Israel plans to invade Syria, says Malaysian PM

http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/cg/Qmalaysia-syria-israel.RRob_DOB.htmlPUTR
AJAYA, Malaysia, Oct 11 (AFP) -

Israel plans to invade Syria and drag the United States into the war,
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Saturday."Israel has been urging
America to invade Syria, but America seems to be reluctant.

So, in order to force the hands of America, Israel is going to invade Syria,"
Mahathir was quoted as saying by the official Bernama news agency."

When that happens, the Americans will have to support Israel due to domestic
political reasons that make Jewish votes a major factor in its presidential
election,"

he said.Mahathir had been asked to comment on Israel's strike a week ago on
what the Jewish state described as a Palestinian training camp near Damascus, a
claim denied by Syria. The veteran Malaysian leader, who will take over the
chairmanship of the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference at a
summit here this week, was also asked what could be done apart from condemning
the attack. "We can go to war but we have no capacity to go to war. That's the
problem, because we allow ourselves to become weak, people bully us."
Mahathir, who has led this moderate Islamic country for the past 22 years, is
renowned for his controversial off-the-cuff comments on global
affairs.lb/mfc
Malaysia-Syria-Israel

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1008-05.htm

Bush Stance on Syria Hit Shows Neo-Cons Still Hold Sway by Jim Lobe ROME - The
neo-conservatives in and around the administration of U.S. President George W.
Bush may be on the defensive, but Washington's reaction to the Israeli attack
on Syria Sunday show that they remain in the driver's seat at the White House.
The fact that Bush has himself refused to in any way criticize the Israeli
attack -- the first on Syria since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war -- shows how far
the neo-cons have succeeded in aligning U.S. policy with the right-wing
government in Israel, a key goal going back to the first Likud government of
the late Menahim Begin and, more recently, since Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
won elections in early 2001....

