The reason Syria developed bio-weapons in the first place was for defense against Israeli nukes.
Although Syria’s weapons of mass destruction—chemical weapons, in this instance—are now the focus of global media attention, what is largely suppressed in the mainstream media is the “back story” as to why Syria even has chemical weapons in the first place.
On April 17, 2003, veteran Washington Post correspondent Walter Pincus (who happens to be Jewish) acknowledged in a story relating to angry claims by the George W. Bush administration—relating to Syria’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”—that Syria had built its arsenal as an “equalizer” and that “Israel’s arms spurred [Syria’s] fears.”
Although, at the time of Pincus’ story, Syria had asked for a United Nations resolutioncalling for nuclear arms inspections all across the Middle East—including Israel—few expected the United States would support Syria’s request. And, of course, the U.S. did not, despite its official position that, according to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, America wanted to see the entire region free of weapons of mass destruction.
Pincus’s article regarding Syria’s drive for a military arsenal designed to counter Israel’s nuclear weapons cache was instructive indeed. He wrote:
Syria’s current arsenal of chemical warheads and Scud missiles to deliver them was started more than 30 years ago to counter Israel’s development and possession of nuclear weapons, according to present and former U.S. intelligence officials.
“They have been developing chemical weapons as a force equalizer with the Israelis,” a former senior intelligence analyst said yesterday. “Hafez al-Assad, the present president’s father, saw chemicals as a way to threaten the Israelis and an equalizer for their nuclear program.”
Assad knew, the former analyst said, that “military aid from the Soviets would never be able to match what Israel developed in the nuclear field and received from the U.S.”
Syria’s possession of chemical weapons was an important part of the Bush administration’s recent, week-long verbal offensive against Damascus. But it also has brought attention briefly to another highly sensitive issue: the impact that Israel’s nuclear arsenal has had on its enemies in the Middle East.
The consensus from Middle East experts is that almost every country in the region has pursued weapons of mass destruction programs—and they have done so primarily because of the arsenal that Israel has built up, said Joseph Cirincione, head of the nonproliferation program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“You can’t get rid of chemical or biological or nuclear programs in Arab countries unless you also address the elimination of Israel’s nuclear and chemical programs,” Cirincione said yesterday.
Now, in recent days—despite overwhelming American popular opposition to an attack on Syria in retribution for its purported use of chemical weapons—we have seen the Jewish lobby in America loudly banging the drum for a U.S. military strike on Syria.
On September 3, The Washington Post bared the truth in a story quite candidly headlined: “Pro-Israel and Jewish groups strongly back military strike against Syria.”
Noting that, theretofore, there had been “intense discussion” among pro-Israel partisans about whether they should be open about their concerns, the Post pointed out that that many in the Jewish lobby were “worried” that critics of the proposed attack on Syria were casting it “as a move to protest Israel’s interests rather than an action to defend U.S. credibility.”
One pro-Israel activist, who spoke in what the newspaper described as “the condition of anonymity” admitted to the Post that “There is a desire to not make this about Israel.” In other words, the Jewish lobby would prefer the public not know Israel does indeed have an interest in seeing Syria subjected to American military might.
Later—even after President Barack H. Obama’s address to the nation in which pollsshow he failed to convince Americans of the need to strike Syria—the Post reported on September 9 that AIPAC had nonetheless mobilized its traditionally influential lobbying team—some 300 strong—to continue to besiege members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate demanding they support the attack.
However, despite the infamous Capitol Hill clout of the well-funded Jewish lobby groups, the good news is that public pressure on Congress against another Middle East war is so overwhelming that even the pro-Israel forces are being beaten back.
Now, with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s energetic intervention, setting the stage for an agreement which seems to be undercutting the Jewish lobby’s push for war, it appears that for the first time in many years, that powerful lobby will be defeated.
Nonetheless, many people are still concerned that an angry Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, may engage in some covert measure such as a “false flag” terrorist attack on America—to be blamed on Syria or Iran or groups friendly to Syria and Iran—designed to redirect American public opinion.
The bottom line is that recent events have brought into widespread attention the fact that the Jewish lobby in America stands in opposition to the vast majority of the American people who are saying: “No more U.S. intervention in the Middle East.” And many are beginning to see that those interventions have, in fact, been on behalf of Israel—not America.
Israel Allied with Al Qaeda in Syria
• Israelis admit they prefer U.S. enemies over Assad regime
• Now is the time to end American aid to Israeli terror state
Israel has finally admitted publicly (what has long been known): it would prefer rebels aligned with the al Qaeda terror network seize control in Syria, rather than the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad retaining power.
This eye-opening revelation will shock those who perceive Israel as America’s closest ally, particularly in the “war on terror” (aimed at al Qaeda) waged in the 12 years following the 9-11 attacks which the United States government claims were al Qaeda’s doing (despite profound evidence to the contrary).
Returning American troops—who fought against al Qaeda—and families of the dead will now rightly have some serious doubts about Israel. And troops still abroad will surely ask why they are fighting al Qaeda if America’s “best friend” supports that terror network’s ambitions in Syria.
Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, told The Jerusalem Post why Israel supports the Al Qaeda-aligned forces.
While noting—of the rebels loyal to al Qaeda—that while Israel understands “they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said Israel views Assad’s regime as “the keystone” in “the strategic arc between Syria and Iran, the nation Israel is eager to destroy: “We always wanted Assad to go. We always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” So Israel believes Al Qaeda-allied forces are useful for its own ends, America’s interests in the war on terrorism notwithstanding.
From an American perspective, the toll in the Afghan and Iraqi wars has been staggering: 2.5 million Americans were deployed, about half of them more than once. Some 6,650 died. Another 106,000 were wounded in action or evacuated for injury or disease. Some 675,000 veterans of the war on terror applied for disability. Suicides and other deaths among returning troops—drug overdoses, car crashes etc—are unusually high.
Academic estimates say the wars will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers some $5T. And that figure does not include untold trillions Americans give Israel, much of it for purported assistance in the war on terror that is being waged against al Qaeda, which Israel now supports.
Now that Israel has betrayed America and supports al Qaeda, America should cut off relations with Israel, expel its diplomats and citizens from the U.S., and henceforth consider Israel an enemy in the war on terror.