This is what disinformation looks like. Though seemingly critical of israel, the following article never-the-less uses the terminology and memes/concepts/narratives of the zionist/israeli aligned governments. These memes or concepts are designed to deceive people and reinterpret what their own common sense would tell them. Jonathan Cook is assisting the zionist cause in repeating these false concepts or narratives.
Here is Cook's article. I will insert some clarifying comments in italics in his text and summarise at the end.
Israel still angling for attacks on Syria and Iran
18 September 2013
Counterpunch – 18 September 2013
President Barack Obama may have drawn his seemingly regretted “red line” around Syria’s chemical weapons, but it was neither he nor the international community (“international community” - who are they? - is a term that is used to mislead people into thinking that the support for the US and its warring policies is world wide. It is far from it) based that turned the spotlight on their use. That task fell to Israel.
It was an Israeli general who claimed in April that Damascus had used chemical weapons, forcing Obama into an embarrassing demurral on his stated commitment to intervene should that happen.
It looks as though Israel, while remaining largely mute about its interests in the civil war (it is not a civil war. It is a foreign invasion using foreign fighters who are totally dependent on foreign guns, intelligence and money. We'll meet this deceitful term again) raging there, has been doing a great deal to pressure the White House into direct involvement in Syria. (That should read “direct overt involvement” because the US is already into direct covert involvement)
That momentum appears to have been halted, for the time being at least, by the deal agreed at the weekend by the US and Russia to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. (the 'momentum' has been taken up by the various proxy jewish organisations in the US instead)
To understand the respective views of the White House and Israel on attacking Syria, one needs to revisit the US-led invasion of Iraq a decade ago.
The neocons carried out the first phase of the plan, destroying Iraq, but then ran up against domestic opposition that blocked implementation of the second stage: the break-up of Iran. (since when does the US govt not go to war because of 'domestic opposition'? Iran's military arms and preparedness “blocked the implementation of the break-up of Iran”. The US is not a functioning democracy)
The consequences are well known. As Iraq imploded into sectarian violence (fomented by false flag ops by israel and the US), Iran’s fortunes rose. Tehran strengthened its role as regional sponsor of resistance against Israel (read 'defence against israeli aggression')– or what became Washington’s new “axis of evil” – that included Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Israel and the US both regard Syria as the geographical “keystone” of that axis (formed in response to israeli and US threats of attack), as Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, told the Jerusalem Post this week, and one that needs to be removed if Iran is to be isolated, weakened or attacked.
But Israel and the US drew different lessons from Iraq. Washington is now wary of its ground forces becoming bogged down again (nonsense. The 'quagmire' was deliberately created as elsewhere to destroy the target country. “By their fruits you shall know them”), as well as fearful of reviving a cold war confrontation with Moscow (it's a 'hot war' confrontation they fear and what has stopped direct overt involvement. That Russian naval fleet is not in the Mediterranean on R&R leave). It prefers instead to rely on proxies to contain and exhaust the Syrian regime.
Israel, on the other hand, understands the danger of manoeuvring its patron (client state) into a showdown with Damascus without ensuring this time that Iran is tied into the plan. Toppling Assad alone would simply add emboldened jihadists (which israel along with Saudi Arabia and the US fund and facilitate i.e. control) to the troubles on its doorstep.
Given these assessments, Israel and the US have struggled to envision a realistic endgame that would satisfy them both (they are both beholden to the same bankers). Obama fears setting the region, and possibly the world, ablaze with a direct attack on Iran (the US and israel fear the US being defeated militarily); Israel is worried about stretching its patron’s (client – there is is again, reversing the the perception of the relationship) patience by openly pushing it into another catastrophic venture to guarantee its regional hegemony.
In his interview published yesterday by the Jerusalem Post, Michael Oren claimed that Israel had in fact been trying to oust Assad since the civil war (civil war again) erupted more than two years ago. He said Israel “always preferred the bad guys jihadist groups (that they train, arm and control) who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys (the Assad regime) who were backed by Iran.”
That seems improbable (hardly!). Although the Sunni jihadist groups, some with links to al-Qaeda, are not natural allies (read sworn enemies just like their 'patrons' are) for either the Shia leaders of Iran or Hizbollah, they would be strongly hostile to Israel (so why don't the jihadists ever attack israel?). Oren’s comments, however, do indicate the degree to which Israel’s strategic priorities are obsessively viewed through the prism of an attack on Iran.
More likely, Israel has focused on using the civil war (non-existent 'civil war' again – third time) as a way to box Assad into his heartlands (as a way to destroy the Syrians' country and ancient culture just like they've done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya). That way, he becomes a less useful ally to Hizbollah, Iran and Russia, while the civil war (how many times is that now?) keeps both his regime and the opposition weak.
