Jump to content
The Education Forum

Israel’s Plan for Syria : The Somalia Model


Steven Gaal
 Share

Recommended Posts

Israel’s Plan for Syria : The Somalia Model

====================================

by Israel Shamir , Counterpunch 8/2/12

http://mycatbirdseat...-somalia-model/

--------------------------o-------------------------

Israel retains its ability to control the Syrian ‘Islamist’ rebels. Netanyahu is not worried about Syria’s possible disintegration. Despite the received wisdom claiming that Israelis prefer a stable and familiar Assad to the great unknown of Islamic guerrillas, the new and sensational information we received points out to the opposite, namely: Israelis prefer the Somalisation of Syria, its break-up and the elimination of its army, as this will allow them to tackle Iran unopposed.

This is implied in a secret file recently leaked by a person(s) apparently close to the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman. It contains a record of conversations between Bibi Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the latter’s recent visit to Israel. Israelis seem to have no doubts about its authenticity. Counterpunch received the original file, and here are the highlights of this conversation (in our translation from Hebrew):

Netanyahu asked Putin to facilitate Bashar Assad’s departure. “You can appoint his successor, and we shall not object , said the Israeli Prime Minister. “There is one condition – the successor must break with Iran».

Putin responded: we have no candidate for Bashar’s successor. Do you?

No, we don’t, replied Netanyahu, but we shall tell you our preference soon.

Apparently, Israel can influence the rebels, inasmuch as it can bear on them to accept a successor acceptable to Tel Aviv. This means that the rebels’ chain of command goes beyond unruly field commanders, beyond Qatar and Saudi Arabia, beyond Paris and Washington, all the way to Israel. It is well known that the rebels seekfriendship with Israel, but nobody thought that Israel was able to control them to such an extent.

It stands to reason that Netanyahu had received a green light from Washington to make such an offer. This means that the US and Israel do not mind that Syria will remain in the Russian sphere of influence, so long as it cuts its ties with Iran. And this points to Israel as being the moving force behind the rebels, for otherwise, such an arrangement would be unacceptable for the Americans.

However, it is possible that Netanyahu’s offer was just a ploy to discover Russian intentions. Anyway Putin thought so, and answered in a similar vein:

“We are not beholden to Assad,” said Putin. “Before the rebellion, he was a frequent visitor in Paris rather than in Moscow. We have no secret agenda regarding Syria. I asked President Obama, what are the US intentions in Syria; why do Americans reject Assad. Is it because of his inability to come to terms with Israel? Or because of his ties with Iran? Because of his position on Lebanon? I received no serious answer. Our reason, said Obama, is Assad’s violent repression of the Syrian people. I replied that violence is caused by Qatar and Saudi interference.”

One understands that Putin is befogged: if he has been offered keeping Syria in the Russian sphere, why does the US goes out against Syrian government? Perhaps, the US is doing Israel’s bidding? And what are Israel’s intentions?

“Israel’s goal is the Somalisation of Syria, following the Somalisation of Iraq,” said Putin, and Netanyahu did not deny his interpretation.

So Russia’s position, essentially, is realpolitik wrapped in principles. Kind of like a fist in a velvet glove.

These hard words of Putin answer the question of the US and Israeli intentions. This was the position of Israeli strategist Yinon and of the Neocons – Somalisation of the region. Israeli leaders still follow their high-risk short-term strategy of unleashing civil war in Syria, removing Assad and turning Syria into a mess of armed groups that would not interfere with Israeli jets reaching Iran. It is certainly risky, as it was risky to attack Lebanon in 2006, but Israel has such a powerful militarist complex that it needs to take otherwise unneeded risks.

The record of the Putin-Netanyahu conversation contains two important Russian concessions to Israel: Putin promised to break their contract about supply of S-300 anti-aircraft missile complexes to Damascus (and so he did) and to stop missile information leakage to Hezbollah.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman used the meeting to complain about the audacious RT channel:

“The Israeli office of the RT outpours anti-Israeli propaganda. They broadcast talks with Hasan Nasrallah [probably a reference to Julian Assange's interview]. We spoke to the RT reporters privately, but they won’t budge, citing instructions from Moscow. Vladimir Vladimirovitch [Putin], please lean on the editorial policy of the RT so it will become objective towards Israel.”

