Many articles have appeared in the mainstream press today detailing the news of an Israeli airstrike in Syria, which resulted in the deaths of 2 Syrian soldiers. The attack, which targeted a military and scientific research facility near Masyaf, is being predictably hailed by the various media factions as a strike against President Assad’s supposed chemical weapons production, as well as being a strong preventative measure to prevent heavy armaments falling into the hands of the expansionist, pro-Assad militia Hezbollah. Despite the fact that the research centre in question (SSRC, Scientific Studies and Research Centre) is in fact a civilian institution, and despite the fact that it’s actually miles away from any military base or barracks, this is being lauded as a victory in the fight against the “barbaric war crimes of the Assad regime”.
Assad’s forces relinquished their entire stockpile of chemical weapons in 2013 and 2014, yet Israel, the United States and their Islamist allies in the region claim the regime is still using them on civilians, with a Sarin Gas attack reported to have been perpetrated by the Syrian Arab Army in April of this year. Clearly, the hysterical commentators forget that it was the US military themselves who destroyed Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile after they were voluntarily shipped out of the country on President Assad’s orders. Moreover, the US media and the United Nations’ cited “proof” of a chemical attack earlier this year is based on the reports from the Turkish authorities who, as hard-line Islamists, are bitter enemies of the Syrian government having explicitly led the call for Bashar al-Assad’s removal from office.
Of course, there is no real news here, on the surface at least. It is common knowledge that factions of the US government and their allies in Britain and the rest of the Western World are keen to see President Assad removed from office. Regime-change in the region is, after all, becoming almost akin to a hobby for those who occupy the corridors of power in the Occident. Thus it can come as no surprise that a fabricated pretext must be continually repeated in order to ensure there can be no moral objections when the time eventually comes to remove Assad’s government.
But what of Israel’s involvement in the conflict? After all today’s attack was not the first military involvement by the IDF, but in terms of the fight against ISIS and the wider terror problem in the region, what steps are they taking?
In reality, Israel’s participation in the wider Syrian Civil War and the fight against Islamic State has been notable only by its absence. Their air forces declined to participate in the western-backed coalition carrying out tactical strikes against ISIL targets and they have no special forces in Iraq or Syria with the expressed purpose of combating radical Islamist groups. In fact, Israel’s most notable interjection in the battle arena has been their provision of medical treatment for ISIL and al-Nusra affiliated Islamist terror groups – the same groups murdering children, beheading western journalists and massacring Christian minorities.
However, one way in which the Israeli armed forces are participating in the ongoing and escalating violence is through their persistent agitation along the Golan Heights Ceasefire Line and their seemingly random shelling of the Syrian Arab Army such as the attack earlier today. The ceasefire line is one that was agreed following the Yom Kippur War (1973), and one that President Assad’s government have always shown through word and deed they have no intention of violating. The foundations for this frontier were laid, however, in 1967 following the Six-Day War, during which the Israeli military essentially colonised the Golan Heights region of Syria. To understand the true motivations of the current skirmishes and acts of provocation by the Israelis, such as this morning’s strike on Syrian military positions, it’s pertinent to explore the motives and ideological desires behind these past events.
Many people assume Zionism to be an ideology that simply promotes a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people, but it is in fact a multifaceted doctrine with various factions, some of which are more extreme than others. A particularly extremist – and worryingly mainstream – strand of Zionism asserts that the true borders of “The Promised Land” are vastly different to the boundaries of even today’s expanded State of Israel. Known as the Yinon Plan, this aspect of Zionism suggests that, according to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “Greater Israel” spans “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates”. Slightly more precisely, as defined by Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
As the map above demonstrates, “Greater Israel” includes vast swathes of land. The sovereign nation states of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq are compromised by this plan, as are the disputed Palestinian regions including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Crucially, you will notice that the map also includes almost all of what is now and has always historically been Syrian territory. Perhaps most concerning of all about this notion of “Greater Israel” is that it’s not merely an extremist fringe or a conspiracy, but is in fact a widely held conviction by many in the upper echelons of the Israeli establishment.
The Netanyahu regime is noteworthy for its extreme chauvinistic nationalism, even by Zionist standards. Indeed, since his second stint in power began, he has self-admittedly been more active in the advancement of the Yinon Plan than any other Israeli leader since the Second World War. Under his stewardship, the Israeli-occupied West Bank – occupied during the Six-Day War of conquest that included Syria’s Golan Heights region – has seen record numbers of settlers imported to create a permanent Jewish presence in the area.