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100603.html

ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM Our problem…. Today marks the 30th anniversary of the
Yom Kippur War, and it looks like we may be in for a possible replay of that
horrific disaster in which tens of thousands lost their lives. Yesterday,
Israel bombed alleged "terrorist camps" in Syria. The excuse: yet another
suicide bombing in Israel, this time taking 19 innocent lives, immediately
claimed by Islamic Jihad (which denied having military bases in Syria). This
was one of the deadliest suicide bombings since the beginning of the Intifada,
but in principle no different from the dozens of other vicious acts of terror
that are now a feature of daily life in Israel. What is different, however, is
that Israel's strategic orientation has radically changed.Whereas 30 years ago,
Israel was on the defensive, and to a large degree dependent on the U.S., today
they are clearly prepared to act on their own – without waiting for
Washington's okay. That is the chief result of the Iraq war – the unleashing
of Israel. We are seeing the first fruits of our Pyrrhic "victory" in this
latest foray by an emboldened Ariel Sharon, who clearly hopes that the
stalemated outcome of the first Yom Kippur war can now be overturned. Taken by
surprise, in 1973, Israeli forces reeled from the combined Egyptian-Syrian
sneak attack. Aided by "Operation Nickel Grass," an airlift of vital military
supplies from the U.S., the Israelis held their positions and then started to
push back – coming within 43 miles of Cairo and taking the Golan Heights
before the UN called a halt. Today, it is the Syrians who have been taken by
surprise, and, this time, the Israelis may not stop until they roll through the
streets of Damascus. That, at least, is the threat implicit in their actions.
The Iraq war, as we are beginning to discover, had nothing to do with "weapons
of mass destruction," zero to do with Al Qaeda, and zilch to do with implanting
"democracy" in the inhospitable soil of Iraq. The first phase of the second Yom
Kippur War is revealing, in action, the strategic doctrine at the heart of U.S.
Middle Eastern policy: the installation of Israel as regional hegemon.This
doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are
now in top spots in the Bush administration. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its
embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic
support: no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and
prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by
Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr.,Douglas Feith, Robert
Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, portrayed Syria as the main
enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through
Baghdad:"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey
and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria's
regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently
by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq."Today, three of
Netanyahu's advisors – Perle, Feith, and David Wurmser – occupy top spots
in the foreign policy councils of the Bush administration, where their fulsome
support for the Iraq war helped implement the first part of the plan. David
Wurmser is chief aide to Undersecretary of Defense John Bolton, who, before a
single shot was fired against Iraq, was already promising Sharon that Syria
would be next. As Ha'aretz reported at the time (scroll down):"U.S.
Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on
Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be
necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards."In
February, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was already demanding action against
Syria. At a meeting with a delegation of U.S. congressmen, Sharon handed the
Americans their marching orders:"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday
that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction
after Iraq. 'These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons
of mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will
make that easier to achieve,' Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American
congressmen. Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the
war with Iraq 'but the American action is of vital importance.'"But instead of
being converted on the road to Damascus, the Americans were deterred from
launching future wars by the unpleasant political and military blowback
emanating from that deepening quagmire. Karl Rove's "no wars in '04" dictum
threw a roadblock in the path of the pro-Israeli neoconservatives in the U.S.
government, who are now under siege as a result of the Plame affair. The
Israelis, enraged by this turn of events, are now playing their trump card.The
Israeli attack on Syria is a replication of the U.S. attack on Iraq: the claim
of terrorist "links" is followed by unilateral military action – this time,
however, in defiance of the whole world, including the U.S. rather than just
the UN. The actors are different, but the principle is the same, a similarity
Israel's American amen corner will no doubt raise in order to justify Sharon's
reckless provocation. Israel, we are endlessly told, has the right to "defend"
itself – even if it means conquering and occupying all of Palestine and
driving the original inhabitants into Jordan. As "A Clean Break" projected the
plan:"Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East
profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in
supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq."Let's hand our
Palestinian problem over to the Hashemites, say radical Likud hard-liners and
their American supporters. There is no such people as the Palestinians, anyway,
as Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz aver: they are really just Jordanians. A
Hashemite restoration in Iraq would pave the way for the creation of a Greater
Israel, fulfilling God's promise to Abraham in the Bible:"To your descendants I
give this land from the River of Egypt to the Great River, the river
Euphrates."Israel, with its overweening military might, would dominate the
Middle East. This is the goal of the Christian dispensationalist ministers,
such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who believe Israeli hegemony in the
Middle East represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. But a prophecy, in
their view, can be self-fulfilling: it is their Christian duty, they believe,
to hurry it along.The Christian apocalyptic vision of Armageddon in the Middle
East – its inevitability and desirability as a portent of the Second Coming
of Christ – is the key to understanding conservative Republican support for
our war policy in Iraq. The fundies are perfectly aligned with neoconservative
efforts to spread the conflict to Syria, Iran, and beyond, a development that
would fulfill not only Biblical prophecy, but also the direst predictions of
anti-war advocates.The recent report on Israel's growing military superiority
out of Tel Aviv University's prestigious Jaffee Center led to widespread
worries of Israeli "complacency," and, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency
reports:"The Jaffee researchers acknowledge that some of Israel´s new
strategic gains depend on whether the United States manages to stabilize the
regime in Iraq or whether it gets bogged down. If the latter happens, some of
Israel´s gains could be wiped out, they say."The political and military bog in
which George W. Bush is caught has him and his advisors, notably Rumsfeld,
scrambling for an exit strategy. Before this can happen, Israel is seizing the
moment to consolidate its gains. The attack on Syria comes just when Colin
Powell has been raising more voluble objections to the odious "Wall of
Separation" subsidized by U.S. tax dollars, and the threat to kill or exile
Arafat is being taken seriously enough to raise serious concerns even among
Israel's staunchest friends. Worse, from the Israeli perspective, is the news
of secret peace talks between Washington and Tehran. Sharon, feeling betrayed,
is saying: Expand the war, or I will.Dependent on the Republican activist base
of millions of dispensationalist Christians, who put Israeli interests first,
the President of the United States is powerless to stop Sharon's rampage. With
his "road map" derailed, and the neocons already turning on him (or threatening
to), George W. Bush must be content to watch helplessly as Sharon, the main
beneficiary of the Iraq war, moves to harvest the fruits of the American
victory – while the White House is stuck with an $87 billion bill, rising
casualties, and a simmering political scandal that threatens to unravel Bush's
presidency. This is the thanks Bush gets for going to war for Israel's sake.
Let that be a lesson to him. Too bad it comes far too late in the day to save
either his presidency or his place in history. But better late than never.NOTES
IN THE MARGINOur Fall fundraising drive is a great success, and that is due to
you, our faithful and heroic readers. As of this writing, we have received just
over $32,000. For that, I can't thank you enough. Your contributions are deeply
appreciated: it's a feeling of tremendous validation to see that so many of our
readers have stuck by us. The sheer number of contributions is overwhelming. I
am so moved that words, uncharacteristically, fail me, so I'll just say this:
we'll work day and night to deserve this wonderful vote of confidence. –
Justin Raimondo

JINSA/PNAC Zionist Extremists Pushed for Iraq Invasion and Beyond: Please keep
in mind (while reading the following about the Project for the New American
Century-PNAC) that JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)
Zionist extremists (both Christian and Jewish) like Richard Perle and *****
Cheney are also associated with PNAC as we know that the Iraq
invasion/occupation was for Israel and
oil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/...

.>Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why
Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on
why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The
conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation
against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a
global war against terrorism....
Israel plans to invade Syria, says Malaysian PM