This complaint fits well with Israeli practice of pressuring foreign media. Recently the Israeli ambassador to Washington attempted to interfere with CBS and censor Bob Simon’s report on Palestinian Christians, causing much resentment in the US. Israelis still can’t get used to the existence of a relatively free press. ((SEE BELOW))

http://mycatbirdseat...eli-ambassador/

Israeli PR machine in frenzy over CBS report on Christians in Jerusalem

The main conclusion of the leaked protocols is that Israeli leaders retained their love to live dangerously. While some other countries, notably Russia, are seeking stability, Israelis love play, and power play. Nothing risked, nothing gained, they say. They are ready to accept short term risks for long term gains. And elimination of the Syrian army is certainly a long term gain for Israel.

############### RELATED BELOW #####################

http://educationforu...showtopic=19203

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That sounds more like Russia's plans for Syria.

==================

This is implied in a secret file recently leaked by a person(s) apparently close to the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman.

black propaganda

n

propaganda that does not come from the source it claims to come from Compare
,

black propaganda - definition of black propaganda by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revealing article on Shamir

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/67305/his-jewish-problem

Norman Finkelstein on Shamir:

“I want nothing to do with this article. [shamir] is a maniac.”

“He’s sleazy—Shamir said we were friends because he’s sleazy, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. He has invented his entire personal history. Nothing he says about himself is true.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that "Israel Shamir" is an openly anti-Semitic Holocaust denier and seems to be the only person who has seen the supposed document.

Counterpunch received the original file, ((from post #1)) DIDNT KNOW YOU WERE COLOR BLIND.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that "Israel Shamir" is an openly anti-Semitic Holocaust denier and seems to be the only person who has seen the supposed document.

Counterpunch received the original file, ((from post #1)) DIDNT KNOW YOU WERE COLOR BLIND.

Yes Shamir said they received it but we aren't given a scan or told how it was authenticated. I agree with Finkelstein “He’s sleazy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel didn't cause Somalia's civil wars, strife and lawlessness.

Israel may or may not want Syria to follow Somalia's path to hell, but it isn't the cause of Syria's problems with the Arab Spring and Assad's attempts to crush the protestors through overwhelming force.

I think Assad's days or numbered.

Perhaps he can cut a deal like Idi Amin - time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel didn't cause Somalia's civil wars, strife and lawlessness.

Israel may or may not want Syria to follow Somalia's path to hell, but it isn't the cause of Syria's problems with the Arab Spring and Assad's attempts to crush the protestors through overwhelming force.

I think Assad's days or numbered.

Perhaps he can cut a deal like Idi Amin - time will tell.

Christopher

You need to understand that Steve's tether to reality is quite tenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to understand that Steve's tether to reality is quite tenuous. // end COLBY

He who has the bigger stick has the better chance of imposing his definitions of reality.

Peter Berger, "The Social Construction of Reality", p. 109, 1966. SEE BELOW

Anglo-American 1957 Secret Plan to Assassinate the Syrian President. Déjà Vu?

===================================================================

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky 8/7/12 http://globalresearc...xt=va&aid=32254

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At a time when the British press was still "reporting the truth", London's Guardian (27 September 2003) published a detailed report of a 1957 Anglo-American assassination plot directed against the Syrian president, with a view to implementing "regime change". The similarity to today's war on Syria is striking.

What is revealing is that the political assassination of the Syrian president has been on the Anglo-American drawing board for over half a century.

The article, which reviews the text of the leaked 'Secret Document", confirms that British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and President Dwight D. Eisenhower had ordered the assassination of the Syrian Head of State.

"Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot

Documents show White House and No 10 conspired over oil-fuelled invasion plan"

To consult the complete article by Ben Fenton, The Guardian, 27 September 2003 click here http://www.guardian....ep/27/uk.syria1

The stated objective of this Secret Plan, entrusted to Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) [today's MI6] and the CIA, consisted in assassinating the Syrian president together with key political and military figures. "Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus."

"In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time." (The Guardian, 27 September 2003)

The stated pretext of the Macmillan-Eisenhower plan was that Syria was "spreading terrorism" and "preventing the West's access to Middle East oil" Déjà Vu

The secret 1957 Plan called for the funding of a so-called "Free Syria Committee" equivalent to today's Syrian National Council (SNC). It also involved "the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. Under the plan, the CIA together with Britain's Secret Intelligence Serivce (SIS) "would instigate internal uprisings".

"Internal disturbances" in Syria would be triggered through covert operations. The "CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents [sic] within Syria, working through contacts with individuals."

An all out invasion plan had also been envisaged.

What was lacking from the 1957 plan, formulated at the height of the Cold War, was the "humanitarian" R2P envelope.

Moreover, in contrast to today's Free Syrian Army (FSA) (i.e the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance), the 1957 Anglo-American plan did not contemplate the recruitment of foreign mercenaries to wage their war:

[in 1957] Britain and America sought a secretive "regime change" in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west's oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.

Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus. (The Guardian, 27 September 2003)

...

The insidious plan was known to key political figures in the British government. It was made public 46 years later in 2003:

Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.

Part of the "preferred plan" reads: "In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time."

The document, approved by London and Washington, named three men: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.

For a prime minister who had largely come to power on the back of Anthony Eden's disastrous antics in Suez just a year before, Mr Macmillan was remarkably bellicose. He described it in his diary as "a most formidable report". Secrecy was so great, Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency "to chatter".

...

Driving the call for action was the CIA's Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. He identified Colonel Sarraj, General al-Bizri and Mr Bakdash as the real power behind a figurehead president. ...

The "preferred plan" adds: "Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

"The two services should consult, as appropriate, to avoid any overlapping or interference with each other's activities... Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus; the operation should not be overdone; and to the extent possible care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures."

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be "made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments," the report says. "CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension." That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of "sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities" to be blamed on Damascus.

The plan called for funding of a "Free Syria Committee", and the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

The planners envisaged replacing the Ba'ath/Communist regime with one that was firmly anti-Soviet, but they conceded that this would not be popular and "would probably need to rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power". (Ben Fenton, The Guardian, 27 September 2003, emphasis added)

In contrast to the 2011-2012 Plan, which is supported by the Arab League, with the participation of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in covert ops., the 1957 Eisenhower Macmillan Plan was not carried out due to lack of support by neighbouring Arab countries: "The plan was never used, chiefly because Syria's Arab neighbours could not be persuaded to take action and an attack from Turkey alone was thought to be unacceptable. (Ben Fenton, The Guardian, 27 September 2003, emphasis added)

The ongoing US-NATO aggression directed against Syria has been planned for several years.

An invasion of Syria was contemplated in the immediate wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"Regime change" in Damascus was again put forth by the Bush adminstration in the immediate wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination was casually blamed, without evidence, on Damascus.

President George W. Bush "denounced Syria and its ally, Iran, as 'outlaw regimes... Syria and Iran deserve no patience from the victims of terror,'" The British media confirmed in October 2005 that Washington was "looking for a pro-western replacement for Mr Assad."

CLICK HERE http://www.guardian....P=ILCNETTXT3487

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

border clashes would be staged = FALSE FLAG

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to understand that Steve's tether to reality is quite tenuous. // end COLBY

He who has the bigger stick has the better chance of imposing his definitions of reality.

Peter Berger, "The Social Construction of Reality", p. 109, 1966. SEE BELOW

Anglo-American 1957 Secret Plan to Assassinate the Syrian President. Déjà Vu?

Thanks for proving my point. There is no reason to associate the 1957 plot with current events. The current regime is not the political heir of the 1957 gov't a number of coups in the last 50 odd years put various factions in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...