“No other government has done as much for settlement in the land of Israel as the government which I lead.”
– Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, August 2017
Contrary to what many of the liberal western media outlets report in their mindless defence of Palestinians, it’s not just the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank that have been settled in this way. During the Six-Day War of 1967, 131,000 Syrian Arabs were, for all intents and purposes, expelled from the Golan Heights, with just 7,000 remaining and those who left refused the right to return by the Israeli government, who cite “security reasons”. Their homes and farms were comprehensively demolished and the land handed to Jewish settlers. In December of 1981, the Israeli government passed the Golan Heights Law which extended the “laws, jurisdiction and administration” of Israel into the conquered Syrian territories, which effectively formalised the annexation of the region by Israel.
This has become a trend of the expansionist Israeli regime; during times of conflict, Arab lands are depopulated and replaced by Jewish settlers. Whether the conflict is created directly by Israel or by way of a United States oil war is, of course, a matter of indifference to the Israeli government. The primary focus in their foreign policy when it concerns conflict in the region is their ability to colonise lands they believe to be rightfully theirs – despite having no historical claim – as they have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate in the Middle-East today.
The signs of this are very clear in Syria today. Since the Syrian Civil War broke out in 2012, there have been numerous provocative actions carried out by Israeli forces against the Syrian Arab Army, particularly along the Golan Heights ceasefire line. Every incident consists of a fabricated pretext, following a blatant act of aggression by the Israeli military, whether it be against Syrian jets, Syrian military barracks or anything remotely Syrian that they decide to target. To suggest that the Syrian forces, in the midst of a precarious civil situation, have the time or the will to start disputing international borders is an illogical fallacy.
Despite using the pretext of self-defence against a hostile Iranian regime amongst other things, it’s clear to see that the further escalation of violence and general destabilisation of the Middle-East is a geopolitical victory for Israel. They know as well as any that Israel, backed by the most powerful country on earth and sitting behind a multi-trillion dollar US-funded anti-missile system, has absolutely nothing to fear from a few anti-Zionist despotic governments such as that of Iran or Egypt. The victim-card they love to play has absolutely no founding in reality.
The Israeli government has for some years supported the Balkanisation of the Middle-East, beginning with Iraq whom they believed to be the toughest nut to crack. It is said that a war between Iraq and Iran was necessary to the Yinon Plan, which as we all know occurred and was arguably the catalyst of a series of events that drew the west into war. This explains the support of much of the Israeli establishment for the Biden Plan, an American initiative to “decentralise” Iraq into 3 smaller states. The same is happening in Syria, with a push by the globalist power brokers to effectively abolish Syria as a nation state and afford land to the various rent-a-jihadist groups who suddenly lay claim to it.
The theory of the Yinon Plan suggests, quite rightly, that such smaller, less powerful states will be more easily conquered and swallowed up into the Greater Israel project. This is especially true when one considers how many of these territories will be taken over by radical Islamists who, by definition, create their own pretext for western intervention with their outlandish and extremist tendencies. One may consider this to be a conspiracy theory too far, but I invite you to assess the evidence; is it not the case that, since 1948, the State of Israel has slowly, but surely and continually conquered Arab lands in its immediate vicinity? Is it not the case that Israel seeks no peace in Syria, but has only lent its support to radical, subversive Jihadist groups?
The implications for Europe are far-reaching. As we have seen with the recent depopulation of Syria, much of the collateral damage impacts upon European countries whose establishments are only to happy to provide a home for the displaced peoples. Further instability in the Middle-East only drives more people, many of whom are Islamists with extremist views, into Europe. The results thus far have been catastrophic; whether it be Germany’s migrant rape epidemic, Sweden’s upsurge in gang violence or mass terrorist killings in Paris,the latest war in the Middle-East has brought us nothing but problems.
Furthermore, many European countries as NATO members are compelled to blindly follow Israel’s greatest benefactor, the United States of America, into armed conflict. As we saw with the war in Iraq, this has devastating consequences, most of all for the young Americans, Brits, Frenchmen and more who die on foreign battlefields in wars their plutocratic governments enter on a whim. This, coupled with the great migratory flows that are caused in the process, is why Zionist interests and the interests of Europe have always been and continue to be diametrically opposed, and the former must be opposed strongly by the latter in order to bring stability to both Europe and the Arabic homelands.