Israel would have preferred a US strike on Syria, a goal its lobbyists in Washington were briefly mobilised to achieve (and still are, going by their own media). But the intention was not to remove Assad but to assert what Danny Ayalon, a former deputy Israeli foreign minister, referred to as “American and Israeli deterrence” – code for signalling to Tehran that it was being lined up as the next target (nonsense. The facts don't support this. They can't remove Assad so they'll say that was their intention all along in spite of all the precedents in other countries)
That threat now looks empty. As Silvan Shalom, a senior government minister, observed: “If it is impossible to do anything against little Syria, then certainly it’s not possible against big Iran.”
In the short term, Israel has reason to fear Assad’s loss of control of his chemical weapons, with the danger that they pass either to the jihadists (would that be the same jihadists that israel and its allies have been supplying with chemical weapons and constituent ingredients up till now?) or to Hizbollah. The timetable for the weapons destruction should help to minimise those risks – in the words of one Israeli commentator, it is like Israel “winning the lottery”.
But Israel also suspects that Damascus is likely to procrastinate on disarmament. In any case, efforts to locate and destroy its chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war (there's that term yet again) will be lengthy and difficult. (the Syrian govt knows where they are for goodness sake. No lengthy location process needed. The destruction may be lengthy but the CW will, no doubt, be sent somewhere else for that).
And that may provide Israel with a way back in. Soon, as Israeli analysts are already pointing out, Syria will be hosting international inspectors searching for WMD (no 'searching' needed. The Syrian govt is volunteering their surrender and it have absolutely no motivation for keeping any back from the inspectors), not unlike the situation in Iraq shortly before the US-led invasion of 2003. Israel, it can safely be assumed, will quietly meddle (what an understatement?), trying to persuade the West that Assad is not cooperating and that Hizbullah and Iran are implicated.
In a vein Israel may (will undoubtedly) mine later, a Syrian opposition leader, Selim Idris (a mouthpiece for israel and the US), claimed at the weekend that Damascus was seeking to conceal the extent of its stockpiles by passing them to Lebanon and Iraq.
Obama is not the only one to have set a red line. Last year, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, drew one on a cartoon bomb at the United Nations as he (falsely) warned that the world faced an imminent existential threat from an (non-existent) Iranian nuclear weapon.
Israel still desperately wants its chief foe, Iran, crushed. And if it can find a way to lever the US into doing its dirty work, it will exploit the opening – regardless of whether such action ramps up the suffering in Syria (indeed).
Notice that the opening and closing statements by Jonathan Cook implicate and condemn israel for encouraging violence in the Middle East but between these two statements there are all these false narratives and many missing but relevant pieces of information which equally mislead.
The opening and closing statements are like a trojan horse that allays suspicion. But within the trojan horse lies the danger and once the whole thing is innocently taken in, it begins its damage from within the understanding of the unsuspecting reader.
The unsuspecting reader is left with the notions that:
-the war in Syria is a civil war; an internal affair and not a foreign invasion; that it has not been sponsored and facilitated by israel and Friends when, in fact, that is exactly the case;
-that the 'civil war' is a danger to israel and therefore it “has a right to defend itself” when, in fact, israel created this danger and has NO right to further attack anyone;
-that the alliance of Syria, Hezbollah and Iran, was formed to threaten israel and was not formed, as was the case, in defence against israeli and US threats and the false flag and terrorist operation's against them - and outright invasion, in the case of Hezbollah;
-that the US is the 'patron' of israel i.e. the US is the dominant partner in terms of reciprocal influence when recent history (rather than media hype) shows us the opposite is true. This seeks to expunge israeli responsibility for US actions;
-that Syria after volunteering to surrender its CW will renege and keep some hidden when the case is that Syria is giving these weapons up because they are a liability now and it has no motivation for keeping any back. Syria is under Russia's protection now and common sense dictates that they will not do anything to jeopardise that.
-that Syria will have difficulties in finding and destroying these CWs when the only likely difficulty will come once israel knows where the CWs are. Given their past performance, there exists the strong possibility that the israelis will task their jihadis to try and capture them to use in yet another false flag but this time using the Syrian govts own chemical weapons.
-that America has not attacked Syria up till now because it fears its troops will be “bogged down” in Syria as elsewhere and that they do not want to risk a return to a “Cold War” with Russia when it is a “Hot War” with missiles being exchanged with Russia and losing their carefully crafted image of being all powerful that prevents them from attacking.
Such is the gentle art of disinformation. Counterpunch in publishing it should know better. But then, . . . . . .