (and later UN Ambassador) John Bolton. He had told Israeli leaders a month before the Iraq war that President Bush would deal with Syria, as well as Iran and North Korea, right after Saddam fell from power. Toward that end, Bolton reportedly prepared to tell Congress in mid-July that Syria’s WMD programs had reached the point where they were a serious threat to stability in the Middle East and had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The CIA and other government agencies objected, however, and claimed that Bolton was inflating the danger.” (p. 275)
Almost all of those named in this list are Zionists. Think about that before you continue on with your Zionist reverence for Israel. Remember the words of God:
For Jerusalem stumbled,
And Judah is fallen,
Because their tongue and their doings
Are against the Lord,
To provoke the eyes of His glory.
The look on their countenance witnesses against them,
And they declare their sin as Sodom;
They do not hide it. (Isaiah 9:8-9)